User talk:NamelessPsychopath

Hello, NamelessPsychopath, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! MiddleMac (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi NamelessPsychopath! 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 are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TarnishedPath, and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Christchurch mosque shootings, it appears that you added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 12:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

would citing a reddit post showing brenton tarrant's arrest against the rules? NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Reddit is not a reliable source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2020 Bolsheorlovskoe shooting, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2013 Shanghai shooting, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Pipe. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The female part was sourced in the article already, however i just tagged it in the box too. Psephguru (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You had been notified prior to your edit and now twice reverted by different editors. There s a discussion on the talk page, kindly use that.Psephguru (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a search engine, a chatbot, or a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Transphobia at Talk:2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting. Nil🥝 12:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't mean to be hateful or disrupt editing, I just have my own personal opinion of not liking transgenders but it's not like I think transgenders shouldn't be allowed to edit or that I meant to disrupt them, I just said that because I didn't want those people to think I was some kind of lgbt supporter and I didn't know that was against the rules and I won't do it again NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's no quarter here for people who are willing to spew hatred, whether it be at a particular person or a group of people. You most certainly are welcome to your opinions. Voicing them, however, is an entirely different thing in working within a collaborative community. There may be places on the Internet where voicing your hatred about groups of people are welcome. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2026 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) Read WP:Hate is disruptive. It's all well and good that you aren't actively trying to disrupt Wikipedia, but the presence of an editor saying things like I'm allowed to dislike and feel disgust towards transgenders does not create a welcoming environment for trans people. This is a communal project, if you can't be here without feeling the need to make sure everyone knows you hate trans people because you're concerned someone might mistake you for an 'lgbt supporter' (god forbid, right?), you are not compatible with the project. Athanelar (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that you can't openly announce ideas deemed hateful on wikipedia. But if you don't say it you'll be all right it seems. Like if you just keep your bloody beliefs to yourself there's no issue in the thing as long as you aren't disruptiveMotherwell6 (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes; we aren't in the business of policing thought, namely because it's impossible to do so. There's not a damn thing anybody can do about someone being transphobic, but if they decide to come out and tell everybody about it we definitely can. Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes and the way you conduct it matters too. Stating to everyone "I'm a transphobe" is not how you stay editing on this website for long Motherwell6 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't really know it was against the rules to begin with so maybe that could be considered a mitigating factor to at least lower my ban from eternity and it's not like I'm a troll, I was on wikipedia for two months and I edited over 200 pages and this is my first offense so maybe you could at least lower it at least NamelessPsychopath (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

_{(Non-administrator comment)} Despite making worthwhile edits, you WERE spreading anti-trans comments. You could've kept them to yourself. Plus, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is recommended to read civility guidelines before engaging in discussions with other editors. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative community, and there is no place for hateful comments to be spread. But I don't know, that's just my two cents. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 17:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@NamelessPsychopath; Mitigating factors? Ok, how about this; true or false: On 7 December 2025 a welcome message was put on your talk page Special:Diff/1326195882. True or false: That welcome message included a link to Help:Introduction, which has a button for policies and guidelines. True or false: That welcome message included a link to Wikipedia:Five pillars, which has WP:5P4 on it noting "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". True or false; Today, you referred to the possible perpetrator using a deeply racial epithet . Let me save you the time. All of those are true. Your protestations about not knowing are hollow on the face of them. Further, if you actually think that referring to people using deeply racial epithets and other highly pejorative terms is somehow acceptable on ANY collaborative platform, then there is a serious competence issue, and you should not be editing in a collaborative environment, much less Wikipedia. As I said, there is no quarter on Wikipedia for hatred. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I thought it's okay because it was the talk page, I thought I should've only used neutral non offensive wording in articles NamelessPsychopath (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

_{(Non-administrator comment)} It's not only for articles, but also talk pages. Civility counts, no matter what. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 19:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Aside from Hammersoft's excellent response, I have two responses to this. The first is that, well, it's common sense, isn't it? You're on a communal, collaborative platform, I shouldn't think it needs to be explained that openly advertising your feelings of disgust for a minority group would be something of a faux pas. The exception of course is if you otherwise surround yourself with people and spaces where that sort of thing is acceptable, such that you didn't even give it a second thought. I haven't seen any written rule telling me I'm not allowed to walk into a museum and start flinging my feces at the exhibits, but I have a pretty strong suspicion that would be frowned upon. Relatedly, and perhaps more simply, ignorance of the rules does not exempt you from them. Part of engaging with a community in good faith is ensuring you're familiar with the rules and expectations of that community. Athanelar (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Aside from the spot-on comments of others, I have this to toss into the ring: why do you care whether anyone gets the impression that you're an LGBT supporter, to the degree that you'll make those kinds of cracks to ensure that we don't? You don't know any of us. We're not in your social circle, we're not your family members, we're not your co-workers, we're not in your church. We're as anonymous here to you as you are to us. We are no threat to anyone's identity politics, or innate need to be seen as a Right-Thinking Person, instead of ONE OF THEM!!! Ravenswing 18:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

