User talk:47.205.180.147

November 2025

Hello, I'm C.Fred, and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Lakewood Church, 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. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lakewood Church. 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. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Lakewood Church. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —C.Fred (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C. Fred,

I apologize if you thought my edits were disruptive. Or my comments about an editor removing my edit without address the disruptive slander that is on the Lakewood page.

I implore you to adhere to the ethical standards expected of Wikimedia employees.

Although you thought my edit was disruptive, it was 100% truthful.

If you or JeffSpaceman felt it should be removed, which I was hoping it would be removed as well, at the very least one the slander it question should have been reviewed as well.

Instead, I prove to you and other users that Wikipedia's editors are allowing slander on the Lakewood article. And you call my post disruptive and let the slander remain visible for all to see.

I understand, I included some facts that make Wikipedia look bad, but you're only proving my point further by allowing the slander to remain on the article, which also did not cite a published existing source.

A simple search of Lakewood's website shows the many forms of charity they offer.

https://www.lakewoodchurch.com/about

I apologize if my comments towards JeffSpaceman were insensitive, they were purely out of frustration. He immediately removed my edit and failed to address the slander.

I hope going forward we can improve upon the accuracy of Lakewood Church's page.

And maybe dive a little deeper as editors to evaluate the merit of a claim and check the source. At the very least the lack of a published source shohld be sufficient to remove the slander in question. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that an author at the Financial Times has intentionally misstated the facts, you will need to provide counter-sources. The material you removed is sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is no published source citing an evidence of Lakewood's budget in the year 2017.

The editor cited the Financial Times article. The finacial times article cited a nonexisting link as evidence of Lakewood's budget.

https://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Give.aspx

Therefore these allegations about Lakewood's budget falls under original research as no reliable, published, existing source is cited to provide evidence of the claims made regarding Lakewood's budget. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally—and especially in situations like this—secondary sources are preferred over the subject's self-published sources. Given the choice of the Financial Times or the church's own claims, FT is clearly the superior source. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The church made no claims about their budget. The article I sent you from their website detailed the many forms of charity the church offers. The claim of only $1.2 million dollars being contributed towards charitable causes is wildly inaccurate. The church itself is a charity. The numerous forms of classes, groups, counseling resources & support, and social events are all charity. The cost of operating a megachurch far exceeds $1.2 million annually. They have nearly $2.5 million visitors annually. The cost of property taxes, the costs of lighting, plumbing, hvac, employing nearly 400 staff members to carry out their charitable work. Their ministry on television, outreach events, weekly services, are all charity.

That is why I was so appauled to see a claim that they spend $1.2 million of their budget on charity. It was incredibly misleading and I believe, in a court of law, would be deemed as slander. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the statement in our article checks out. From the FT article: "According to a Houston Chronicle breakdown of Lakewood’s financial records, the church’s income was $89m in the year ending March 2017. More than 90 per cent of that was raised from church followers. Most of its money was spent on booking TV time, taking Nights of Hope on the road and weekly services. By contrast, Lakewood spent $1.2m — barely 1 per cent of its budget — on charitable causes."[1] —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C. Fred, is it necessary for a source to be cited regarding allegations about Lakewood's budget?

According to you and Wikipedia's policies, yes it is.

The Financial Times article made allegations regarding Lakewood's budget, however, there is no existing published source to substantiate those claims.

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.

There is no published source citing an evidence of Lakewood's budget in the year 2017. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations#:~:text=Organizations%20described%20in%20section%20501,accordance%20with%20Code%20section%20170.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship automatically qualify as 501(c)(3) organizations under the Internal Revenue Code.

Legally, the Lakewood Church is a Charity.

Logically, I have provided evidence of the many forms of charity the church offers. I could listed 100s of different classes, support groups, free literature, charitable programs.

The cost of providing weekly service along with an abundance of support programs to nearly 2.5 million annual visitors far exceeds $1.2 million.

But for some reason, you are so hung up on an allegation made by the Financial Times article, that does not cite evidence of Lakewood's Budget.

You are failing to properly implement Wikipedia's policy regarding Original Research.

"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."

The edit cites an article, which does not cite an published source for the allegations made.

On what basis do you have to susbtantiate your efforts to continuously revert the edit to a claim that is so ergegiously inaccurate? 47.205.180.147 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Please stop reposting your long comments on multiple pages. You do not need to copy a thread's entire conversation history every time you enter a discussion about it on a new page, and you should not be starting so many parallel discussions anyway (see WP:FORUMSHOP). If you want to discuss improvements to an article, please use that article's talk page. Your behaviour is highly disruptive, and if you do not stop you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the article's talk page is important and going forward I will discuss changes on said page. Howevever, the behavior of C.Fred and Acroterion is also disruptive and I have shown multiple times to be in violation of Wikipedia's polices. Instead of engaging in discourse with me, they ignored my responses in which I provided ample evidence to explain to them how they were violating policy and how their revisions were wrong. Acroterion has personally attacked me on multiple occasions through condescending remarks, misrepresented the situation, and they are both attempting to have a moderator implement their desired revision, without presenting any coherent explanation as to why their desired revision should be posted.

