User talk:MisteOsoTruth#Welcome!

Hi MisteOsoTruth! 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:

{{Clickable button 2|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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:

{{Clickable button 2|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button 2|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont' remember doing anything or editing anything about those who are recently deceased.

I don't remember attacking an Editor. What is going on?

::"Living or recently deceased." You are making allegations about living individuals.

::Also, Ryulong has been blocked for nine years. You're a little late to the dance, but that's not an excuse for your aspersions. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

:well one i wasnt aware that person is or was ever dead. are primary sources not allowed especially if it's edits that fail wikipedia's standards? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

::"Living or recently deceased". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

:my asperations to... show he was maliciously editing articles for a bias and that those articles still have those slanderous and dubious edits?

:sure i'll take the blame for being too colorful but how is the articles he edited STILL not corrected? desptite the very many sources and evidnece that wikipedia still sells those lies?

:your site mislead people on who invented the toaster. and it went unchecked FOR A LONG TIME. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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 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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

}} Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Commons-emblem-notice.svg You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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) 02:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on :User talk:Codename Noreste. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

:Ryulong is indefinitely blocked. That doesn't give you license to attack them. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

::Attack? where? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

::where's the attack? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

::attack? showing proof of what happened is an attack? or was their something wrong with my words MisteOsoTruth (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=1215673592 as you did here] MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

:Also, don't add text to other people's comments, don't spam old threads with screenshot links, and you've got to stop trying to debate the issue itself per WP:NOTFORUM. You are making a mess of the talk page and engaging in the same disruption that just got IP editors kicked off the talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

::Repeating the same attacks on my user talk page is not helping. MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

:::huh? i don't remember talking to you. least of all "attacking".what's going on? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

::::You have repeatedly accused a specific editor of having {{Tq|a bias}}, including making that comment on my user talk page. That is a personal attack, and you must stop. Focus on article content, do not discuss other editors personally. MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::hmm. i see. thank you for the explanation. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::And then you immediately headed to the talk page to make more personal attacks and to violate BLP by accusing people of committing harrasment. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::is that how your'e weaving this? someone said a biased thing as if to dismiss out of hand ANY AND ALL other interpretations. they say something about bottom of the barrel blogs. the other source i had wasn't a blog.

:::::::Attack and harass? that's over dramatic. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::::What other people may or may not have said does not excuse you from the policy forbidding personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::what personal attack is it? I thought they had a bias and said it. if that's seen as "an attack" then that's a very uncharitable interpretation and... ignoring the core issue

:::::::::If i say it's pretty sexist to grope a woman, is THAT an attack or accusation?

:::::::::Jesus. i could play the same game and say you're attacking me now. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::Harassment

:::::you keep using that word. how does Wikipedia define that? i posted what i truely believe to be a source. an archive link not a screenshot. that didn't come from a blog.

:::::I don't know how we can keep edits and revisions that have issues. and then anything and everything pointing out those issues (even non personal attacks) is part of some conspiracy done by the right wing. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::You used the word, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=1216160277 here], and you've got to stop. You cannot accuse people (or companies, or whatever) of committing crimes on talk pages. This isn't about conspiracies, or what other people are doing. This is about what you are doing on the talk page and how it violates important Wikipedia policies. - MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::well they do and did harass. that was the link. even the victim has come out to speak out. BUT SOME HOW that doesn't matter?

:::::::i posted the link. there's screenshots and material evidence. and the employee of Sweet Baby Inc had posted the personal steam account of the person. They got harassed, they got false flagged. so much so that Steam had to Step in.

:::::::this is not just public information but archived. and now the sweet baby inc talk page and the formal wikipedia page ARE DEFENDING the abuser.

