Welcome!
Hello, Ablust, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Richard C. Zilmer, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{ helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dusti *poke* 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Richard C. Zilmer
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Richard C. Zilmer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Dusti
*poke* 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Richard C. Zilmer
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Richard C. Zilmer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Dusti
*poke* 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Major General Gurganus.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Neutrality talk 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Notice regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Neutrality talk 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read and review Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comments like this and this in edit summaries violate those policies and are not acceptable. Neutrality talk 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Judging by this edit summary, you haven't heeded the advice of Neutrality's above warning and also appear to again be POV pushing, as was the case in the aforementioned diffs. Acalamari 01:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The edits you added to the Hillary Clinton article were removed, and you restored them. I am going to remove them again because any such edits, especially to the lede, need to be discussed and reach consensus before they can be added. I just wanted to warn you I was going to do that, because of the Discretionary Sanctions at that article. If you re-add it again, you would be in violation of the Discretionary Sanctions rules against edit warring and 1RR, and you could be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator as a result. Please come to the talk page, propose some wording, and let's agree on what should be in the lede. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please stop. Wikipedia is
not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to
InfoWars, will be regarded as
vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 03:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 03:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Ablust ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Ian Thompson is clearly inciting his own personal bias/anger in Wikipedia articles, and engaging in Wikipedia:No personal attacks by calling people incompetent and half-brained
Decline reason:
One request at a time. Will answer below. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
- The only reason to remove the material would be failure to understand that:
- CBS is a reliable source.
- The CBS article cited is "Don't get fooled by these fake news sites," with an entry in particular about InfoWars. In short, they identify it as a fake news site. (Also, that is the only citation at that point in the article, but far from the only one.)
- InfoWars is a fake news site to anyone with half a brain.
- Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
How is saying "you have half a brain" not a shining example of your own personal rage/bias (aka NOT credible, neutral facts) and not a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks? People like you are why Wikipedia will never be seen as a credible source by anybody with half a brain.
- Unfortunately, Ablust, we go by reliable sources, as outlined above. Also, there is no personal attack, for a number of reasons which I will gladly spell out. a. it is a well-known phrase in English, meaning something like "to anyone", though the phrase is somewhat abbreviated, with "at least" to be imagined just before "half a brain". b. the phrase is used generally, not of a particular person. c. it's so metaphorical that a literal application would be very odd, though I don't doubt that there is someone, somewhere, who lost half their brain. d. I don't even think Ian.thomson meant to say "you clearly must only have half a brain since you don't accept it as a fake news site"; again, take it metaphorically. And I might add that it is really hard to understand for boring people like me (and maybe Ian.thomson) that someone would take Infowars seriously. Which doesn't mean we're believing you are a crisis actor, of course. Seriously, it was foolish to edit war over this. Drmies ( talk) 03:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)Oh, the classic "this is why no one says Wikipedia is reliable" sour grapes whining. Any editor who knows how things works here knows that Wikipedia fails its own reliable sourcing guidelines -- it's obvious to anyone that it's not a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source, it's a user-generated summary of such sources. InfoWars has long been officially declared an unreliable source for this site. They promote nothing but ridiculous conspiracy theories. If you really think that "InfoWars is fake news" is bias, WP:CIR applies. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Ian Thompson is clearly saying these things from a place of personal bitterness, anybody with "half a brain" is capable of seeing that. It literally even states on his own page that he's a liberal, so he's not really in a position to defend himself as some sort of neutral authority. I'm glad you acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a credible source though, Ian, thus likewise acknowledging that what is posted about Infowars is not "actually" a credible fact, but rather something that is merely being "called" a fact by someone that's got a history of inciting personal bias and just so happens to be in a position of power. If it's so darn obvious that Infowars is a fake news website, please reference for me one specific time a fake news article was published to the site. I see you keep giving me the same redundant articles which basically state nothing more than "well, it is because we say so"... but I don't see a single specific example.
