|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Ricardo Cobo has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Ricardo Cobo was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ5XRfKccoo) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
08:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Intellectual Property Theft! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC) |
Re this. Wikipedia uses sentence case in headers, see MOS:HEADCAPS. Also are you aware that using all caps, as in your edit summary, is construed as shouting? Bishonen | talk 10:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC).
-- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 9 August 2018 (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. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC).
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks you for the info. Yes, people keep changing it. And the problem is it's different people who are doing it. I'm trying to bring it up on the pages talk, but people just want to switch it right back without consensus. If you check the pages talk, there is some consensus for my preferred edit, and some against. It's obviously a political issue. People who edit in content like that are violating the NPOV policy.
It appears you're quickly heading for a block. You should stick to only discussion for a while, no matter how right you think your edit might be. When a consensus has been achieved, let others make the edit. That's the safe way to play this until you get the hang of it. Do everything you can to keep a clean (empty) block log. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason to assume I don't understand the 3RR rule. I refrained from editing once it was mentioned. I think everyone should refer here: Biographies of living persons. Whoever put the "fake news" claim in the article was contentiously using a neologism that was poorly sourced. This is pure violation, and WP clearly states that this kind of content "should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion". Not only did I remove the contentious neologism, I did wait for discussion. In fact, I shouldn't have had to wait for discussion. The users that keep undoing my edit, frankly, are the ones violating WP's policy. FYI, I did not change the first sentence as I wanted to. I am waiting for consensus on that. I know I'm a novice, but TBH, most of your complaints about my edits are behind in research. -- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 23:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Which part is incorrect? –– This seems to be more a problem on divisiveness than novelty. Many users will argue with my POV. And many have. I don't think there is any major part of my argument that is incorrect. -- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the project. I had a chance to look over your user page, and having read it I'd like you to take a quick look when you have time at our policy on user page content. In particular the section, which I have linked to which advises against the use of promotional content. In the text you have written you appear to have advocated for a political position and a viewpoint which is not aligned with the community purpose, which is to build an encyclopedia.
After having read the above policy on user page guidelines, I'm sure you will think of lots of community related material to put on your user page, so that other editors know what kind of thing you are willing to collaborate on.
Many thanks
Edaham ( talk) 05:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia. Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.. Most of what you have written appears to be a stance against a political party. I was concerned that if other editors here read it, they might assume some kind of advocacy on your part, particularly as you seem to be editing mostly politically oriented articles. There's no need to change it if you are sure its OK. Edaham ( talk) 07:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I am hearing different things. Not sure what the problem is. I hope I'm not breaking the rules. Can someone provide me with specific examples of where I might have broken them? Could it possibly be the communism reference in my page? -- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 08:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I noticed the new user page update. I would only like to encourage you to also assume good faith in other editors, instead of accusing them or attributing opinionated motives. These arguments are also not new and I understand where they come from, however. Please look at the editing history of various editors you disagree with; it may show that they are not single-purpose accounts obsessed with particular topics but that they have wide interests. There are many tasks people can perform to support the encyclopedia, if they care about it ( WP:HERE). This is likely also true for you: it's often best to move on to more productive matters if getting discouraged in one area. I personally generally avoid editing politics related articles. Some articles are way more difficult to work on than others and have been the result of long community processes; that's not necessarily representative of all articles, of course. — Paleo Neonate – 15:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I made the statement of unconscious bias to assume good faith. The reason for that paragraph is that that's what I perceived on Alex Jones' page and Infowars' page. I will take your advice and observe more articles, however. I don't want to be incorrect. In the future, I will better refine my page. But not today. I better get some sleep...-- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 16:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You are heading towards a state of wp:tendentious, as=and this will not go well. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK until you can actually come up with RS that actually say "not fake news". Slatersteven ( talk) 11:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Slatersteven (
talk)
14:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
If you would like to change your name per the concerns expressed at ANI (a block and/or account recreation is unnecessary) you can request it via WP:NAMECHANGE#Venues. — Paleo Neonate – 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Well this seems to imply it is fake news [7], this says "fake news" is a related topic, Infowars is a fake new site [8], as does this [9], this also makes the link between being fake news site and its taking down [10], this says the ban was a blow against fake news [11]. How about spreading fake news? [12]. Publishes fake news stories [13].