I apologize for being disruptive but I do not think it is fair that they can violate policy repeatedly and delete my replies. That is why I reposted them. I spend the time to engage in civil discourse with them, and they simply ignore and delete the replies and request a higher level admin implement their desired edit and misrepresent what I said.

It is clearly a falsehood to state that a megachurch the size of Lakewood which has over 2.5 million annual visitors, spent $1.2 million on charitable endeavors in the year 2017. It is grossly inaccurate and would be considered slander in court.

My entire point is that the revision I made was because the allegation cited no evidence in support of this smear attack, which violates Wikipedia's "Original Research" Policy.

It seems to further I prove my point, the more I advocate on my behalf, the more I am called disruptive, while nobody is responding to the actual validity of my reasoning. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective as someone just coming across this dispute and not familiar with the subject at all, it appears to me to be the other way around. You suggested that information was poorly sourced, but it was not. When other users tried to engage in discussion with you, you did not engage, you just kept restating your original argument over and over. As they tried to explain, your interpretation of policy is not correct: we don't generally require a source considered reliable to explicitly cite and reference all of their information. Being a source considered an authority on a topic and with a reputation for factual reporting is sufficient to satisfy our source requirements in most cases. But besides that, Wikipedia's written policies should not be interpreted as a code of laws: they are a reflection of community consensus and should be interpreted as a starting point to inform discussions between editors, not a final word used to shut down debate. There's an essay called "you can't argue Wikipedia into capitulation" that I like to refer editors to when they make this misinterpretation, and I think you should have a look.

And it turns out that you are also not correct that the original report is not available online. It was not particularly easy to find, and it's behind an adblock paywall, but I have now also added that source to the article.

If you still have issues with the content and would like to discuss, rather than declare that you are correct and refuse to hear any opposing discussion, please start a discussion on the article's talk page when your block expires. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IvanVector,

I did not state that the orignal report was not available online. I stated that the revision in question did not properly cite a source that provided evidence of the allegations made. I'm glad you found the Houston Chronicle article. I found it too prior to this post. As well as another article that provides rough characterizations of Lakewood's Budget during the year 2017: https://www.christianpost.com/news/joel-osteen-lakewood-church-annual-budget-90-million-money-spent.html

The point you and others are missing is that if an allegation is made in an article, simply citing a link to another webpage that repeats the allegation is not evidence of said allegation. For some reason, you and other editors think that somehow this is evidence.

For example, I can post, "Wikipedia is structurally flawed, infects the public with torrents of misinformation, defamation, and corruption." and cite https://wikipediocracy.com/

This source states:

"We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Does this satisfy your requirements for evidence and meet your editorial standards simply because I cited a secondary source?

Or do you think that source is not an "Authority", reverting to your preference for the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

How about now when I link Harvard's take, https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-wikipedia

Harvard cited https://wikipediocracy.com/ in it's article, so, therefore, it must be true.

Now by your standards, I should be free and clear to write an article that Wikipedia is structurally flawed, infects the public with torrents of misinformation, defamation, and corruption.

After all, I cited a source considered to be generally reliable.

Or should I have to provide evidence of the disinformation, defamation, and corruption to make those claims?

I am not sure how high or low the editorial standards are of Wikipedia, but from my recent experience, it goes as far as, well they said so, they're a good source, so if they say it's true, it's true...

Regarding, Lakewood Church, you repeated a slanderous claim from an article written to disparage the church.

Let me inform you, the church itself is legally a charity. The Mental Health Support Groups for depression, anxiety, grief, and anger management, are chartiable endeavors. The Marriage, Family, and Individual Counseling offered by the church is a form of charity. The classes offered on financial literacy, empowerment, advice and support for new mothers, job training & fairs, are all forms of charity. The food and clothing drives, household item giveaways, and free self-help literature are all forms of charity.

The same Budget estimations you pulled from the Houston Chronicle that nefariously characterized only $1.2 million of the 2017 annual budget as going towards charity, deceptively left out that $31.7 million annually was spent on it's weekly services and programs, of which include the various forms of support groups listed above.

Is employing nearly 400 staff members that perform charitable services not money spent on charity? By the way that would fall under the $11.5 million in administrative expenses.

So this whole notion that the $1.2 million allocated towards mission and outreach is the only category of their budget that went to a charitable cause is a gross mischaracterization of how Lakewood Church's budget has been allocated, and is in no doubt slander committed by the Chronicle.

