Contents

User talk:Helpingtoclarify

Hi Helpingtoclarify! I noticed your contributionstoPomona College 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! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Matt Taibbi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my entire addition but your rationale only applies to part of it. The Newsweek article is acceptable as a "reliable source". I'll fix that. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it interesting how conservative people have the most egregious stuff posted about them, but, even though liberals have (liberal) reliable sources which over and over and over confirm what you try to place in the talk section for consensus, and even though you get it, certain admins refuse to accept the consensus, can't wait till they can no longer do what they are doing. 2603:8080:3EF0:68F0:C1C7:9F9E:EBB7:200D (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

proxy deactivated. Was inadvertently engaged while I was editing Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If the proxy is now off, you may also need to clear your browser cache and wait 24 hours before editing, so the block can clear your system. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2023 (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.

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.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your edits and talk page comments on Briahna Joy Gray, Fani Willis, KJP, and now Maddow, I'm seeing a pattern of your bias on these contentious topics. You should seek consensus for these edits before you make them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rachel Maddow. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t an attack. I’m just telling everyone what will happen based on passed experience so they can be ready to deal with it. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please identify what I said is an “attack” Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to it. If you do not understand that your post was not civil, you are going to have difficulties here. Comment on content, not on contributors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense as an explanation. The word “attack” is not the right description. That’s an over dramatization. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

interesting to me! 2603:8080:3E00:8D13:4D2D:52B0:78E1:6323 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to User talk:Helpingtoclarify while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. It's indeed curious how two IPs both resolving to the same location (Brownsville) with no prior editing history both seem to have strong, controversial opinions about "bias" and administrator conduct towards another editor who they've elsewise never interacted with. I would strongly encourage you to review WP:SOCK ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]