Now for some more definite ones these all say it is a fake news site [14], [15].
Of course this leave out all the ones that call it False or made up or any other euphemism for fake. I could find more if I tried. The simple fact is you have no sources that say it is not fake news, some that do not say anything and some that say it is (in one way or another). Slatersteven ( talk) 09:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
And the first paragraph of NPOPV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" The only expressed view point is that it is fake new. Not saying something is not expressing a viewpoint. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Websites which often spread fake news are often referred to as fake news by RS. Yes, that's a bit lazy, but that's what happens.
The "neologism" argument should be avoided, as it's a distraction, at least in this case. Myriad RS use the term as daily speech, and we document what RS say (even if they were to use a real neologism). The term was in use long before Trump, but was popularized by him in his deceptive attacks on serious journalists who try to get it right. He constantly misuses the term to mean (roughly) "anything which makes me look bad, even if it's unquestionably true, and no matter how often and publicly it's proven to be true, I'll still gaslight my supporters by calling it fake news".
RS often document his misuse of the term, and unreliable sources, the ones he and his supporters like, usually misapply the term to describe real, accurate, news. RS also mention proper use of the term to mean actual false news, such as the Macedonian sources; false stories spread by InfoWars, Daily Caller, Breitbart, and even Fox News; Russian-produced FB and Twitter stories spread by right-wing websites, etc.
Nearly any statement can be considered an opinion, but if the opinion harmonizes with reality, it's also a factual statement, and we treat it as fact, not as opinion. There are criteria used to determine whether a statement or news story is factual/true, disingenuous, and/or fake. It's critical that all editors here master and understand the art of vetting sources and knowing, without any doubt, whether such things are true or not. In that process, some things remain in a gray zone. When in doubt, check with experienced editors (and avoid fringe editors, even if they're experienced). Also use the major fact checking websites. They are the gold standard and are considered very RS here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 11:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
NPOV says "avoid stating opinions as facts". Very, very few sources say that Infowars is dedicated to false information. They just refer to particular stories. But no one seems to address my point that fake news is not really a real term. It's not listed as one in a dictionary. It's defined as a neologism. WP wouldn't say "Infowars' news is fake". I'm trying to be convinced, and I was about "conspiracy theorist", but I can't with the fake news thing. Anyway, I'll take your advice and seek other opinions from EP's. I will probably ask to be mentored. I know we've all had crazy disputes with each other that went kind of far, but I'd like you to know I don't mind other constructive criticism from anyone here or elsewhere (although I may still disagree). Remember, I'm mainly here on WP to edit modern classical music articles and various political articles (perhaps less than originally intended). I just realized that the Bush 43 article had extremely insufficient citations, so I'll focus on adding those. -- GDP ( talk) 12:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi GDP Growth! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
I see that you are again engaging in a low level edit war and misusing (or misunderstanding) what consensus is over at Alex Jones. Also one source (as you found) is not more then 4 (as I found) (normally claiming you have found a majority of sources means you have to have provided at least 1 more then the other side). It might be best if you were to ask for a mentor to take a look at any reverts you propose to make sure they do meet our polices (or to quote policy at people). Slatersteven ( talk) 08:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi GDP Growth! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi there GDP Growth, I figured I'd give you an explanation here. The reason @ MPants at work: reverted your edit is because the request was already hatted. Putting it into a different hat doesn't make it any more or less hatted, but does clutter up the page. And telling you that should hardly constitute something worthy of offense. Suggest you assume good faith with administrative revisions like this, and also don't insert new comments into a closed thread. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously, choose better sources and have better assumptions (good editors use far more than just CNN). You just listed some unreliable sources which should never appear here, even on a talk page. That you even looked at them is worrying: Daily Caller, Washington Times, Daily Wire, and a bunch of YouTube videos. Even Fox News should be used with caution for political subjects, it's that partisan. Even the RS were cherry picked. I'm not even sure if you actually believe some of those stories, or, if they're true, that it makes any difference. You just threw them at us.
If you want to criticize RS, that's easy. Anyone can do it, because all sources make occasional mistakes, and cherry picking those instances doesn't help your case. What counts is how often they do it, whether they consistently fact check, and how they deal with their mistakes. That's what separates the RS from the unreliable ones. Why not criticize the unreliable ones? You'll convince us better if you do. By failing to do so, you seem to be implying that they are better than RS. That won't fly here.
