User talk:Are.u.sure

Hi Alex

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Chicago 1885 cholera epidemic myth has been reverted.
Your edit here to Chicago 1885 cholera epidemic myth was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhkxD6bD2AY) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hospital-acquired infection have been undone because they 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. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Are.u.sure! You created a thread called Correcting articles at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Killing of George Floyd, 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 your 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. Please read the article's FAQ (here) and open a discussion on the article's talk page, seeking a new consensus, if you wish. But unilaterally upending existing consensus is disruptive. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has yet been found guilty of killing George Floyd. If not, then the word 'killing' should be avoided.

There is good evidence that George Floyd's death will be found to be consequent to a fentanyl overdose. I don't think that the article makes this clear.

My source is the following link

https://www.lawofficer.com/thomas-lanes-attorney-files-to-have-case-dismissed-saying-george-floyd-died-of-an-overdose/ Are.u.sure (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. In any case, discussions over content should be on the article talk page. O3000 (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:EEng that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Koncorde. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Accusing him of not knowing what a secondary source is Firestar464 (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

O3000 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures should be placed at the end, not beginning, of comments. Please fix this. -- Valjean (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valjean Are.u.sure (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Are.u.sure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Liondragon360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Use of multiple accounts is normally not allowed, at least in the way you seem to be doing it. Since this account is the oldest, I suggest you only use this one. We can then blank User:Liondragon360 and leave it dormant. If you don't respond properly and honestly, we will open an SPI on you and both accounts will get blocked. Note that the IPs (and other personal data) behind each account are visible to those editors with check user status, so lying will have very negative consequences for you. -- Valjean (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise User: Liondragon360. Could it be something to do with using the Chrome browser on my phone? Are.u.sure (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wouldn't create the account, be British, edit the same article's talk page, sign at the beginning rather than ending of comments, and tag team as if being two different people. No, an SPI would not be good for you. -- Valjean (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you are hinting. It may help you to know that I'm in Poland, sometimes on WiFi and 4G and sometimes only on 4G, roaming from the UK. When I saw the word 'sock' I thought it might be something to do with sockets() on Unix? I haven't edited except at the end.

What's an SPI? Are.u.sure (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never had other account only 1 account.Liondragon360 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI is a sock puppet investigation. It's linked above. I see that the user page for Liondragon360 is now tagged as a suspected sock. -- Valjean (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may help to know that I'm a Three user.

I have added my email, alex.kurucz@gmail.com and can share my location if you want. I'm in Bukowina Tatrzańska, Southern Poland. Are.u.sure (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One comment I'd make about IP address. When I worked in Switzerland over 10 years ago Wikipedia sent me some abuse which they sent to what they claimed was my IP. I had no idea what they were writing about but presumed that it was a result of being on a private network (Nestlé Suisse). Are.u.sure (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got a message about my account. My password doesn't work anymore Are.u.sure (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add that you might need to also read wp:bludgeon Given the fact you also do not understand indenting your contributions at the talk page are in fact getting pretty wp:disruptive. I suggest you drop the matter and come back when you are better able to make your case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will second what Slatersteven said. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules and standards; Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned on the article's talk page, and I will reiterate here: further disruption will result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take heed now and drop it. Go and edit less controversial pages before the ban hammer is wielded.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.

Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Are.u.sure (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Are.u.sure, I saw the comment on your user page about getting reverted everywhere except chemistry articles. That is very typical when a brand-new user decides they want to edit one of the most contentious articles on the site. It's a terrible idea. The editors at those articles need to have a firm understanding of both policy and behavioral guidelines; even simple things like not understanding how to indent correctly become disruptive very quickly on high-traffic talk pages, which is part of what's happening with your posts at George Floyd. I would very strongly recommend that you learn to edit somewhere besides George Floyd, and chemistry articles are probably a good place. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and its talk are a good place to figure out where help is needed and find other people interested in working on chemistry articles. —valereee (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if readability on a Talk: page prevented understanding. In this case, probably because the autopsy did not support the impression given by the video, the editors resolved their Cognitive Dissonance by rejecting the autopsy itself, justifying by saying that it was a primary source, not secondary. Wikipedia policy I'd to prefer secondary sources. Are.u.sure (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YOu need to read WP:TENDENTIOUS. Multiple users have asked you to stop, multiple users have told you you are wrong. This is now a last warning. Stop attacking users ability just because they disagree with your wp:or of a wp:primary document.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Ability'? How so? Are.u.sure (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cognitive Dissonance" for a start.Slatersteven (talk)