because it's treated very badly in my country and if someone we're to ever dox me and see something related to lgbt I might be targeted by local neo nazis which commit a bunch of crimes in my area and police aren't doing anything about them so I'd prefer my house didn't get bulgralized or worse NamelessPsychopath (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It's essentially impossible to be identified from your Wikipedia account unless you say something which ties it to your real identity. Athanelar (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess but it's not like I'm getting unbanned so it doesn't matter NamelessPsychopath (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You can get unbanned in 6 months, per the standard offer but i dont think anyone would support unbanning you shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

so in other words even if I wait 6 months I would likely still not get unbanned NamelessPsychopath (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

your technically community banned but i dont know what the rules for that is but you got blocked because of the ANI discussion that alerted admins of your conduct, so you could appeal and someone could move your appeal down the road to ANI or AN and get unbanned. shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

6 months is still kind of long, I might as well give up or go to another property I own in another city to ban evade my ip NamelessPsychopath (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

bro what, thats still gonna get you banned for block evasion, see WP:LOUTSOCK and WP:SOCK shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ban evasion will just get you an indefinite ban. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 19:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

but how would they know because it's in another city so it's a different ip NamelessPsychopath (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Checkuser, sock puppet investigations, it isn't any admin's first rodeo. Plus, it would just be better to bite the bullet and take the 6 month ban. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 19:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:CHECKUSERs have an array of tools at their disposal to confirm that an account is linked to a user, even if they are on a different IP.

As for the standard offer, it is not a guarantee, but the idea is that if you return in 6 months without socking and demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and what you'll do differently in the future, it demonstrates that you may now be a productive editor. Blocks are preventative, not punitive; the goal is to stop you from further disrupting the encyclopedia, not to punish you for wrongdoing. Athanelar (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

wikipedia has a police force but no court, where's my not guilty by the reason of insanity plea(didn't read rules,1 IQ) NamelessPsychopath (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Competence is required TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 19:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Editing style, same topic area of editing, I have seen it all even though i aint a checkuser or admin shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This editor is not cbanned. They were blocked as an admin action. Athanelar (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

So, NamelessPsychopath, your plan get past this block is to try a different IP? Believe it or not, you are the first person EVER to come up with this brilliant plan! WOW why didn't anyone think of that before? <sigh> Reality: Look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets. Wikipedia has been around for 25 years. More people than you can possibly begin to imagine have attempted sockpuppeting here and failed. We know how to handle this. You might succeed for a small window, but your sockpuppet will be outed and blocked. The only thing you're doing is adding fuel to the fire that will keep you blocked on this project. I strongly recommend you simply stop editing here and wait six months. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I'LL JUST MOVE TO MY CORNYDUDE22 ACCOUNT OR LETTRLE, YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY ALTS I CONTROL, YOU CAN'T STOP ME NamelessPsychopath (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

you dont have any alts, i have searched up both users they dont exist shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

As Athanelar said there currently is no site ban but there's an indefinite block. A proper unblock request could work with the right attitude, but that prospect increasingly seems to be unlikely. Since this account was centered around shooting articles, a sockpuppet is likely to eventually be spotted and by policy, their edits are to be systematically reverted when found and blocked, meaning that it's a waste of time for you and the community. If you care about the project, it's not a good approach, if you don't, why edit Wikipedia? In case you care, these may guide your future contributions. The main issues so far appear to be the promotion of unreliable sources (WP:RS), using article talk pages as a forum to express your bigotry (WP:NOTFORUM), inability to move on and wait until acceptable sources support what you previously intended to add to the article using dubious sources, difficulty with communication in English on an English encyclopedia (this apparently varies, it may also depend on the time you dedicate to posts) (WP:CIR). But now, possibly also trolling. It's your responsibility to file a credible unblock request if you would like to continue to edit, acknowledging what went wrong and explaining why your future edits are likely to be constructive and to benefit the encyclopedia. Repetitive use of this talk page when blocked for other purposes risks also losing the privilege to edit this talk page. ~2026-64883-8 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@NamelessPsychopath I'll take you at your word regarding the circumstances of your country, in which case you should probably completely avoid editing any topics which you think might put you at risk. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia that you could have edited instead.

If you want to return, your best bet is to follow the Standard offer - go six months without editing Wikipedia under any account or temporary account, then you can submit an appeal using URTS as per the block message below.

Sockpuppetry is an incredibly bad idea - you'll not only extend the Standard offer timeline, but make it much, much harder to appeal in future.

If you are found to be sockpuppeting too often (usually three) then your block will escalate to a ban, which cannot be lifted by a single admin - you have to appeal to the Wikipedia community, who then have to agree to unban you.

Sockpuppetry is seen as a breach of trust, so it's very difficult to come back from - it's better to not even go down that road in the first place.

You can still edit your native Wikipedia if you wish - in fact I would encourage this, since being able to show a history of productive editing on another project can vastly increase the likelihood of a successful appeal. Just remember to stay away from any topics that relate to the concerns raised here & play it safe.

Please see the List of Wikipedias if you're not sure where to go next and make sure to only use this account, so it's all linked together for easy viewing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)