You may benefit from studying my admittedly rough and unfinished Reliable sources stash. There you'll find lists of reliable and unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to add WSJ to my list.I subscribe to both the WSJ and NYT. The WSJ editorial page is slightly to the right of Mussolini; but I have used the news section as a reliable source, although it’s news content has suffered somewhat since Murdoch bought the paper and cut staff. Keep in mind we are not here to push a POV. I think that Fox and Jones are laughable as sources and aren't news at all. Fox, according to some of its own commentators, has become a pure propaganda arm of the GOP. But, I just removed negative text from the Fox article, and removed negative text from the Alex Jones article yesterday. O3000 ( talk) 12:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
fiscal conservatism to authoritarianism, .... O3000 ( talk) 23:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you trying to get yourself blocked or banned? You didn't even try a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page first. That's what you should have done first. You should withdraw that nomination, as it will only cause disruption and get you in trouble. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I have a good faith hypothesis which could perhaps explain some of the endless argument issues. Other than article talk pages which are not a forum (you already know this by now), Wikipedia is not a social network ( WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK). Since the main goal of editing is to improve the encyclopedia (this includes writing and improving articles, patrolling, consensus forming, etc.), chatting is of secondary importance. There are better venues for debates including usenet, blogs, social media networks, etc. On Wikipedia, to discuss or assess the reliability of a source, we have WP:RSN (its archives can also be searched). We have such public noticeboards and archives for many things so that we don't need to keep going round in circles. Socializing is fine because we work with others, but is not the main point of the project. In case this could help, — Paleo Neonate – 11:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The way I see it, there's two possibilities. Either you are so competence challenged that you cannot make your way about this encyclopaedia in a manner useful to the project, or you are intentionally trolling us all. Either way, you have wasted enough of our collective time. Courcelles ( talk) 11:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
GDP, a word of advice, if you appeal make sure you do so in the right way and for the right reasons. Do not use whataboutism. You must only talk about your actions, and why this block is unfair. Anything else and it will not pass muster. In a way an appeal is your chance to show you have got what people are saying. I am trying to be fair here and give you advice. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey Slatersteven. I really appreciate you taking a bit of time to give advice. To be honest, I'm really genuinely perplexed. I'm not trying to troll by saying that. I just am and that's me being honest. I have not made an appeal yet, as I thought there is little chance. Not trying to draw pity, but I can sometimes have some trouble telling whether my messages are perceived as trolling, etc, as the admins said. I was certainly not trying to, but I would also like to apologize to any administrators (who are reading this) who may have gotten my message wrong, or have felt as I have been trolling. One admin accused me of filing a false accusation, even though I showed the links. Maybe my frantic and overkill defense was problematic. Perhaps I will go ahead and appeal. If you have any other recommendations, let me know. Also, if you don't mind me asking, do you think the block was fair? No pressure. Thanks, -GDP ⇧ 11:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see below: As you can not reply on my talk page, I am copying this here. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This had originally deleted by a friendly talk-page watcher. I am thankful for every second that other people help me to save for answering serious requests, and removing personal attacks is very welcome. Especially requesting revision-deletion of severe attacks is definitely very helpful. However, I do respond even to requests that other people might consider to be silly or lacking even the most basic competence that is required for editing Wikipedia. Unless someone personally attacks specific editors or sends a message that can not be normally replied to, I often prefer to keep these messages.
In this specific case, the user who sent the message has later been blocked for allegedly being either "competence challenged" or "intentionally trolling us all". See
the block log for reference.
Blocking someone for an alleged lack of competence is perhaps the most problematic and controversial type of blocking to do. I personally would avoid ever doing this. There are experienced administrators who are willing to do this, and they do a good job, but this specific type of block is extremely problematic in my eyes. Blocking someone based solely on the "
Competence is required" essay (!) will always be controversial, and enforcing such a block retroactively is definitely not something I will do on my talk page.
