Excalibur26

The talk comment has been moved to the talk page see Talk:U.S._Steel#Slavery_by_Another_Name. -- GreenC 06:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Hans von Spakovsky

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 BRD 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Why the Removal of a Valid Edit?

The article clearly states that a judge threw out the Georgia voter or photo ID law. I properly added that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated that law. I have provided a link to the Circuit Court ruling. This is a valid edit, and I removed no content. There seems to be no valid reason for removing my edit. Excalibur26 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The article that you're referring to is an op-ed by Hans von Spakovsky himself. Spakovsky is climate change denier who has made a career out of lying about voter fraud. He's not a reliable source for anything, in particular when it concerns voter fraud. And no, we as editors do not read and interpret rulings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The voter ID law was reinstated by the Circuit Court, that is fact. You reject the article by Spakovsky out of hand, with zero evidence it is not correct, and then when given the Circuit Court ruling reject that out of hand as well You do not need read the entire court ruling, you can check where it says the lower court ruling is reversed and Georgia is in the right. There is nothing to interpret in the Circuit Court ruling. Further to that the Georgia Supreme Court, after challenges in state courts after the challengers lost the appeal, gave the go-ahead in 2011. There is in the end no valid reason to remove my edit. What does "climate change" have to do with this?Excalibur26 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we use WP:RS. We don't use op-eds by documented liars, and we as editors don't interpret court rulings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, stop falsely describing every edit as a "minor" edit. They're obviously not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am no longer using that piece by Spakovsky, I am linking to the ruling. There is nothing to interpret in the ruling, it reinstates the Georgia law. In fact I added a quote and a link from Wiki about a study of the strict Georgia law and that black turnout has been higher under the law. The study is from 2015, so the law is in effect. All you need to do is read the last paragraph which is Section IV Conclusion: "... we RENDER judgement in favor of the election officials of Georgia". If you have evidence that the Circuit Court did not reverse the lower court ruling provide it. Otherwise the edit is valid.

Excalibur26 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW It appears that you are incorrectly stating that the Georgia law was thrown out. It appears that the District Court only threw out a portion of the law, and allowed the voter ID part to be enforced. So you need to fix that.

I quote: "Georgia first adopted a voter ID law in 2005 and won court approval to implement it in 2007. The law has now been in place for two major statewide general elections: 2008, when the presidential race was on the ballot, and 2010, when voters selected a new governor. Prior to the new law, voters had been able to present one of 17 forms of identification, including a utility bill." https://www.ajc.com/news/despite-voter-law-minority-turnout-georgia/3wOfD2SkXmTgRwbySd2ZiK/

So you need to edit your claim that it was thrown out as only a portion was. Or if you want I will fix it. In fact the Eleventh Circuit in upholding the law quotes favorably from the District Court ruling: "In the opinion, Judge Bill Pryor affirmed the district court's decision, saying:

The inability to locate a single voter who would bear a significant burden provides significant support for a conclusion that the Photo ID requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote. The insignificant burden imposed by the Georgia statute is outweighed by the interests in detecting and deterring voter fraud". https://www.jurist.org/news/2009/01/eleventh-circuit-upholds-georgia-voter/

What is wrong with the sources?

These sources are the Eleventh Circuit decision itself, Jurist.org, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Unless you can show that they are incorrect as used here they are good enough:

... However, the voter ID portion was approved and was in effect in the 2008 election.[19][better source needed] Subsequently the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Georgia's voter ID requirement in 2009.[20][21][better source needed]

Excalibur26 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Excalibur26, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Crystallex International Corporation have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hi @Excalibur26:, I noticed in Virginian Railway and Dawn Upshaw that the Wikipedia method for citations isn't familiar to you. We don't just drop a URL between two <ref> tags. Please review Citing sources to learn how to add references to an article. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive 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 noticeboards.
• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Metropolitan Police, you may be blocked from editing. Racism in edits, blatant disruptive racism in original research edits. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

May 2012

There was no "racism" or "blatant disruptive racist," in edits. Just because you don't like an edit or two doesn't make it racist. Facts are facts.

April 2021

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Excalibur26 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Improperly explained as to what the problem is.

Decline reason:

The problem is explained in the notice above. If you are here to build an encyclopedia, please address why we might think otherwise and tell what edits you wish to make. I'm fairly sure this was triggered by your recent content removals which seemed to whitewash certain articles. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2021 (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.

I blocked you because every edit you have made since January this year has been treating Wikipedia like a soapbox for your personal political opinions, which have had to be removed by other editors. There are plenty of forums on the internet for you to converse and argue about your personal opinions, and you should go find one because Wikipedia is not among them. For the avoidance of doubt:

• On Metropolitan Police you wrote: "The fact is that blacks are far more likely to flaunt laws. ... In America, [Blacks] commit at least 33% of all violent crimes and 50% of all murders." This is an overtly racist statement that should have earned you a block in and of itself.
• On Surgeon General of the United States you inserted in the article's introduction an insinuation that Jerome Adams was asked to resign by President Biden because he is Black, and cited this to an overtly biased Christian Conservative source which did not back up your statement that Adams is "the first Surgeon General asked to leave by an incoming administration in a long time if ever."
• On Larry Schweikart you removed a sourced allegation that Schweikart lied about a political opponent buying votes, and rather than attempt to explain why you removed it, you replaced it with "Larry Schweikart was de-platformed by the censors of Twitter."
• On FCC fairness doctrine you removed a reliably sourced section criticizing Rush Limbaugh's radio program, and did not explain why it should be removed.
• On United States Capitol Police you repeatedly ([1], [2], [3], [4]) removed reliably sourced information indicating that far-right extremists used social networks to plan and coordinate the attack on the United States Capitol earlier this year, and you made no attempt to explain why the information should be removed.
• On Anya Taylor-Joy, a biography of a living person, you wrote in the article: "What makes her so influential - I never heard of her - who does she influence?"

These edits amply demonstrate that you are here to advance a personal political agenda and not to help create an encyclopedia, and so you are blocked to prevent further disruption. If you want to be unblocked, you must explain what encyclopedic contributions you intend to make. Thank you. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Excalibur26 - please revoke TPA. Thank you. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the reasons described in your block notice. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Tiderolls 14:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)