:::::::so no. [https://archive.is/TRNrr chris kindred (@itskindred): "The @Steam curator harassment group Sweet Baby Inc detected is lead by this person, @kabrutusrambo. Here's them trying to be slick so they don't get reported. Even with the discriminatory language filed off, the group itself still fails the code of conduct." | nitter.poast.org (archive.is)] MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::::silent as usual. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ok. then what is "not a forum"? how can i do this better? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Read the WP:NOTFORUM link they shared. Harryhenry1 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::thank you. I can at least be gracious for this. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MisteOsoTruth and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.. Thank you.MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:Wait. This is over dramatic. you came in to my talk page. is that harassment too? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::It actually isn't. In fact, for the notification of the AN/I discussion they are required to notify you in the manner they did. One thing you really should learn about Wikipedia is that, when a third party says "you went too far with this and you should stop," it is generally wise to listen to them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that this is a page ban logged under the Contentious Topics procedure standard restrictions. If you wish to appeal this block, you *must* follow the process outlined here. To any reviewing administrators -- see WP:AN/I thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1216265077 here] for additional process-related notes.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know that "this user is dishonest" is not a thing to be said, and certainly not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JuliusRoxas&oldid=1224152891 on the user's own user page]. I'm also looking at the insults on Talk:Yasuke, and the personal attack on MrOllie on this very talk page from a while ago: it seems to me that there is a pattern of making things personal, and it needs to stop. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Information orange.svg Please do not add commentary to articles, as you did at :Grand Theft Auto V. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to discuss the article, please use Talk:Grand Theft Auto V. Thank you. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:is adding Petit's own words to it "commentary" you conceeded the point earlier when it came to morally correct. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Petit's words were formally published in reliable sources with editorial policies; this edit contained your own commentary, which is original research. I have not conceded any points. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::reliable sources? koataku is not a reliable source.

:::https://archive.ph/8lcGB MisteOsoTruth (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::According to Wikipedia consensus, it is (at least for that period). You're obviously allowed to disagree and welcome to make a case demonstrating otherwise, but that's the current consensus. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Consensus on an op-ed. that wasn't even legitimate at the time?

:::::the same publication that has all those errors i talked about? and FOR SOME TIME?

:::::that went under the radar. that's either ignorant or convenient.

:::::when Nathan Grayson did not reveal his personal ties with a developer in a very blatant disregard for doing the due diligence of a journalist?

:::::here's some of his other mistakes and kotaku not caring about integrety

:::::{{CVR}}

:::::?

:::::where jason schrier Managed to twist GamerGate catching the harasser Mateus Sousa into an article blaming GamerGate's "atmosphere" for Sousa's actions? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::BUT I DIGRESS MisteOsoTruth (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Consensus about the website, not the op-ed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Right, the website that has been found in scandal after scandal and COIs? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::As I said before, you're welcome to make a case for its unreliability if you disagree. Replying with complaints here does little. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::OH fair enough.

:::::::::There's a LOAD of information on how kotaku as a source is dubious. but when i bring that up it feels hand waved away, i'm told i'm spewing nonsense even with direct links to unprofessional behavior and even mentoining the out right lie that Smash Ultimate's new song contained a Disability slur... as writen by someone who has a curious career. but. some how nothing happens. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It's "handwaved away" because you haven't done a good job of presenting actual concrete examples. What I will say is that Kotaku articles past 2022 or so aren't considered as reliable, since the company that owns Kotaku has been pushing the use of AI. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::https://archive.ph/8lcGB

:::::::::::this was in 2019. this is one of the examples I used.

:::::::::::Leigh Alexander

:::::::::::Wrote about Anna Anthrophy, also an occasional contributor to her site Offworld, at least in seven total articles, 2010 to 2015, without disclosing their friendship, shown both from their Twitter conversations and indirect means.

:::::::::::Between 2009 and 2015, wrote eight articles about minor developer Ian Bogost, namedropping him at least nine more times, without disclosing their work together at Gamasutra. Their personal friendship — which is corroborated by frequent Twitter conversations and was admitted by Alexander to have started in 2007 — was disclosed only in one of the articles.

:::::::::::Jason schrier: Brad Wardell was found not guilty and yet still Jason Schrier still floated the false allegations. in his follow up after the court found Wardel not guilty.