In a nutshell, thank you very much, and do feel free to continue helping, but this specific message really has a right to stay.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
You were very helpful, but some people are not. I'm about to be blocked for that nomination after users that have JUST WP:BULLY'd me complained and lied about arbitrary things. See my thread and my rebuttals on ANI titled: "I'm being accused of being a vandal". Three admins are now in the process of blocking me and refusing to give reasons. After posting this post, look what this user did on ANI after that. (Sorry, the ANI link is not working). I even have a new WP:MENTOR that recently said I'm WP:HERE. Oh well. Like I said, this started spiraling downhill after I said I watch Fox News. After just saying that too on that admin's page, they've now changed their mind and is now also blocking me instead of defending me. I am upset and think I will soon just get rid of my account and leave. I would like to report this incident to the bureaucrats that run WP, but I'm not sure where to go. I'll be looking around for that. -GDP ⇧ 09:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
"This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#I am being accused of vandalism. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
GDP Growth, I found out about your ban on the Alex Jones talkpage, so how is your situation? Can you still make edits? And no, I am completely opposed to Alex Jones, but I do find your ban to be harsh. 138.75.40.151 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
We are not stupid you know. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said we are not stoopid, I suggest you do not attempt this again, though I now suspect it is way too late, you are not going top be allowed back now. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
GDP, you were asked to make a plain statement, not to apologize. Maybe you ha be not understood so lets try again. You were blocked for prevarication, for continuing to not agree to conditions but rather just continuing to make non committal statements. You are doing the same again. Your only option now is just to post "Yes I agree to all of the above without caveat". If you post anything else I suspect you will lose any friends you have here. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
________________________________________________________________
Done.
-GDP
⇧
02:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Now it's beddy bed time in the UK?? =) It's like 5:30am =) byteflush Talk 04:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I hope this is not too off-topic, but does a block/ban apply to all Wikimedia, or just WP? -GDP ⇧ 21:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Well Simon, I suppose this is a good time to make the appeal? -GDP ⇧ 09:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}
. I personally will wait for this submission before asking more questions. There may be a longer discussion; the "unblock" template in a new section is a good way to start it.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)GDP Growth ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I obviously jumped way into the deep end in WP upon joining. Simon was kind enough to agree to start to mentor me once he would return from a break from WP. I did not get that the point of a mentor was to ask questions about most edits before posting them. What led to my block was an AfD nomination, and spurious use of ANI, which is tantamount to blanking the entire page, setting the WP server on fire and then having it sucked into a black hole. One admin linked a pie chart showing how my editing was proportioned. I thus realized that I was also contributing way too much to TP's. I should have waited for my mentor to get back from his break before all these actions. I hope no one really thinks that I'm trolling anyone. Simon advised me to accept a 1 year voluntary topic ban. Honestly, I don't think it's necessary, but if the admins think it is, then I can definitely agree to not edit current politics and political media topics, broadly construed, for until August, 2019. -GDP ⇧ 02:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Indeffed because there is either such a CIR problem nothing can solve it in a reasonable amount of time, or we've all fallen for an elaborate troll job.The explanations that were given at that ANI test the limits of good faith, even if given in a seemingly civil way, and honestly reading through the ANI, it sounded just like this unblock appeal.Before unblocking you should take at least 6 months off from the time of your initial block (So that means no editing until around February 2019) and then consider the standard offer, which I'll take the time to point out is not a right for you to be unblocked after 6 months, but an rather an opportunity for you to demonstrate to the community that you have learned from your mistakes. Finally, this might just be me, but I've gotten to the point where I'm rather cynical about mentorship as a condition for unblocking: it can be helpful, but at the end of the day, you need to be able to demonstrate that you won't be disruptive.Also, as advice going forward, the instant you understand how to appeal to the ideas in WP:BITE, whether you link to it or not, is the second you know enough about Wikipedia for it not to apply to you. Focusing on being new and needing help and mentoring rather than discussing what you did, what you have learned, and what you will do in the future to avoid it will not get you unblocked. You need to be able to explain those three things in a way that makes it clear that you, not anyone else, gets it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:26, 21 October 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.
GDP Growth ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I suppose it's been about 6 months since I was blocked. You can see the above request. I hope this shows that I'm here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks, -GDP ⇧ 04:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm a bit worried by
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake news (2nd nomination). This was a stunningly bad nomination. Everyone makes bad judgments at AfD sometimes, but you said that
Fake news "uses sources that are the typical suspects of 'fake news'
". That makes me think that you have no idea how to identify a
reliable source. You can't edit Wikipedia without understanding how to identify reliable sources. So, please make a new unblock request that shows you can.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
07:42, 12 March 2019 (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.