"During the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2017, the megachurch spent $31.7 million on its weekly services and programs, according to Houston Chronicle, which further says $6.7 million was spent on the church's Night of Hope events, and $25.1 million on its television ministry.

For general and administrative expenses, the church used $11.5 million, and another $11.9 million for fundraising. And the remaining $1.2 million was spent on mission and outreach."

-https://www.christianpost.com/news/joel-osteen-lakewood-church-annual-budget-90-million-money-spent.html

Now I have provided ample evidence and thoughfully detailed to you how and why that allegation is false. Should I expect you to label my response as disruptive for being too long? Or is it not posted in the right section? Or will you just ignore and delete it, as the other editiors/admins did, and fail to address any of my points.

For the record Ivan, I did engage in discussion with both C.Fred & Acriterion. I responded to all of their claims. They either stopped responding, or deleted my responses from their user profile. So no, I did not keep restating the same thing. I was scolded for my responses being "too long", while also reemphasizing they are making an allegation without citing a source provding evidence of said allegation, which therefore is "Original Research", because no source was cited providing evidence of the claim. He said, cause she said, cause they said, is not evidence.

Sources of actual merit, like the FOIA request of Lakewood Church's actual annual budget.

This is a real source to support any claims made about how their budget was allocated. It is utterally shocking that you and other admins have subscribed to an absurd notion that he said, cause she said, cause they said, is somehow evidence of an allegation.

Lastly, I did not shut down any debate with my repeated assertion that the revision in question was "Original Research" lacking supporting evidence. I plainly stated that they were violating the editorial standards set forth by Wikipedia's Policy by revising the article without providing evidence of the claim. I then proceeded to provide evidence of why the claim was not factual. You either didn't read my responses because those other editors/admins deleted them, or you choose not to, or you mischaracterized/misinterpereted what actually took place. But I am not going away. I will be able to post on the Lakewood Church's page by Tuesday, and look forward to cleaning up the slander that is currently on display as a result of your actions and failure to fact check your "sources".

Maybe that is why Harvard warns, "Keep in mind that because these sites are user-authored, they are not reliable sources of fact-checked information." Because you did not actually fact check what you posted, you just checked to see if the Houston Chronicle posted it, and for you, that was enough to diseminate misinformation to the public. Maybe you'll flag me for being disruptive again, because for some reason public discourse is disruptive if the rationale is too long. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll shamefully admit that pdf linked is not Lakewood Church's budget, nevertheless, the point I was making still is valid. Until a FOIA requested budget is presented, these allegations are heresay. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for demonstrating that you understand neither FOIA nor WP:Reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand what a charity is and what evidence of an allegation is.

As per usual, you did not respond to almost everything I stated that contradicted your viewpoint. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How I define a charity is irrelevant. I am happy with the journalistic rigour of the Financial Times and the Houston Chronicle, so that's plenty of reliable, independent sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of the definition of charity, or lack thereof, is most definitely relevant when you are publishing an allegation regarding misapproration of funds within a charitable organization.

Let's further examine that journalistic rigour of the Houston Chronicle that you are so happy to label as reliable.

Journalistic Rigour of the Houston Chronicle

Fabricated / Unverifiable Sources (2018)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/houston-chronicle-retracts-stories-reporter-mike-ward-questionable-sources

https://www.imediaethics.org/houston-chronicle-122-sources-cant-be-found-8-stories-retracted

"In 2012, the Chronicle (owned by Hearst Communications) had to review content supplied by the journalism‑outsourcing firm Journatic after it was discovered that more than 350 false bylines had been used on stories published on Chron.com (the Chronicle’s website)"

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/hearst-is-reviewing-journatic-content-after-false-bylines-published-on-houston-chronicle-websites

"In addition to the big 2018 source scandal, there have been broader criticisms of the Chronicle’s journalism standards and oversight"

https://www.columbia.edu/cu/najp/publications/researchreports/66-71Houston2.pdf

"The Houston Chronicle has faced significant challenges with its journalistic integrity. In 2020, the paper faced allegations of publishing articles without properly adhering to its own ethics policy, especially in regards to contacting subjects before publishing negative portrayals. There were also claims suggesting retaliation against individuals for not purchasing advertisements. This trust was further eroded in 2018 when the Chronicle retracted eight articles after it was revealed they were significantly based on sources whose existence could not be verified. An extensive review of the articles penned by Austin bureau chief Mike Ward showed that out of 275 individuals he quoted in various stories, 44% could not be located or confirmed. Beyond the retractions, an additional 64 of Ward's stories required corrections due to the inclusion of unverified sources, further tainting the paper's credibility. This was a result of an examination of 744 stories written by Ward since January 2014, with independent investigators unable to verify the existence of nearly half of the individuals he had quoted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Chronicle#2018_source-fabrication_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Chronicle#Other_controversies

Conveniently, the majority of these alleged controveries, took place around 2018, the same time that article was written about Lakewood Church. It's safe to say there is a significant record of alleged controversy over the Houston Chronicle's journalistic integrity.

