User talk:BleedingKansas

Hi BleedingKansas! 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

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

Happy editing! Adakiko (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Talk pages and WP:FORUM, #4 about the use and purpose of talk pages. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently been editing COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Bon courage (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've been a Special Agent with the FBI, and I have testified before Grand Juries and in open court. I have written numerous affidavits submitted to judges in support of warrant applications. I am not given to making wild conjectures. However, editorial control, that is "narrative focus", is never fully sterilized of opinion, because everyone, at some level, is wrestling to reveal what they believe to be true, through the use of "narrative focus". If we can be honest about that, while we build and clarify articles collaboratively, then we will have no conflict. BleedingKansas (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should just lock the entire Jay Bhattacharya article since you aren't interested in its improvement. BleedingKansas (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through the edits that were reverted. You eliminated suggestions of professional bias, but left other suggestions of professional bias. Wikipedia is done for…there is no knowledge here, just the wind blowing out candles. Good luck Baron von Bon courage… BleedingKansas (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Please raise any suggestions for improvement at the article Talk page, bringing appropriate source(s) to the table. Bon courage (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mistake has already been made. You have allowed yourself, in your own mind's eye, to become an aristocrat of Wikipedia. The Count of Covid. Great job. No, really - the other aristocrats are going to throw you a really big bone. Go get yourself a trophy. BleedingKansas (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jay Bhattacharya, you may be blocked from editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See, in particular, WP:POINT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jay Bhattacharya. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is BleedingKansas. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to go on record with my real name, which is William David Pleasance. I live in Seattle, Washington State. I am a very orderly and rules conscious person. But … and this is a gargantuan but … those of you managing Wikipedia have allowed it to become a joke, a mouthpiece for the "socially approved" among us. It is a shame that I must say this - you have let down the potential of Wikipedia by allowing it to become captured by the intellectual forces of our "new aristocracy", who lord over the rest of us, declaring things acceptable or unacceptable, true or false. Know this - a backlash is brewing up against you. Those of you who secretly sympathetic to my complaint - now is the time to take the unpopular actions to restore true collaboration to this platform. If not, it will die a death of irrelevance. BleedingKansas (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. But live in your delusion as long as you can. It'll be painful when you wake up. BleedingKansas (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]