GDP Growth ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I should have explained further. I honestly am not sure that I can make that judgement now. I thought I did before and it turned out bad. Therefor, I accept a topic ban from post 1932 politics, and when/if the ban is lifted, I will seek advice from a mentor or experienced user to make sure I know how to make that distinction. I think all the users I know here are recommending that I be unblocked with a TB. They are nice people and will help me through the process of of building up my judgement. -GDP ⇧ 16:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I will give you a chance as you have agreed to a topic ban as described on this page, appealable after six months. Good luck, and don't hesitate to ask for help or assistance. 331dot ( talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects.GDPG, I thought you intended to edit other projects, since you asked if you were allowed to [37] (I told you yes). I, at least, find it difficult to assess your improvement as an editor when you haven't edited anything. Your statement that you intend to take the advice of WP:ROPE doesn't help much either. What advice? WP:ROPE contains advice for admins, AFAICS — not advice for you. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC).
Oh, thank you for the ping. I think the only thing I should add is that I have already supported an unblock for exactly the same reasons 6 months ago. This has not changed. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, I have a good feeling about you.
If there is anything at all I can do to help, please drop me a line on my talk page. In particular, if you get into a conflict, I will be happy to tell you if the other person is being disruptive (or perhaps that you are the one who is being disruptive) and advising you on how to deal with the situation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Ricardo Cobo has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Ricardo Cobo was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ5XRfKccoo) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
08:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Intellectual Property Theft! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC) |
Re this. Wikipedia uses sentence case in headers, see MOS:HEADCAPS. Also are you aware that using all caps, as in your edit summary, is construed as shouting? Bishonen | talk 10:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC).
-- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 9 August 2018 (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. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC).
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks you for the info. Yes, people keep changing it. And the problem is it's different people who are doing it. I'm trying to bring it up on the pages talk, but people just want to switch it right back without consensus. If you check the pages talk, there is some consensus for my preferred edit, and some against. It's obviously a political issue. People who edit in content like that are violating the NPOV policy.
It appears you're quickly heading for a block. You should stick to only discussion for a while, no matter how right you think your edit might be. When a consensus has been achieved, let others make the edit. That's the safe way to play this until you get the hang of it. Do everything you can to keep a clean (empty) block log. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason to assume I don't understand the 3RR rule. I refrained from editing once it was mentioned. I think everyone should refer here: Biographies of living persons. Whoever put the "fake news" claim in the article was contentiously using a neologism that was poorly sourced. This is pure violation, and WP clearly states that this kind of content "should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion". Not only did I remove the contentious neologism, I did wait for discussion. In fact, I shouldn't have had to wait for discussion. The users that keep undoing my edit, frankly, are the ones violating WP's policy. FYI, I did not change the first sentence as I wanted to. I am waiting for consensus on that. I know I'm a novice, but TBH, most of your complaints about my edits are behind in research. -- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 23:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Which part is incorrect? –– This seems to be more a problem on divisiveness than novelty. Many users will argue with my POV. And many have. I don't think there is any major part of my argument that is incorrect. -- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the project. I had a chance to look over your user page, and having read it I'd like you to take a quick look when you have time at our policy on user page content. In particular the section, which I have linked to which advises against the use of promotional content. In the text you have written you appear to have advocated for a political position and a viewpoint which is not aligned with the community purpose, which is to build an encyclopedia.
After having read the above policy on user page guidelines, I'm sure you will think of lots of community related material to put on your user page, so that other editors know what kind of thing you are willing to collaborate on.