So maybe it is important that you actually understand what you are publishing and don't just go with the he said, she said, cause they said method of editing. Might help you avoid future embarrassment. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ivan, I apologize for the harshness of my message. You made some insulting claims in your message to me, I responded inapporiately to some extent, but you made an effort to keep some level of respect towards me and I regret not showing you that same decency. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Allegation

The Houston Chronicle article essentially claims that:

Lakewood Church had an $89 million income in 2017, mostly from followers.

Over 70% of the budget was spent on church broadcasts, weekly services, and traveling shows.

Only $1.2 million of the budget went to “charitable causes.”

The implication here is that Lakewood Church is prioritizing entertainment and self-promotion over charitable work.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Counterpoints

Broader Definition of Charity

Lakewood Church itself is legally a charity.

Many activities that fall under weekly services or programs are inherently charitable, such as:

Mental health support groups (depression, anxiety, grief, anger management)

Marriage, family, and individual counseling

Classes on financial literacy, empowerment, support for new mothers, job training, and fairs

Food, clothing, and household item drives

Free self-help literature

→ Many of these services are embedded in the $31.7 million allocated to “weekly services and programs.”

Administrative and Staff Costs

The $11.5 million in general/admin expenses includes the salaries of nearly 400 staff performing charitable work.

→ Staff salaries for charitable programs are widely recognized as legitimate charitable expenses.

Mischaracterization

By focusing solely on the $1.2 million labeled as “mission and outreach,” the Chronicle ignores the substantial charitable components embedded in other categories of spending.

→ This narrows the definition of charity artificially and misrepresents how funds are used.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Breakdown of the 2017 Budget (According to the Chronicle)

Charitable Nature?

Weekly services & programs

$31.7 million

Yes, includes support groups, counseling, education, and social aid

Night of Hope events

$6.7 million

Partial – outreach events may have charitable components

Television ministry

$25.1 million

Mixed – broadcasting is expensive, but it can serve outreach/education purposes

General/admin

$11.5 million

Yes, includes staff salaries for charitable work

Fundraising

$11.9 million

Not directly charitable, but supports mission operations

Mission & outreach

$1.2 million

Direct charitable spending

If we count the charitable portions of weekly services/programs and admin expenses, the total charitable allocation is far higher than $1.2 million.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Evaluation of the Allegation

Accuracy of Numbers: Accuracy is uncertain - The Chronicle may have accurate figures, but they could also reflect estimates, internal reporting, or selective framing. Until there is verifiable evidence (like an audited report, internal budget disclosure, or an IRS Form 990), the most precise way to present these figures is with the disclaimer: "These numbers have not been independently verified with publicly available filings.”

Accuracy of Interpretation: The interpretation that only $1.2 million went to charity is misleading, because it ignores charitable work embedded in other budget categories and staff salaries.

Slander Claim: Whether this constitutes slander legally is nuanced—it may be more accurate to call it misrepresentation or misleading framing, rather than outright defamation. The Chronicle did not invent numbers, but the framing minimizes the church’s charitable contributions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Conclusion

The Chronicle’s reporting is misleading in context, because it narrowly defines charitable spending and excludes much of the church’s actual charitable activity.

The real charitable contribution is significantly higher when considering staff, programs, and services provided during weekly events and counseling.

This is a classic case of budget framing bias: the same data can tell very different stories depending on how categories are interpreted. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

…an IRS Form 990…

As the organization is a church, they are not required to file a 990, and they are exempt from the requirement to furnish a copy of their 990-T on request. —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The block was in response to the user refusing to discuss the content on the article's talk page and not intended to move the discussion to theirs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The block was in response to the user refusing to discuss the content on the article's talk page and not intended to move the discussion to theirs" - ToBeFree

"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."

I made repeated efforts to discuss the content on my talk page, C.Fred's talk page, and Acreterion's talk page. Acreterion, choose to delete my reply on his page. C.Fred ignored my replies repeatedly. Then they both attempted to strong arm their will of reverting the edit by appealing to higher level admins, without discussing the content.

So I vehemently disagree with your summary of what took place and your reasoning for the block is based on a false narative of what actually took place. ~2025-31317-79 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think C.Fred made a mistake in feeding this conversation in the wrong place instead of moving to Talk:Lakewood Church where other administrators were already asking you to go. There's no way to build a central consensus on a user's talk page, at least not this one here. You, on the other hand, would have had to think and wait 48 hours for the block to expire, which would have been an additional benefit to the discussion. Instead of this, we ended up with an indefinite block and a discussion that ended because IP address talk pages are not longer used. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Fair point. I should not have engaged on topics other than an unblock request while the IP was blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:47.205.180.147 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently failing or refusing to get the point. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]