Crimadella
Crimadella edit
- You misunderstand, Crimadella — I was labeling myself as a "talkpage stalker" — it's a common, jocular way of saying "talkpage watcher" on Wikipedia. Anyway, if you want to be unblocked, please post an unblock request, rather than general remarks that are unlikely to be read. The unblock template contains code that will actually call an uninvolved admin to this page to review what you say. If you don't understand the instructions in the block notice, please just type your unblock request underneath it, and I will put it into the template for you. I'm going to bed right now (it's night in my timezone), so it'll have to be tomorrow, unless somebody else notices and comes by to help you. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC).
Well, thank you for trying to help me, i'm a little paranoid, this is all very new to me and it feels like everyone is out to attack me. It takes me a while to pick up on some things, as i do have disabilities in certain areas, but just the same, as explained to another i'm very excelled in areas. It's a bummer i got blocked so quickly, because i do learn quickly from my mistakes. Reading the unblock request information will take time for me, autism really sucks! I can comprehend what i read, but as i move to the next sentence, i forget the previous one. "Lack of interest in what i'm reading", uncontrollable selective memory, such a burden. Not even sure i want to edit articles, more so, i just dislike what i saw and see it wrong to state something as if it's a fact when that can't really be confirmed, then the source of citation being journalism only. Surely you are aware that journalism is not fact based material. Would you back a claimed fact by a Fox News journalist, what about the CNN journalist, as they can both write about one subject and have conflicting "facts". I do wish for a project claiming to be an encyclopedia to be more fact based rather than a source of media opinions and research as they are not held to any fact based scrutiny, and some editors have suggested that when i say that, it's "crap". I don't understand? I'm not trying to be a problem, more so i'm trying to resolve a problem. I mean no harm, just not sure how to go about it. It would most certainly make Wikipedia more credible, would you agree? I'll work on the unblock request, but i'm still not even sure what i wish to do even if i get unblocked. What is your opinion? Should i just hang it up and let it be? My research counts for nothing here, i'm aware and understand why, but there is an article which claims to debunk a conspiracy theory that i do find offensive because of the time i spent doing my own research and their debunking focuses on mostly fabricated conspiracy while neglecting to even mention things that could not be debunked. The whole article is a false debunking written by journalists. The things i found were not easy to debunk and in cases quite scary, as i do pick up on things quickly, i found a real pedo porn site which randomizes itself in encrypted databases and shifts location daily, hidden in java coding, a line which read "Today's key is:" then a randomized string. Options to buy and trade pedo porn and warnings that if you try to **** them over they will find you. To not call anyone out, i will just say it is hidden in plain sight with thousands of links or doorways that lead you to this one floating site. On another site, which many people use as social media, i found thousands of videos. all 6 - 12 seconds long, little girls with panties on, sometimes with T-shirt, sometimes not, moving around in front of a camera, no talking, the comments within were perverse also. I've seen many of things i found myself, so it just gets to me, to see an online encyclopedia help conceal such activity by falsely reporting a conspiracy to be factually proved to be false and then cited by journalists who failed to even do a correct debunking. Should i just say, never mind, it doesn't matter? It feels kinda wrong to do that. Like i said, i know this isn't a place for private research but how i see it, it is a place for factual information, there is nothing factual about the article "Pizzagate" A debunked conspiracy theory, it's a media report that i personally know to be false as well. Well, there is my issue, i was hoping one person could understand, if you don't, i just give up and will not bother with the unblock request, there would be no point. As contributing, i just wish to say, journalism should not be used to cite facts. Sorry if i seem difficult, i don't mean to be, i dislike anything being presented incorrectly.
If i said things i'm not supposed to here please forgive me, edit it out, then explain why i shouldn't say whatever material i said. I will just leave it up to you to decide whether i should attempt the unblock process or not, basically asking for your opinion. I don't feel as if you have any kind of hatred for me, so just advise me. Thank you.