Many thanks
Edaham ( talk) 05:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia. Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.. Most of what you have written appears to be a stance against a political party. I was concerned that if other editors here read it, they might assume some kind of advocacy on your part, particularly as you seem to be editing mostly politically oriented articles. There's no need to change it if you are sure its OK. Edaham ( talk) 07:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I am hearing different things. Not sure what the problem is. I hope I'm not breaking the rules. Can someone provide me with specific examples of where I might have broken them? Could it possibly be the communism reference in my page? -- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 08:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I noticed the new user page update. I would only like to encourage you to also assume good faith in other editors, instead of accusing them or attributing opinionated motives. These arguments are also not new and I understand where they come from, however. Please look at the editing history of various editors you disagree with; it may show that they are not single-purpose accounts obsessed with particular topics but that they have wide interests. There are many tasks people can perform to support the encyclopedia, if they care about it ( WP:HERE). This is likely also true for you: it's often best to move on to more productive matters if getting discouraged in one area. I personally generally avoid editing politics related articles. Some articles are way more difficult to work on than others and have been the result of long community processes; that's not necessarily representative of all articles, of course. — Paleo Neonate – 15:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I made the statement of unconscious bias to assume good faith. The reason for that paragraph is that that's what I perceived on Alex Jones' page and Infowars' page. I will take your advice and observe more articles, however. I don't want to be incorrect. In the future, I will better refine my page. But not today. I better get some sleep...-- Intellectual Property Theft ( talk) 16:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You are heading towards a state of wp:tendentious, as=and this will not go well. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK until you can actually come up with RS that actually say "not fake news". Slatersteven ( talk) 11:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Slatersteven (
talk)
14:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
If you would like to change your name per the concerns expressed at ANI (a block and/or account recreation is unnecessary) you can request it via WP:NAMECHANGE#Venues. — Paleo Neonate – 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Well this seems to imply it is fake news [7], this says "fake news" is a related topic, Infowars is a fake new site [8], as does this [9], this also makes the link between being fake news site and its taking down [10], this says the ban was a blow against fake news [11]. How about spreading fake news? [12]. Publishes fake news stories [13].
Now for some more definite ones these all say it is a fake news site [14], [15].
Of course this leave out all the ones that call it False or made up or any other euphemism for fake. I could find more if I tried. The simple fact is you have no sources that say it is not fake news, some that do not say anything and some that say it is (in one way or another). Slatersteven ( talk) 09:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
And the first paragraph of NPOPV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" The only expressed view point is that it is fake new. Not saying something is not expressing a viewpoint. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Websites which often spread fake news are often referred to as fake news by RS. Yes, that's a bit lazy, but that's what happens.
The "neologism" argument should be avoided, as it's a distraction, at least in this case. Myriad RS use the term as daily speech, and we document what RS say (even if they were to use a real neologism). The term was in use long before Trump, but was popularized by him in his deceptive attacks on serious journalists who try to get it right. He constantly misuses the term to mean (roughly) "anything which makes me look bad, even if it's unquestionably true, and no matter how often and publicly it's proven to be true, I'll still gaslight my supporters by calling it fake news".
RS often document his misuse of the term, and unreliable sources, the ones he and his supporters like, usually misapply the term to describe real, accurate, news. RS also mention proper use of the term to mean actual false news, such as the Macedonian sources; false stories spread by InfoWars, Daily Caller, Breitbart, and even Fox News; Russian-produced FB and Twitter stories spread by right-wing websites, etc.
Nearly any statement can be considered an opinion, but if the opinion harmonizes with reality, it's also a factual statement, and we treat it as fact, not as opinion. There are criteria used to determine whether a statement or news story is factual/true, disingenuous, and/or fake. It's critical that all editors here master and understand the art of vetting sources and knowing, without any doubt, whether such things are true or not. In that process, some things remain in a gray zone. When in doubt, check with experienced editors (and avoid fringe editors, even if they're experienced). Also use the major fact checking websites. They are the gold standard and are considered very RS here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 11:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
NPOV says "avoid stating opinions as facts". Very, very few sources say that Infowars is dedicated to false information. They just refer to particular stories. But no one seems to address my point that fake news is not really a real term. It's not listed as one in a dictionary. It's defined as a neologism. WP wouldn't say "Infowars' news is fake". I'm trying to be convinced, and I was about "conspiracy theorist", but I can't with the fake news thing. Anyway, I'll take your advice and seek other opinions from EP's. I will probably ask to be mentored. I know we've all had crazy disputes with each other that went kind of far, but I'd like you to know I don't mind other constructive criticism from anyone here or elsewhere (although I may still disagree). Remember, I'm mainly here on WP to edit modern classical music articles and various political articles (perhaps less than originally intended). I just realized that the Bush 43 article had extremely insufficient citations, so I'll focus on adding those. -- GDP ( talk) 12:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi GDP Growth! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
I see that you are again engaging in a low level edit war and misusing (or misunderstanding) what consensus is over at Alex Jones. Also one source (as you found) is not more then 4 (as I found) (normally claiming you have found a majority of sources means you have to have provided at least 1 more then the other side). It might be best if you were to ask for a mentor to take a look at any reverts you propose to make sure they do meet our polices (or to quote policy at people). Slatersteven ( talk) 08:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi GDP Growth! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi there GDP Growth, I figured I'd give you an explanation here. The reason @ MPants at work: reverted your edit is because the request was already hatted. Putting it into a different hat doesn't make it any more or less hatted, but does clutter up the page. And telling you that should hardly constitute something worthy of offense. Suggest you assume good faith with administrative revisions like this, and also don't insert new comments into a closed thread. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously, choose better sources and have better assumptions (good editors use far more than just CNN). You just listed some unreliable sources which should never appear here, even on a talk page. That you even looked at them is worrying: Daily Caller, Washington Times, Daily Wire, and a bunch of YouTube videos. Even Fox News should be used with caution for political subjects, it's that partisan. Even the RS were cherry picked. I'm not even sure if you actually believe some of those stories, or, if they're true, that it makes any difference. You just threw them at us.