:::::::::::Following allegations of cronyism between Brandon Boyer and Stephen Thirion, he wrote an article minimizing the issues, calling them "misguided at best" and comparing them to a conspiracy theory, since the person used as a source to confirm these ties denied having discussed them when he asked. Hasn't updated the article or returned on the subject when more proof of Thirion and Boyer's relationship surfaced — not only confirming this relationship existed and showing that Thirion had received coverage from Boyer multiple times, but that Boyer was involved in at least five other conflicts of interest of comparable magnitude.

:::::::::::thanks to Rhain i notice i forgot the websites i linked. but yes. https://deepfreeze.it/outlet.php?o=kotaku

:::::::::::https://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=jason_schreier

:::::::::::they show their work in all of this. the receipts are there.

:::::::::::I'm not sure a lot of people like this site or would believe it true. That's a matter of unfortunate opinion and other factors. Regardless, the site comes with the receipts. even a broken clock can be correct twice a day.

:::::::::::https://archive.is/tMZD0

:::::::::::https://archive.ph/2Odgc MisteOsoTruth (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Please don't copy content directly from other websites without attribution. For clarity, most of the above message is copied directly from [https://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=leigh_alexander here] and [https://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=jason_schreier here]. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::oh . thankyou.

:::::::::::::sadly those places didn't have the archive links proper that show exactly that. . but you're right.

:::::::::::::here i am assuming this is common knowledge and people know where it comes from. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I din't think Deep Freeze would be accepted as a source. It appears to have a pro-Gamergate bent to it, and I'm sure you're familiar with the history between that movement and this site to know why it's not gonna be taken seriously. Harryhenry1 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::a bent? what to the facts? it provides the sources there in.

:::::::::::::and the very editor on the wikipedia was anti gamergate and shown to be constantly revising that and even to real history by a user. in a leaked irc chat group... that claimed to be anti harassment but harassed people.

:::::::::::::i don't like those threats. i don't like the denial of me, a lgbt person being called this that or the other thing or when black, femme (cis and trans) members of Not Your Sheild were then invalidated, by people who said to be for the marginalized.

:::::::::::::it started with the polytron leaks and a games journalist unable to keep it in his pants.

:::::::::::::and yet the data and eventualism will come out. unless you're paid like that other guy.

:::::::::::::. ... as you show a slant yourself? as you still float a conspiracy theory?

:::::::::::::https://reason.com/2015/08/18/bomb-threat-disrupts-spj-airplay-gamer/

:::::::::::::i'm sorry but maybe a media that is corrupt will circle the wagons.

:::::::::::::or maybe you could have looked at what it said. but you didn't.

::::::::::::: when a lie gets repeated often enough it becomes the truth apparently. there's books, news sources literature, archives realy big ones and other experts like

::::::::::::: and other souces you redily ignore. and then blame the victim. and here you are with line in

::::::::::::: the sand. already made your mind up. with the historia. and gigs of information and videos.

:::::::::::::Heck you still consider kotaku a reputable source. did you forget the existance of the fine

::::::::::::: young capitalists? the charities. the fact gamergate funded a game with a trans main character

:::::::::::::fighting against a terf dystopia? https://store.steampowered.com/app/356580/Aerannis/ there's a vivian james cameo in there. Or the open letter by Valerie Keefe, trans feminist

::::::::::::: activist and political candidate. so tell me again, WHY do you out of hand dismiss? https://archive.vn/bA0FW but i guess she's not the CORRECT kind of trans.

:::::::::::::for that matter. i guess the FBI https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate and Wikileaks and Occupy Wallstreet are all in on it too. all the dang goobergrapes. meanwhile there's people comparing depictions of jessica rabbit to blackface and the same people doing that are caught with their pants down. or the censorship and "modesty" of women and then those people in the middle of a decades long cover up of sexual misconduct at Activision Blizzard. because your opinion is not my truth or even close to the facts.

:::::::::::::I really don't appreciate the gaslighting.

:::::::::::::MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::in short. jackthompson 2.0 was successful because, ironically because sexism is alive and well.. as abusers get to play victims.

:::::::::::::even shown to be hypocrites by their own videos from college to the time they got "popular" just to cash in on a scandal that wasn't.