"We go by reliable sources" is what is called the appeal to false authority fallacy. You guys do realize that CBS also has a history of publishing fake news stories, right? RE: Killian documents controversy
Just sayin' :)
- Look, at this point you can either promise to step away from the topic of InfoWars or I can make your block indefinite under WP:NOTHERE. If you don't think that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is fake news, or that conspiracy theories about the Stoneman Douglas HS shooting victims is fake news, then you don't belong here. Ian.thomson ( talk) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Step away from the topic? I see, so you're threatening to censor me after you literally just said censorship isn't allowed here. Got it Ian. This is beyond ridiculous. I am not here to cause any problems, and I have done nothing to violate anything on that list. I've got a totally logical and sound argument when I say that a 24 word paragraph is NOT credible evidence to support a very bold (and frankly false) claim, and I think any college professor would completely agree with me. It appears the only crime I am guilty of is striking a nerve of a very biased and bitter administrator who just so happens to be in a position of power here. Go ahead and censor me then, Ian. This website and other free speech censoring tech companies is the reason why I am a Computer Science major.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 04:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Ablust ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Ian Thompson cannot cite a specific example of any rule I broke. Getting under the skin of an Administrator's personal biases is not a violation of Wikipedia's standards!
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. Please formulate an unblock request after carefully reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. No administrator will consider a request that does nothing but blame another editor for being blocked. Continuing to violate WP:AGF, engage in personal attacks on others, and continue a content dispute rather than dealing with your block may result in revocation of access to this talk page, also. @ Ian.thomson: I recommend you disengage. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
Ablust ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Anachronis, I am not here to cause problems. Ian Thompson literally called me "incompetentent" and "half-brained" without supporting evidence for said claims other than my edit violated his own personal belief about Infowars. Allow me to explain in detail. The citation that was attributed to the claim on Infowars Wiki page DID NOT provide a single piece of credible evidence that Infowars was a fake news site, it is literally a 24 word paragraph in which it does nothing more than merely label Infowars a fake news site, but does not point to any incident that took place. When asked what specific incident of fake news was propagated by Infowars, I was met, not with "here is the specific incident that took place...", but rather "anybody with half a brain can clearly already see that". Speaking of half-brains, it doesn't take a full one to see that no reasonable person would accept that statement as credible evidence. I am hardly an Infowars sycophant, I understand about the Sandy Hook, 911, Pizzagate et. al. conspiracies, but those are conspiracy theories which are directly seperate from "fake news" -- which is the act of deliberately publishing misleading articles. Is Infowars a conspiracy theory hotbed? Most people would surely agree, but labeling it a "fake news" site without credible evidence is libel. I don't care how kooky Infowars or Alex Jones is, nobody is worthy of defamation without supporting evidence, and as it stands there is NO EVIDENCE of Infowars deliberately publishing fake stories. People in the MSM publish opinion pieces all the time without retribution of being labeled fake news for publishing opinion rather than fact, so I see no reason why Infowars cannot do the same, regardless of how out there the opinion may be.
That is my only concern. I am not here to cause problems to any of you. If you can unblock me I will agree to walk away and not engage with this topic again, but I do want it to be understood that my concern with that article stands. Thank you.
Decline reason:
No reviewing administrator is interested in the details of a content dispute. The administrator's role is to protect the stability of the Wikipedia project, and take appropriate steps to prevent disruption. So the reviewing admin (it likely won't be me) will want to know some basic things: that you understand why you are blocked, that you can explain the actions you took that led to you being blocked, and that you make a convincing case that you will not repeat those actions. Furthermore, in this case you haven't demonstrated any understanding of how Wikipedia:Consensus works, or how Wikipedia identifies reliable sources, or even how to establish a consensus about the reliability of a source.
