User talk:Babylone445
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Persistent disruptive editing
Whatever your reasons for your crusade against Soka Gakkai are, it's inappropriate to keep removing mentions of the group, especially when they're cited, and doubly so when you do so with misleading edit summaries (such as with this edit) or flat-out false ones (such as this edit). You're welcome to tag things for cleanup, or even remove uncited material (though it's better to find citations for it, when possible), but removing things in the way you have been is simply disruptive and unacceptable.--Xanzzibar (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hello
- I'm trying to stick to the facts, and it's common knowledge that the Oslo Peace Committee never reveals the names of Nobel Peace Prize nominees. Moreover, the only source cited comes from the organization in question. I maintain that this information is incorrect, but if you point me to a reliable source, I'd be happy to read it. If not, we should continue to talk about it but I don't believe that incorrect and unsourced information improves a page. Babylone445 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- If you have specific issues with a source, then bring that information up. What you can't do is add false or misleading edit summaries masking your deletion of materials, such when you explained edits as "missing file added" or "simplification", or explaining one change and then also deleting other cited materials.
- As for that particular page, like the other recent nominees, its placement is based on non-formal sources. In this case, the Soka Gakkai page used as the source is repeating information from the PRIO Director's Speculations. If you find this sourcing problematic, you should take it up on the article's talk page, where people familiar with the subject matter can help hash it out. --Xanzzibar (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take it up on the article's talk page.
- Reading the PRIO page, it seems rather that PRIO Director's Speculations used informations from the Soka Gakkai. Babylone445 (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babylone445. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. Izno (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.