User talk:Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance: Difference between revisions

On the contrary, I am here to build an encyclopedia stocked with well referenced claims and truths for it is only in building an encyclopedia that we can combat the growing threat of Fascism and the Big Lie and Donald Trump. I am here to build an encylopedia brick by brick with well-researched and finely-crafted prose, which is in evidence by a close reading of my edits, which you’ll find on second thought were highly constructive and greatlY improved the article, supplying notable information related to the article topic with references in support of all claims. I added an aspect of the presidential transition, the article topic, that our encyclopedia improperly failed to cover, despite extensive discussion in very many notable and reliable sources. I have committed no crime. And is it not better to let 100 guilty men free than to hang one innocent man? Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your username violates the username policy and you will need to propose a new one that we can rename this account to, one that does not reference something controversial. Wikipedia is not here to "combat" anything and I don't find that your edits were an improvement. I don't see a pathway to you being unblocked without agreeing to a topic ban from the post-1992 American politics contentious topic area and telling what you will edit about instead. Maybe someone else will, but not me. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look upon my good works. My edit was reliably sourced notable highly relevant information to the article topic, written in finely tuned prose. I have not been given a fair chance. Even if you disagreed with my edit, it was a good faith contribution to the article I certainly think it improved it by providing relevant, reliably sourced context. By no means was a block warranted. My political perspective does not at all lead me to abandon the grand detached encyclopedic style and tone in my writings here; there is a place for polemic and a place for cold facts and cold facts are all I gave you. I have only come to help.Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Yamla (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unfairly judged. Please, examine my edits and good works. You will find they provided reliably sourced, notable, and highly relevant information to the article, written in finely tuned, supple prose. Even if you somehow disagree with my contribution, it was a good faith contribution to the article that simply provided relevant, well-referenced context on the article topic to the introduction, which should always mention the significant controversies related to one’s topic. My political perspective does not at all lead me to abandon the grand detached encyclopedic style and tone in my writings here; there is a place for polemic and a place for cold facts and cold facts are all I gave you. I have only come to help. A block is not needed to prevent harm. Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]