You apparently have views about the reliability of sources that differ from Wikipedia standards, and it's up to you to gain a consensus for your position rather than engage in edit warring or escalate name-calling quarrels. Nothing you have written so far has demonstrated any understanding of the documents I linked. While it's commendable that you agree to a topic ban regarding that one article (and you should mention that in a subsequent appeal), nothing you have written will give an administrator confidence that you won't resume disrupting the Wikipedia project in other articles. Put yourself in an administrator's place, whose only concern is "will this user be a net benefit for the Wikipedia project and not disrupt it further?" and formulate an appeal to address admin concerns, not your content dispute or the behavior of others. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
- I concur with this and would have been prepared to decline with the same rationale. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Ablust, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Richard C. Zilmer, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{ helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dusti *poke* 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Richard C. Zilmer
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Richard C. Zilmer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Dusti
*poke* 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Richard C. Zilmer
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Richard C. Zilmer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Dusti
*poke* 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Major General Gurganus.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Neutrality talk 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Notice regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Neutrality talk 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read and review Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comments like this and this in edit summaries violate those policies and are not acceptable. Neutrality talk 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Judging by this edit summary, you haven't heeded the advice of Neutrality's above warning and also appear to again be POV pushing, as was the case in the aforementioned diffs. Acalamari 01:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The edits you added to the Hillary Clinton article were removed, and you restored them. I am going to remove them again because any such edits, especially to the lede, need to be discussed and reach consensus before they can be added. I just wanted to warn you I was going to do that, because of the Discretionary Sanctions at that article. If you re-add it again, you would be in violation of the Discretionary Sanctions rules against edit warring and 1RR, and you could be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator as a result. Please come to the talk page, propose some wording, and let's agree on what should be in the lede. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please stop. Wikipedia is
not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to
InfoWars, will be regarded as
vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 03:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 03:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Ablust ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Ian Thompson is clearly inciting his own personal bias/anger in Wikipedia articles, and engaging in Wikipedia:No personal attacks by calling people incompetent and half-brained
Decline reason:
One request at a time. Will answer below. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
- The only reason to remove the material would be failure to understand that:
- CBS is a reliable source.
- The CBS article cited is "Don't get fooled by these fake news sites," with an entry in particular about InfoWars. In short, they identify it as a fake news site. (Also, that is the only citation at that point in the article, but far from the only one.)
- InfoWars is a fake news site to anyone with half a brain.
- Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
How is saying "you have half a brain" not a shining example of your own personal rage/bias (aka NOT credible, neutral facts) and not a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks? People like you are why Wikipedia will never be seen as a credible source by anybody with half a brain.
- Unfortunately, Ablust, we go by reliable sources, as outlined above. Also, there is no personal attack, for a number of reasons which I will gladly spell out. a. it is a well-known phrase in English, meaning something like "to anyone", though the phrase is somewhat abbreviated, with "at least" to be imagined just before "half a brain". b. the phrase is used generally, not of a particular person. c. it's so metaphorical that a literal application would be very odd, though I don't doubt that there is someone, somewhere, who lost half their brain. d. I don't even think Ian.thomson meant to say "you clearly must only have half a brain since you don't accept it as a fake news site"; again, take it metaphorically. And I might add that it is really hard to understand for boring people like me (and maybe Ian.thomson) that someone would take Infowars seriously. Which doesn't mean we're believing you are a crisis actor, of course. Seriously, it was foolish to edit war over this. Drmies ( talk) 03:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)Oh, the classic "this is why no one says Wikipedia is reliable" sour grapes whining. Any editor who knows how things works here knows that Wikipedia fails its own reliable sourcing guidelines -- it's obvious to anyone that it's not a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source, it's a user-generated summary of such sources. InfoWars has long been officially declared an unreliable source for this site. They promote nothing but ridiculous conspiracy theories. If you really think that "InfoWars is fake news" is bias, WP:CIR applies. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Ian Thompson is clearly saying these things from a place of personal bitterness, anybody with "half a brain" is capable of seeing that. It literally even states on his own page that he's a liberal, so he's not really in a position to defend himself as some sort of neutral authority. I'm glad you acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a credible source though, Ian, thus likewise acknowledging that what is posted about Infowars is not "actually" a credible fact, but rather something that is merely being "called" a fact by someone that's got a history of inciting personal bias and just so happens to be in a position of power. If it's so darn obvious that Infowars is a fake news website, please reference for me one specific time a fake news article was published to the site. I see you keep giving me the same redundant articles which basically state nothing more than "well, it is because we say so"... but I don't see a single specific example.