I have to add this last little bit so i can go to sleep. I know i'm not a fool for suggesting journalism should not be cited as factual sources, which an editor did suggest I am by labeling that statement as "crap". I taught myself how to program on an Apple 2e at age 10, how to program in Microsoft visual basic 3.0 at age 13, got into conspiracy theories at age 14 and got schooled by many scientists ranging in many different fields, nearly every scientist I have talked to has given me props for how intelligent I am, how fast i can adapt and learn, and they taught me a lot, about science laws as well as learning to do research on something myself before trying to defend it, which eventually led to me teaching myself a good bit about particle physics mainly dealing with the electromagnetic force and theoretical physics dealing with my number one obsession, "what is existence?". In the past, I have asked many scientists about Wikipedia, everyone of them said "it's an alright starting point, but if you are serious about learning you should buy a text book because Wikipedia isn't always factual.". So yes, I do have a personal agenda but at the same time, my personal agenda is something that could help Wikipedia become a lot more credible. I simply wish for something that is not factual to not be presented as factual, no matter what Wiki article it may be, no article should only be cited by journalism, when you seek facts you do not turn to a journalist. Correcting that issue would help Wikipedia out in a very big way, with more credibility comes more readers and more willing to donate, thus more funds. Wikipedia becomes more of an encyclopedia and less of a media outlet were claimed facts are cited solely by journalist articles. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to cite a journalist article, more so, that can't be your only source to back something being claimed to be factual. In such pages as Pizzagate, the reader should be clearly informed that the debunking is media material and not confirmed to be factual information because factually speaking, that is what it is. Hopefully you can understand that, it's very logical and very well thought out. Crimadella (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A little more to add. Even by Wikipedia rules, a Wiki article is supposed to take a neutral stance on any given subject while that particular article does not. It's very bias, as are the two editors i encountered that are editing the article, the only information even used to object what i had to say was directly taken from journalism, a "media" report. Which is exactly what i'm trying to prevent, a bias opinion presented as factual information to readers. Crimadella (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
verifiable edit
Please read wp:RS, wp:OR and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Also read wp:soapbox, keep this up and you will get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
October 2018 edit
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
Hello, Crimadella, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! O3000 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Objective3000. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 17:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 17:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Blocked edit
Your spamming the same objectionable content to numerous userpages is inappropriate, and this "barnstar" with nasty hints about Wikipedia and its users is particularly unwelcome. You have never edited an article. I have blocked you indefinitely as not being here to create an encyclopedia, but only to soapbox and crusade. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Please keep any unblock request on point; if you use it to continue your crusade, your access to this talkpage will be revoked. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC).
Using a talk page as a soapbox is going to get talk page access revoked as well, I suggest you remove all the sopaboxing.11:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) (Slatersteven)
Slatersteven, i'm discussing something with an administrator, where would you suggest i do this? And why didn't you sign your name? Crimadella (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- A mistake, I left out a tild. As to discussing with an admin, that is not how you appeal, a block, read wp:appeal. The key note is it must be about why you should be unblocked, not a tirade against Wikipedia. You do not need a wall of text just one or too sentences as to why the block is not needed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This is my talk page, what i'm saying is not a tirade against Wikipedia, it's actually an attempt to help contribute, making Wikipedia more credible. You have read what I wrote, so it's very clear that i'm not even attempting an unblock request until i get the opinion of the Administrator who placed the block on me. Is my talk page not a place where i can ask the opinion of a Wikipedia administrator? Crimadella (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well I tried.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to add material above another users post, unless indented as a reply to another post (see wp:indent).Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). Crimadella (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, now i know to not do such. Crimadella (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i moved the unblock request to the bottom of the page as the instructions state to do so. Crimadella (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Well, thank you for helping, Serial Number 54129. Crimadella (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Crimadella (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I learn quick, sorry it has taken a little time. I will no longer send one message to multiple users nor talk negative about Wikipedia nor its users. I understand it is the responsibility of Wiki editors to help build an encyclopedia, containing factual information only. I wish to offer advice that would help Wikipedia be stronger, more credible, thus resulting in more funding. Particular users seem to be suggesting that trying to help Wikipedia is "Soapboxing" and suggesting that my personal talk page is not a place for me to ask for opinions of the Wikipedia administrator who placed the block on me. One user actually stated my suggestion for improving Wikipedia is "crap". So i'm confused, that seems to be an attack on me, is that allowed? I also clearly understand that personal research is not allowed. That is why i shifted my focus towards a suggestion to make Wiki Articles more fact based rather than editors creating articles where only media information(journalism) is cited to insist any given subject is factual. If my talk page is not a place where i can ask an administrator for assistance and opinion, please direct me to a place where that is allowed. Crimadella (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The proper forum to suggest changes to Wikipedia is the Village Pump, but banning journalism-based sources from Wikipedia would leave very little behind afterwards. If you aren't going to contribute to any articles, I see little benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you at this time. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Is it ok to respond to a decline? I don't understand your decision. I didn't state that citing journalism should be banned, if you read what i wrote, that should be very clear and easy to understand. Also i don't understand, the only way to contribute isn't by editing articles, as you even guided me towards the place where such suggestions should be mentioned. Helping is helping, is everyone with an account required to edit and create articles? Also, i'm trying to get unblocked, therefor i cannot go to "Village Pump" to suggest anything, I was stating my way of helping out here as part of my defense, my goal at Wikipedia. There is no point in me continuing to make it clear, the difference between fact based material and media based material, hopefully another administrator will come along that can see that i'm actually making a very valid point. Crimadella (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- You stated "I know i'm not a fool for suggesting journalism should not be cited as factual sources" which sounds like a ban on journalism-based sources to me. I'm not going to debate that with you right now- but I will say that it is true that one does not have to create article to contribute to Wikipedia, but you seem to be on a much larger crusade than merely suggesting changes. You are free to make another unblock request that another administrator will review, but I currently stand by my decision. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The issue is that all you have done is to say what is wrong with Wikipedia rather then trying to actually add any well sourced material. This is why it look like you are just here to push an agenda your only contribution has been to push your own research into a subject on the basis we should only deal in facts. You would have been better to just say "I will abide by policy and not try to add OR or to avoid suggesting significant policy changes until I am more experienced". You needed to demonstrate that you were not just here to push the POV that Pizzagate is a valid theory. You failed to do that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Not suggesting that other edtors are ~paedophiles would be a start too. Making an apology might help you here; O3000, would you accept such a thing at this juncture? ——SerialNumber54129 16:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
331dot & Slatersteven, you took one sentence out of everything i said? The only agenda i have so far is for media reports to not be presented as factual information. The only fact that can be suggested is that the media report was done, not to be mistaken with, whatever a journalist says = factual. When you wish to actually find real facts, where do you search, journalism? Who would suggest that is logical? I didn't suggest my point of view to be expressed within the article? I suggested that a media only report on any subject should not be presented as if it's a fact Crimadella (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, funny you mention that, because i actually did already?? 1 to 2 days ago.
Another thing to add, it's as if you don't like my suggestion which could be made in Village Pump, so your opinion is the only one that counts? What about all the other users, they don't have the right to view such suggestions? Suggestions like that lead to banning users? That is your other reason for declining? Crimadella (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No one is censoring you, that is not the issue. I've said all that I wish to about this matter; another administrator will review your request. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- When we have a plethora of sources saying X and no RS saying Y we can say X is a fact (and yes I would go to real journalism that has both ethical and legal standards then some youtuber who does not). Nor is it a "media" only report, the police have said there is no evidence, for one. Nor in fact has any organisation come up with any evidence supporting Pizzagate, not one shed of actually hard evidence. So (as our policy wp:fringe makes clear, we do not give equal weight to all sides of a debate. If you cannot get that you are not going to get unblocked. You are being told you do not understand our polices but feel qualified to try and change them. That you have not even tried to work within them, just to decide they do not make "logical" sense.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, wow. You sure do present information in a harsh way, labeling me a youtuber? I thought name calling was against Wikipedia policy, you people sure talk a lot about policy you don't follow. What i say is crap(Serial Number 54129), I'm a youtuber(Slatersteven) Crimadella (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was referring to the sources you used.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, sure you were. And just were did i cite youtube? Don't make things up to prove you're innocent of breaking policy rules. Crimadella (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- " I, as in me, found a whole section on youtube, written in a crazy language, thousands of 6-12 second videos of little girls in panties moving around in front of a camera"[[1]], that looks like you are saying you saw stuff on youtube, that is what I was referring to, using youtube to overturn valid and respected journalism. Youtube is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Crimadella (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was declined, the reason given being because I don't intend on editing or creating articles. Contributing is contributing, what rules suggest that it is required for a user to create and edit articles? There are many other ways to contribute. I don't see that as a good reason to decline an unblock request. I have already stated that I know what errors I made and not to make them again, so i have a hard time understand how the only reason given for the decline is because i don't intend to edit articles, that is not a Wikipedia requirement for users. Crimadella (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As several people have tried to explain to you, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is written according to what reliable sources say. If they say that something is a conspiracy theory, that's what we say. This is not a blog site, where we can report our personal experiences and beliefs. It is also not a web forum where you can debate whether something is a conspiracy theory or not. There are lots of other sites on the internet where you can spread your own personal beliefs; Wikipedia is not one of them. If this is all you want to do, the block should be upheld. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- This is going to get denied, you (it is clear) do not get what you did wrong. You have a bee in your bonnet about "the truth", Wikipedia does not deal in "truth" it deals in verifiablility. You lack the experience to know what is wrong with Wikipedia, you have not tried to work within our polices but rather have come straight in demanding changes. You have shown no understanding of this and that this was the reason you were blocked (your inability to work within our standards). If you had had a lot more experience and had been a valuable eds you would have gotten more leeway, you are not. You are not bringing anything we need, and have wasted a fair bit of time. You need to reframe this as to why blocking you is a bad thing. Yu need to say you will take the advice and actually learn to crawl before applying as a marathon runner.Slatersteven (talk)
- Comment from the blocking admin: Crimadella, I'm sorry I wasn't around when you tried to ask me questions. (But I am of course a volunteer, just like you; this is not my job.) If you don't want to edit articles, as you suggest above ("Not even sure i want to edit articles, more so, i just dislike what i saw"), then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Yes, the internal workings of the project can be discussed at the Village Pump. But coming here only to discuss our policies and practices, which have been hammered out over time with input from many many people, when you have no experience of contributing and trying to concretely, practically, improve articles, doesn't make sense and is frankly not helpful. Wikipedia is a user-generated encyclopedia, not a chatboard. I agree with Slatersteven that you are trying to run before you can walk. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC).