:::::::::::::Does legitimacy and sources only exist as consensus or perception?

:::::::::::::oh and don't forget the peter bright thing. if you want to throw your hat in with that... it's funny how the head of ars technica was found out to be a nonce soliciting kids as young as single digits... who attacked Palmer Lucky and harassed his girl friend... all was part of that anti gamergate media.

:::::::::::::lovely.

:::::::::::::https://soundcloud.com/gennabain/enough or the abuse that Bain suffered. day in day out.

:::::::::::::https://ibb.co/WvFByCm7

:::::::::::::https://ibb.co/k2xr4Shd

:::::::::::::https://ibb.co/LDYWNqxM

:::::::::::::https://ibb.co/M5RpKhZp

:::::::::::::https://ibb.co/TDyNXRTb

:::::::::::::https://ibb.co/WvSGJqGr

:::::::::::::man do i love the people calling themselves warriors for justice saying black people are bad for not being on their side.

:::::::::::::also thanks to link rot. this study is gone. https://ibb.co/0yPjCV9r but even the most unhinged "anti woke" person didn't have a problem with all of that or have a problem with the same sex relationships in hollow knight.

:::::::::::::we just didn't like the corporate gentrification and moral panic about polygonal depictions. and how patronizing it is to think we are so damn fragile.

:::::::::::::funny that the same generation that did all that edgy and fun humor knew it was a joke suddenly put on the armband to police what everyone says and jokes about... as a sort of perverse moral licensing.

:::::::::::::https://archive.ph/Q320h

:::::::::::::not to menton the anti ssem... nah.

:::::::::::::like.. christ.

:::::::::::::https://www.youtube.com/live/zckCa7fmp5E?si=_rnY32UkiMyVhbaa&t=2020

:::::::::::::even the call out of the most insane person from one angry gamer criticized the NCOSE. a far right censorhsip group with ties to hate groups as they pressured steam to comply with bullcrap censorship and payment processor control.

:::::::::::::Much of which has been the focus of the Free Speech Coallition and Woodhull freedom foundaton. . MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::@MisteOsoTruth, while you're blocked, the only appropriate use of your talk page is to discuss your unblock request. -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:funny becuase the hayes code, the pmrc, jack thompson accurately reports on such actions... but this same thing is some how... different? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is your final warning. Go spread your nonsense somewhere else. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::you mean criticism? It's not criticism if you were to read it. The COIs and criticisms and down right lies that publication has made. one of them i showed. is real. was real.

::recorded. the tweet existed, the article existed, archived for everyone to remember.

::I have a hard time as to why you would call that nonsense and give a warning over an issue of fact! Some how the analysis and evidence Kotaku's publishing of down right untrue articles and conflicts of interest... that's not acceptable. But the proof that Kotaku published lies... is "nonsense"?