"We go by reliable sources" is what is called the appeal to false authority fallacy. You guys do realize that CBS also has a history of publishing fake news stories, right? RE: Killian documents controversy
Just sayin' :)
- Look, at this point you can either promise to step away from the topic of InfoWars or I can make your block indefinite under WP:NOTHERE. If you don't think that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is fake news, or that conspiracy theories about the Stoneman Douglas HS shooting victims is fake news, then you don't belong here. Ian.thomson ( talk) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Step away from the topic? I see, so you're threatening to censor me after you literally just said censorship isn't allowed here. Got it Ian. This is beyond ridiculous. I am not here to cause any problems, and I have done nothing to violate anything on that list. I've got a totally logical and sound argument when I say that a 24 word paragraph is NOT credible evidence to support a very bold (and frankly false) claim, and I think any college professor would completely agree with me. It appears the only crime I am guilty of is striking a nerve of a very biased and bitter administrator who just so happens to be in a position of power here. Go ahead and censor me then, Ian. This website and other free speech censoring tech companies is the reason why I am a Computer Science major.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 04:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Ablust ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Ian Thompson cannot cite a specific example of any rule I broke. Getting under the skin of an Administrator's personal biases is not a violation of Wikipedia's standards!
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. Please formulate an unblock request after carefully reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. No administrator will consider a request that does nothing but blame another editor for being blocked. Continuing to violate WP:AGF, engage in personal attacks on others, and continue a content dispute rather than dealing with your block may result in revocation of access to this talk page, also. @ Ian.thomson: I recommend you disengage. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
Ablust ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Anachronis, I am not here to cause problems. Ian Thompson literally called me "incompetentent" and "half-brained" without supporting evidence for said claims other than my edit violated his own personal belief about Infowars. Allow me to explain in detail. The citation that was attributed to the claim on Infowars Wiki page DID NOT provide a single piece of credible evidence that Infowars was a fake news site, it is literally a 24 word paragraph in which it does nothing more than merely label Infowars a fake news site, but does not point to any incident that took place. When asked what specific incident of fake news was propagated by Infowars, I was met, not with "here is the specific incident that took place...", but rather "anybody with half a brain can clearly already see that". Speaking of half-brains, it doesn't take a full one to see that no reasonable person would accept that statement as credible evidence. I am hardly an Infowars sycophant, I understand about the Sandy Hook, 911, Pizzagate et. al. conspiracies, but those are conspiracy theories which are directly seperate from "fake news" -- which is the act of deliberately publishing misleading articles. Is Infowars a conspiracy theory hotbed? Most people would surely agree, but labeling it a "fake news" site without credible evidence is libel. I don't care how kooky Infowars or Alex Jones is, nobody is worthy of defamation without supporting evidence, and as it stands there is NO EVIDENCE of Infowars deliberately publishing fake stories. People in the MSM publish opinion pieces all the time without retribution of being labeled fake news for publishing opinion rather than fact, so I see no reason why Infowars cannot do the same, regardless of how out there the opinion may be.
That is my only concern. I am not here to cause problems to any of you. If you can unblock me I will agree to walk away and not engage with this topic again, but I do want it to be understood that my concern with that article stands. Thank you.
Decline reason:
No reviewing administrator is interested in the details of a content dispute. The administrator's role is to protect the stability of the Wikipedia project, and take appropriate steps to prevent disruption. So the reviewing admin (it likely won't be me) will want to know some basic things: that you understand why you are blocked, that you can explain the actions you took that led to you being blocked, and that you make a convincing case that you will not repeat those actions. Furthermore, in this case you haven't demonstrated any understanding of how Wikipedia:Consensus works, or how Wikipedia identifies reliable sources, or even how to establish a consensus about the reliability of a source.
You apparently have views about the reliability of sources that differ from Wikipedia standards, and it's up to you to gain a consensus for your position rather than engage in edit warring or escalate name-calling quarrels. Nothing you have written so far has demonstrated any understanding of the documents I linked. While it's commendable that you agree to a topic ban regarding that one article (and you should mention that in a subsequent appeal), nothing you have written will give an administrator confidence that you won't resume disrupting the Wikipedia project in other articles. Put yourself in an administrator's place, whose only concern is "will this user be a net benefit for the Wikipedia project and not disrupt it further?" and formulate an appeal to address admin concerns, not your content dispute or the behavior of others. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
- I concur with this and would have been prepared to decline with the same rationale. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)