It doesn't matter. I give up, you people don't even stick to your own policies, i've been attacked all day, invalid reasoning that is not meant for a handful of people to decide on to keep me blocked. Bishonen, you have been more help than anyone else here by simply trying to help me understand the workings of this place, everyone else has attacked me, the exact reason I was blocked, yet it seems to be "ok" for others to attack me. I apologized to O3000 as soon as i got the notice, people here seem to do more arguing and attacking rather than trying to help. It's kinda hard to even crawl with people constantly attacking me, twisting my words by not viewing everything i said as a whole, rather picking lines out which is considered, "taking something out of context". Constantly insisting i'm saying things that I haven't said as if comprehension is at an extreme low. Crimadella (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, that line has to be the most odd line i have read all day. "Wikipedia does not deal in "truth" it deals in verifiablility", Truth, Fact, is what an encyclopedia is all about??? Read the definition! Crimadella (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- My second edit to this talk page (, and the second ever edit I created it) [[2]] I gave you advice as to where to look to understand the relevant polices, you did not even bother to respond. I have given you copious advice about how to frame you block appeal, which you have totally ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- "encyclopedia
- /ɛnˌsʌɪklə(ʊ)ˈpiːdɪə,ɪnˌsʌɪklə(ʊ)ˈpiːdɪə/Submit
- noun
- a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.".Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggestions = Demands?? Crimadella (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Attacks!
And with that I am now bored, I give up and see no reason to unblock, they are not going to listen so thats it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title. (Wikipedia: Encyclopedia) Crimadella (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"I laughed it off and didn’t ask the editor to stay off my TP until after the multiple Pizzagate conspiracy edits. O3000 (talk)" See, more attacks, more lies. Check the time frames out. My first two actions were the edit attempts, after that failed i began talking on user pages. So your comment is a pure lie. I haven't made any article edit attempts past the first two. Crimadella (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
""I, as in me, found a whole section on youtube, written in a crazy language, thousands of 6-12 second videos of little girls in panties moving around in front of a camera"1, that looks like you are saying you saw stuff on youtube, that is what I was referring to, using youtube to overturn valid and respected journalism. Youtube is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)"
Me talking about something i found is not citing?? And just to add to it, i warned others about it on youtube, then someone made a conspiracy theory out of it and youtube eventually removed the material. Just incase you don't get it, i'm still not citing youtube, i'm explaining something i witnessed, experienced.
My last comment. It is very clear to me now, why a scientist would insist, if one is serious about learning about any particular subject, buy a text book, do not rely on Wikipedia as a source of facts. Even wiki editors and administrators i have talked to think media coverage counts as factual information. One even went so far as to suggest Wikipedia isn't about "Truth", shocking. Makes complete sense, why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information. Good luck finding people to support this, what ever it is. Crimadella (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have decided to remove your talk page access to end your continued ranting. Whomever reviews your block may reinstate it if they see merit in doing so, otherwise you will need to use WP:UTRS to request unblock if your request is declined. By the way, we already know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Crimadella (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23176 was submitted on Nov 07, 2018 15:42:49. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're still reading this, Crimadella, but I'd like to try to explain a bit more about the "Verifiability, not truth" thing, because I think it's a bit of a dumb phrase too when quoted without explanation, But when you understand what we mean by it, I think it makes sense. Yes, of course we want Wikipedia's content to be true. But the thing is, none of us has any valid way to decide if something is true other than going on what the consensus of reliable sources say. We can't go by our own individual understanding, knowledge or research, as there's no way other contributors can tell whether were are personally correct. So all we can really do is make our articles reflect what the balance of verifiable reliable sources say. And if that balance happens to be actually wrong, there's nothing an encyclopedia can (or should) do about it, as by its very nature an encyclopedia should reflect the balance of currently-accepted knowledge and not try to develop it further. I hope that makes some sense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Crimadella (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23189 was submitted on Nov 08, 2018 21:32:21. This review is now closed.