::Is that what you're saying here? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::unrelated to this discussion, but please mind the formatting of your comments. you know, indentation, signature placement, and all that. having malformed comments can cause a good bit of confusion and/or pain for anyone responding or bumping into this talk page consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 22:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::OH. ok. sorry abut that. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was not blocked for making disruptive edits I was blocked when pepole challanged me on them, If that were the case this block would have happened much, much sooner When the edits happened. Is this a ban only to my own talk page or across Wikipedia. disregarding other positive contributions? "Disruptive editing Long term tendentious editing and refusal to accept WP:CONSENSUS despite multiple previous blocks. This user appears to be a one-man time sink. Enough." What does that even mean. multiple previous blocks? what once? what does "one man time sink even mean"? one man time sink seems to refer to someone that was TIRELESSLY trying to edit a contentious article years back and having the proof that they were doing it. i post how Kotaku is not trust worthy https://archive.ph/8lcGB. some how talking about the censorship in game. with another journalists perspective is untrust worthy, even though she's also trans herself. you let other people get away with far more than a perma block on wikipedia. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC) |decline = I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
• #understand what you have been blocked for,
• #will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
• #will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed |1=well, I made edits badly formatted, "disruptive" even if it was to include the work of a trans journalist that has been published... and the one cited as a litigimate source and their publication having PROBLEMS. problems I, unfortunately, poorly articulated. for the "multiple blocks" having only two on record and this one being the third I will make sure to make better edits and make better arguments for my citations and the make the case. one of my edits contained a long quote of over 600 words. What i thought was context was considered "overkil" i then tried to reduce it and then re edit the edit. to be more inline with your standards. I found it odd that a journalist with a large body of work and publications, have their youtube channel not be recognized. even when she goes in to detail about very touchy subject with facts and evidence to cite. But you're right i tried, at least i sure did post. And i've yet to see results from that because... i don't know what it is you want. When i posted about kotaku's less than reputiable ness... well i did. as for the "multiple counts". 22:41, 23 June 2025 Ad Orientem talk contribs blocked MisteOsoTruth talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing Long term tendentious editing and refusal to accept WP:CONSENSUS despite multiple previous blocks. This user appears to be a one-man time sink. Enough.) Tag: Twinkle 16:14, 16 May 2024 Drmies talk contribs changed block settings for MisteOsoTruth talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment) Tag: Twinkle 01:53, 30 March 2024 Swatjester talk contribs blocked MisteOsoTruth talk contribs from the pages Sweet Baby Inc. and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. with an expiration time of 2 months (Contentious topic restriction: CTOPS GENSEX restriction) i really have a rough time the term tendentious. because the "block i got" in 'harassing a user'. was mentioning the fact that a certain user was making tendentious edits. non stop. as shown in a log. and those edits still persist to this day as fatuous "truth". when the edits and how the articles stand as they are. are tendentious AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. even against fact. That part i still maintain but the burden still is on me to show it and also not make slapdash or sloppy edits in the future. when i made a repository i suppose i was sloppy and it was hard to understand becasue someone then accused me of saying the FBI invented the term and then told to "spread my nonsense somewhere else". I reacted. I'm sorry I did that. I shouldn't recoil at such accusations.... especially when someone seems to have me confused with "obituary and grave"? I don't know what that is about. as for multiple, yes, two count as multiple. but a one man time sink? ... well what if i were to change and give positive changes. Like how wikipeida was wrong about the inventor of the toaster? i could have done all that with out the glib or the "backsass" on my part. Sadly, with all this you have every reason to think i'm not honest. Even if I was un noticed or said nothing, you have no reason to trust me. It's only fair for you to doubt and think I mean the worst. It's a sad state of affairs but that's what keeps this place going. I'm still trying to figure this out. Still not an excuse. I could probably talk with people on how best to make any edit or if ever. A lot of people were very helpful. sadly the cases and other things. totally frozen. the opinion of another journalist that just so happens to be trans. i can't make the case for her anymore. the fact that a good charity spawned out of something ... can't be said. But instead of just an UNBAN, i'm asking for help. What could be enough for you to even trust me? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC) |decline = Per discussion at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Requesting_Block_Review AN] which after 24 hrs appears to have endorsed the block. Please note you are blocked, not banned and this is w/o prejudice to a future appeal. See WP:SO for discussion on appealing an indefinite block. You will need to wait a minimum of 6 months before requesting a Standard Offer. And given the problematic behavior that has lead to your current block, it is entirely possible that any consideration of an unblock would be conditional on a topic ban. Regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:I have referred your block for review at WP:AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::To be clear, while your block was upheld at WP:AN, that's not the same as an appeal being rejected. You're under no obligation to take the standard offer and can make a new unblock request immediately, if you so choose. You're also free to ask whatever questions you might have about the block or your conduct on Wikipedia - but please, short ones, no walls of text. -- asilvering (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::oh. dang. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I wish to express my thanks for that, I would reply but I don't' think that function works and your userpage said not to leave a comment on your page if you left it on somewhere else.

{{unblock | reason= the very person that initiated the block request said they did so rashly in a later post of their own words from their own account. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:{{u|MisteOsoTruth}}, that one's not going to work - the block has already been upheld at WP:AN. To be unblocked, you're going to have to convince an unblocking admin that you won't be repeating the same behaviour that led to your block. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)