User talk:Factinator5000

Hello, Factinator5000!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 09:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry but there were too many problems with your edits. Please read WP:RS. We never use wikis as sources except in rare cases where they aren't purely crowd sourced but have good editorial boards. As someone who once had a hate article posted about me there, I'd never trust Rationalwiki anyway although I might use it for sources. The SPLC called Stop Islamisation of America a hate group, not Stop Islamisation of Nations. Don't let this discourage you, there is a learning curve here and we all get things wrong at times. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How should I cite the mentions from the manifesto? Should I directly link the manifesto? You removed the Academica.edu link that stated that. Factinator5000 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page. Your last edit was reverted as a Wp:BLP violation by another editor. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to change them. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please provide page numbers for the source you cited. I was not able to find the material in In the Tracks of Breivik. Snuish (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore the material until you can validly source it. Your edit summary demonstrates that you may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:BLPREMOVE. Snuish (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factinator5000! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Ali Sina (activist) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leads are summaries of the main points of the article. Your edit to the lead wasn't. It also used an unreliable source. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to edit in the topic area of Palestine-Israel, as you have done at Second Holocaust, Genocides in history, and Genocides in history (21st century), you need to be Extended-Confirmed, this means you need have a registered account of at least 30 days old, and have made at least 500 edits. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Karen Mahlab, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 09:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I was not aware that this policy even existed. I will keep this in mind going further. Factinator5000 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already been warned previously. Please note that all your edits to the article "March 2025 Israeli strikes on Gaza" are prohibited. This is in addition to the fact that you are removing sourced information and writing in a manner that blatantly violates the NPOV policy.Eliezer1987 (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to edit despite my explanation that you are still not allowed to edit sensitive topics like these. This may lead to your blocking. I recommend reading this:WP:PIAץ Eliezer1987 (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factinator5000! 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

Happy editing! == Introduction to contentious topics ==

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 an account age of 30 days, and 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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

=

Your edit to Lourtella has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. bonadea contributions talk 16:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I link to the copyright material, if I paraphrase in my own words? Factinator5000 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factinator5000, I just removed your changes at Gigartinales as that text was also a copyright violation. It's encouraged to cite reliable sources, but you have to write in your own words for the content of the article. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Gigartinales has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed copyvio from Van Dyke Public Schools (from here), from Notagonum parvicolle (from here) and Loricaria lentiginosa (from here); I also removed some unacceptable WP:close paraphrasing from Lourtella, where your earlier copyright violations had just been removed. I'm sorry, but this can't be allowed to continue – please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to request I be unblocked from editing.

According to the guide, my responsibility here is to:

• that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead.

I will attempt to do just that.

I was blocked for violating copyright. I am confirming that I made these mistakes. But, this was not a malicious or intentional.

According to the guide:

• To effectively contest your block, you must understand the reason for it. Also, if the reviewing administrator concludes that the block was justified, you will not be unblocked unless the reviewing administrator is convinced that you understand what you are blocked for, and that you will not do it again.

I made a serious error. I am not contesting that. Before I began editing, I would find practically empty Wikipedia pages. Yet when I googled around, there was tons of information around. I thought it would be better if this information was to be shared.

I assumed - incorrectly - that the only reason all this information lying around wasn't in Wikipedia was due to lack of editors.

In my defense, the first warning I received came only after I had edited several pages in that fashion. The Gigartinales edits came way before. Had I received a copyright warning beforehand, the first time, I would have scrutinized. Before my first strike I wasn't really aware of copyright applied to Wikipedia (beyond pictures and videos). I understood copyright violations to be putting someone else's work and claiming it as your own. I (incorrectly) thought because I am citing the links directly, I am not violating copyright. Now I understand that it is far broader.

Since that is not the case, I will avoid copyright material from now on, adhering to Wikipedia's policies.

I understand now that copyright is extremely serious. Just because something is accessible on Google doesn't mean I can plaster it here. Either rewrite in my own words, or not use it it at all. Simply putting it in as reference is not enough.