Read wp:or, we do not infer what sources say, and read wp:v, they must say it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are.u.sure, Wikipedia guidelines may seem arcane before you understand the philosophy behind their construction and how they guide us in the directions of neutrality and verifiability. Unfortunately, you dove into the deep end of the pool (a highly contentious article) before learning the basics of staying afloat. This is not uncommon. As suggested by others, you would do well to spend some time on less contentious areas until you get the hang of the project. O3000 (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that it's often the contentious matters that are the most important.

Thanks Are.u.sure (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.

• Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd
• References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died
• The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings
• A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Are.u.sure (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who asked you, AUS, but I don't think it was me so not sure why you copied this to my user? I've reformatted this section to show you how indenting works. I know it's difficult for those who are working on a mobile device to learn this and appreciate how important it is, but it really is important to at least try to learn how to do it. Other editors will find you much less annoying. You might look at Smartphone editing for some tips. —valereee (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Are.u.sure (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:Killing of George Floyd and Killing of George Floyd) for a period of 48 hours for Repeated disruption, lack of competence with respect to Wikipedia's standards, and WP:RGW as expressed here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: This block was meant to be implemented per WP:ARBBLP, not WP:ARBAP2. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to try to edit the Wikipedia until, at least, Saturday next week. I want to give you time to respond to my suggestions. I will however, respond to any notifications. Are.u.sure (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.

Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Are.u.sure (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been putting this same comment in a bunch of different places. I don't know if anyone has bothered to explain this in depth, so I will try: you are far from the first person to have an opinion on this issue. In the last few months, there have been enough discussions on the talk page for six entire archives: Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 1, Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 2, Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3, Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 4, Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 5, Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 6. There are two hundred and ninety seven separate sections in the archives of that talk page. It has been discussed up, down, left, right, sideways, forwards and backwards. The current state of the article reflects a consensus -- have you read the policy about consensus? If not, I strongly urge you to, and gain some understanding of the decision-making process before you attempt to participate in it. jp×g 05:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there are 6 archives. I also know that the 'consensus' is against me. I wasn't asked to consent and no-one has even told me what it might be other than the obvious: they reject the autopsy findings. Are.u.sure (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to read through 297 talk page discussions for an article I don't even really want to edit, so I can't tell you "what it might be", because I don't know. But with most controversial political subjects, there are a lot of sources that say one thing, and lots of sources that say the other thing. You offer one source. There are currently two hundred and five references in the article. Do not you see why people have discussions about these things? Have you read pages like WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUE, etc? jp×g 06:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are continuing your disruptive editing regarding George Floyd by commenting and copy-pasting comments on other users' talk pages. Stop. You were blocked from Talk:Killing of George Floyd for this very behavior and if you continue that behavior across multiple pages I will site-block you. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is almost impossible to correct. I understand. Are.u.sure (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages are certainly under version control. The associated version control number could be tagged onto each article, or hyperlinked to it. The number would give an indication of the number of revisions and editorial conflicts at a glance. Major version numbers would be for 'featured' pages under this system. This would be a good way for a user to evaluate a page's stability and reliability. Can you please look into this? Are.u.sure (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The venue for suggestions like that would be the village pump. Please feel free to suggest your idea there. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this suggestion at the Village Pump:

Way to readily see how reliable or controversial a page might be

I have spent a great deal of time recently using a Talk: page to make the case for a basic one word revision and some simple changes to a controversial article. In summary, the page is almost impossible for me to change.

