User talk:Trex473

Welcome!

Hi Trex473! 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! Doug Weller talk 18:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What other accounts have you had?

You know too much to be a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know too much? I hardly know how to run anything. -Trex473

You know about css etc scripts. No new account would know that.Doug Weller talk 18:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

Hello, I'm Toast1454. I noticed that you recently removed content from Alternate history without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Toast1454_T_C 18:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made that edit on purpose. What more do I need to give for credible descriptions? Do I need links? I'll fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trex473 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent bold edit to alternate history was reverted. Let us now discuss this on the talk page. This procedure is known as the BRD cycle. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if we can find a consensus or request a third opinion if we remain in disagreement. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trex473, you appear to be making essentially the same edit at multiple articles and have been repeatedly reverted in each case (1, 2, 3, with the last one being your 3rd attempt on that page alone). Please do not attempt to redo similar such edits on these articles or any others until you've sought and secured WP:CONSENSUS on a relevant talk page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did it - Trex473
Who decided the consensus before? How do we get it started? Wikipedia is supposed to be "diverse and accepting", but it just attacks you as soon as you try to do some good. I am not trying to edit war. - Trex473

I'd suggest actually reading WP:CONSENSUS, and then looking through the talk pages of the articles in question. There was a recent discussion specifically about this question at Talk:Jewish_Indian_theory#erroneous. That having been said, I think that the discussion you've opened at Talk:Alternate_history#Removal_of_Mormon_History is an appropriate way to take this up, and the discussion should just continue there. I would, however, second Doug Weller's concerns that your pattern of editing thus far strongly suggests that you are not a new editor, and you should disclose any prior accounts in order to remain above board as far as accusations of sockpuppetry are concerned. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why am I being assumed to have sock puppetry? I have been on other Wikimedia projects, which I have learned some things from. -Trex473

Using what accounts? Note that using other accounts on other projects would not make you a sock. And please sign your name sith 4 tildes Thanks.Doug Weller talk 19:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. - Trex473 talk 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, what accounts did you use on other projects? Doug Weller talk 19:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to know? Trex473 talk 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Alternate history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Sjö (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an entry on the talk page. No one will go to it. They would rather fight about it. Something needs to be done. I am starting to get angry that no one will discuss anything and they would rather fight it out. Trex473 talk 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It is a blatant lie that no one will go to your entry on the talk page. You have received two replies to your post. You probably disagree with them, but that does not mean that no one has given reasons for why the text should stay. Sjö (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They will not go to the talk pages of the pages themselves though. No one has given reasons for why it should stay the same, they will only attack me. Trex473 talk 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Can we talk about removing the Mormon history from alternate history and remove erroneous from the Jewish American theory? Trex473 talk 12 December 2025 (UTC)

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. Thank you. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC) Sorry, I am not trying to be a vandal. I just want the ideas of other people to be seen. Trex473 talk 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still removing "erroneous" at Jewish Indian theory although it is sourced. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a single person source though. Therefore, anyone can publish an source like that. You just don't want to believe the truth. Trex473 talk 02:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trex473. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2025 (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).

Trex473 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I lost access to my other account. I made a new one to edit. I could not access my old account to "sockpuppet". You can see that I never did any edits on that account after I lost access. Please give me my editing rights back, I am trying to do good for Wikipedia. Trex473 (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious nonsense. Yamla (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2025 (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.

As can be seen in the logs, you most certainly edited on that account after you lost access. On the 14th, you removed content from Jewish Indian theory twice on this account and then after those removals were reverted, you then made the same edit on your other account. That's textbook sockpuppeting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I just realized I was still signed in to the account on a different device. Whatever, I guess I'm permanently banned now. Trex473 (talk) 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll note you also tried to lie to us over at User talk:Account261478, falsely claiming "Why did I get banned for sockpuppeting? I don’t operate any other accounts." You later corrected yourself and noted that you did indeed operate other accounts, but your attempt to deceive us means you've worked hard to destroy any trust you had earned. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2025 (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).

Trex473 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't realize that I was signed in to an account I previously made on a separate device I was making edits on. It was an accident. Please give me another chance. Trex473 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The only possible pathway forward for you is the standard offer- no edits under any account or IP for six months, starting now. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2025 (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.