My only goal was to share knowledge with the word and improve Wikipedia articles. A theme you'll notice is these articles are practically empty, hence why I wanted to . Factinator5000 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins will not be able to find your unblock request unless you format it as described in the block notice above. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Factinator5000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I would like to request I be unblocked from editing. According to the guide, my responsibility here is to: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead. I will attempt to do just that. I was blocked for violating copyright. I am confirming that I made these mistakes. But, this was not a malicious or intentional. According to the guide: To effectively contest your block, you must understand the reason for it. Also, if the reviewing administrator concludes that the block was justified, you will not be unblocked unless the reviewing administrator is convinced that you understand what you are blocked for, and that you will not do it again. I made a serious error. I am not contesting that. Before I began editing, I would find practically empty Wikipedia pages. Yet when I googled around, there was tons of information around. I thought it would be better if this information was to be shared. I assumed - incorrectly - that the only reason all this information lying around wasn't in Wikipedia was due to lack of editors. In my defense, the first warning I received came only after I had edited several pages in that fashion. The Gigartinales edits came way before. Had I received a copyright warning beforehand, the first time, I would have scrutinized. Before my first strike I wasn't really aware of copyright applied to Wikipedia (beyond pictures and videos). I understood copyright violations to be putting someone else's work and claiming it as your own. I (incorrectly) thought because I am citing the links directly, I am not violating copyright because I was not claiming the materila as my own, but rather showing the information as well as directing people to the correct "owners" of the information. Now I understand copyright violations are far broader. Since that is not the case, I will avoid copyright material from now on, adhering to Wikipedia's policies. I understand now that copyright is extremely serious. Just because something is accessible on Google doesn't mean I can plaster it here. Either rewrite in my own words, or not use it it at all. Simply putting it in as reference is not enough. My only goal was to share knowledge with the word and improve Wikipedia articles. A theme you'll notice is these articles are practically empty, hence why I wanted to expand them.

Accept reason:

You're making a lot of mistakes, but I think you're understanding what they are and are earnestly trying to avoid them once you are called on them. You need to pay more attention to your talk page. I'm assuming good faith here and unblocking. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jpgordon @Justlettersandnumbers this user just got to 500 edits and has started making rapid fire POV edits on Israel-Palestine articles, like this. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wish I could be surprised. :-( --bonadea contributions talk 12:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had made a several edits over a period of time to I/P articles. They were all reversed because of lack of extended protection. The edits are only "rapid fire" because I went back and did them again. I don't intend to solely to I/P articles, this was just stuff I had previously had removed. Factinator5000 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm rolling all of those back. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If I may ask, why? Factinator5000 (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Blatant WP:NPOV violations. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the "Genocides of the 21st century", Isreal's actions against Gazans was not even mentioned, despite it being declared by Amnesty International, UN bodies, and hundreds of other humanitarian NGOs and genocide scholars. Is nobody supposed to add it in? The talk page had requested it be put in for over a year.

  Even if one is completely neutral, and sticks just what the most qualified experts on the matter say, I imagine will still sound negative as neutrally describing a genocide will still sound like a genocide. Factinator5000 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You previously made the same edits before you were EC, and I left it at that. To claim that the article in question 'doesn't mention Israel's actions against Gaza' is patently false. The section lists all events that have been called genocidal in the relevant literature, including the Gaza genocide with citations to a slew of experts who have concluded it is a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have to stop, immediately, with the Israel-Palestine article edits. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i was allowed to edit those articles now, as I'm extended confirmed? Factinator5000 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are violations of WP:NPOV; you are shaming my assumption of good faith. Find another topic to edit or I guarantee you someone will block you, probably immediately. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. Wikipedia culture is quite confusing to me. I don't intend to offend you in any capacity.

Allow me to explain: I had made a several edits over a period of time to I/P articles. They were all reversed because of lack of extended protection. The edits are only "rapid fire" because I went back and did them again.

If I may ask, how are my edits violations of NPOV? Reading this it says to ensure information is accurate and reliable. I believe my edits qualify. In the "Genocides of the 21st century", Isreal's actions against Gazans was not even mentioned, despite it being declared by Amnesty International, UN bodies, and hundreds of other humanitarian NGOs and genocide scholars. If that's not the case, I can go back and change the tone to be more neutral, but neutrally describing a genocide will still sound like a genocide.

I don't intend to solely edit to I/P articles, this was just stuff I had previously had removed. I believe I am operating in good faith. But if not, I can go back and make the edits more scholarly. Factinator5000 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand how your edits are WP:NPOV violations, then present your proposed changes on talk pages in the future and see what more experienced editors have to say. I really strongly suggest you stick with mycology. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will present my future changes to more experienced editors, as you requested. Factinator5000 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked your extended confirmed permission due to you gaming the system with many pointless edits, such as at Mostafa Nissaboury. Your contributions to the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic are also well below what is expected (e.g. here). As you are no longer extended confirmed, you must stay away from editing that topic area. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli, @Jpgordon this user reintroduced their prefered text using an IP on Genocides in history (21st century) before being reverted. The edits are identical and done in the same sequence as before: IP - Factinator5000 - IP - Factinator5000. 86.187.171.74 (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)