In general, before I place trust in an article or try to edit it I would find it useful to see the revision statistics. In particular, editorial conflicts at a glance. This would be a good way for a me, or a general user, to evaluate a page's stability, and reliability. Are.u.sure (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, he didn't make a suggestion about version control on the village pump, but instead restated the arguments that failed on the Floyd talk page. Please don't ask him to ask about the reliability of the source he is pushing at [you know where]. He will just argue his case for his version of the page there as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look again you'll see that my idea stemmed from version control. Are.u.sure (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcomed to create you own WP:FORK of Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm writing to lawofficer.com, asking them to do the work for me. Are.u.sure (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:, given the edits at [1] IMHO at this point, the p-block should be extended in time and broadly construed, at a min. Enough is enough. IDHT and Rope only go so far. O3000 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want a Project Level fork, presuming the George Floyd pages to all be one project. Can one of you please create the fork and let me know when it's done.

Lawofficer.com have about 60 journalists and I imagine that up to 5 will be creating accounts. Please grant them unimpeded access to the project. Are.u.sure (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for refusing to cease equine carcass abuse, refusal or inability to collaborate, badgering users about the very topic you were partially blocked for, attempting to subvert Wikipedia's editing process through external recruitment (diff), crusading, treating Wikipedia as a battleground (diff) (cf WP:TRUTH), and overall lack of competence, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Firestar464 (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Also everything on this talk page, except the last block notification. -- Valjean (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It's deleted and as for stuff on this page, keep it here for possible unblock requests -- which would fail. O3000 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Are.u.sure (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I need to use talk:

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Are.u.sure (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Are.u.sure (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

user Headbomb approved my edit Are.u.sure (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason for the block is given on this page, slightly above. This is an arbitration enforcement block, meaning it cannot be unilaterally lifted by any administrator. Please follow the instructions in the block notice. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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'll also note that I see no evidence that Headbomb approved of your edit, though they may have done. All I see here is Headbomb pointing out that you can create your own WP:FORK of Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to provide enough specific information to review your block. If you wish to make another unblock request, make sure you do this. --Yamla (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The block came directly after Headbomb approved the fork. I have not been given a reason. Are.u.sure (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does your ability to fork Wikipedia have anything to do with this?!? I think you fundamentally misunderstand what WP:FORK is all about. You are welcome to elaborate. --Yamla (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can fork an article if I'm blocked? Are.u.sure (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would your being blocked here affect your ability to create a WP:FORK? You can still read the content of Wikipedia, which is all you need to be able to use the data elsewhere. How would you describe a WP:FORK? --bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote at the time

'I want a Project Level fork, presuming the George Floyd pages to all be one project. Can one of you please create the fork and let me know when it's done.

Lawofficer.com have about 60 journalists and I imagine that up to 5 will be creating account Please grant them unimpeded access to the project. Are u sure (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)'

I received no reply. Are.u.sure (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From where I'm sitting it looks like you did receive a reply – it is in the block notice. You requested something that is not only completely unconnected to WP:FORK (have you read that page?) but completely against Wikipedia policy. The reasons why it is against policy are, again, explained in your block notice. --bonadea contributions talk 17:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not received a block notice or I would have used it in my unblock request. Did anyone reply to my request for a project level fork in any way?

From my screenshots:

'Agreed. Also everything on this talk page, except the last block notification - Vallean (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)'

In that screenshot it says that the block would be for being an 'attack page'. Are.u.sure (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your block notice is above "December 2020 - Site Block with quite clear reasons provided.

WP:FORK basically says you are free to go and create your own website that duplicates wikipedia, and that you are then free to edit yourself. See the FAQ at Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking.

Valjeans comments meanwhile are referring to your User Page and nothing to do with the Block or Block notice. Koncorde (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From that message

'refusing to cease equine carcass abuse, refusal or inability to collaborate, badgering users about the very topic you were partially blocked for, attempting to subvert Wikipedia's editing process through external recruitment (diff), crusading, treating Wikipedia as a battleground (diff) (cf WP:TRUTH), and overall lack of competence, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.'

The page I wanted to change being already declared a dead horse I take it? Including the autopsy being ruled primary and lawofficer.com a biased source? Are.u.sure (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you have refused to read WP:FORK, simply have no idea what that page is talking about, or actively trolling. Whatever is going on here, we've wasted enough time. I'm revoking talk page access. This does in no way prevent you WP:FORK'ing Wikipedia and running a fork on your own site, following your own rules. --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.