If you want to criticize RS, that's easy. Anyone can do it, because all sources make occasional mistakes, and cherry picking those instances doesn't help your case. What counts is how often they do it, whether they consistently fact check, and how they deal with their mistakes. That's what separates the RS from the unreliable ones. Why not criticize the unreliable ones? You'll convince us better if you do. By failing to do so, you seem to be implying that they are better than RS. That won't fly here.
You may benefit from studying my admittedly rough and unfinished Reliable sources stash. There you'll find lists of reliable and unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to add WSJ to my list.I subscribe to both the WSJ and NYT. The WSJ editorial page is slightly to the right of Mussolini; but I have used the news section as a reliable source, although it’s news content has suffered somewhat since Murdoch bought the paper and cut staff. Keep in mind we are not here to push a POV. I think that Fox and Jones are laughable as sources and aren't news at all. Fox, according to some of its own commentators, has become a pure propaganda arm of the GOP. But, I just removed negative text from the Fox article, and removed negative text from the Alex Jones article yesterday. O3000 ( talk) 12:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
fiscal conservatism to authoritarianism, .... O3000 ( talk) 23:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you trying to get yourself blocked or banned? You didn't even try a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page first. That's what you should have done first. You should withdraw that nomination, as it will only cause disruption and get you in trouble. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I have a good faith hypothesis which could perhaps explain some of the endless argument issues. Other than article talk pages which are not a forum (you already know this by now), Wikipedia is not a social network ( WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK). Since the main goal of editing is to improve the encyclopedia (this includes writing and improving articles, patrolling, consensus forming, etc.), chatting is of secondary importance. There are better venues for debates including usenet, blogs, social media networks, etc. On Wikipedia, to discuss or assess the reliability of a source, we have WP:RSN (its archives can also be searched). We have such public noticeboards and archives for many things so that we don't need to keep going round in circles. Socializing is fine because we work with others, but is not the main point of the project. In case this could help, — Paleo Neonate – 11:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The way I see it, there's two possibilities. Either you are so competence challenged that you cannot make your way about this encyclopaedia in a manner useful to the project, or you are intentionally trolling us all. Either way, you have wasted enough of our collective time. Courcelles ( talk) 11:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
GDP, a word of advice, if you appeal make sure you do so in the right way and for the right reasons. Do not use whataboutism. You must only talk about your actions, and why this block is unfair. Anything else and it will not pass muster. In a way an appeal is your chance to show you have got what people are saying. I am trying to be fair here and give you advice. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey Slatersteven. I really appreciate you taking a bit of time to give advice. To be honest, I'm really genuinely perplexed. I'm not trying to troll by saying that. I just am and that's me being honest. I have not made an appeal yet, as I thought there is little chance. Not trying to draw pity, but I can sometimes have some trouble telling whether my messages are perceived as trolling, etc, as the admins said. I was certainly not trying to, but I would also like to apologize to any administrators (who are reading this) who may have gotten my message wrong, or have felt as I have been trolling. One admin accused me of filing a false accusation, even though I showed the links. Maybe my frantic and overkill defense was problematic. Perhaps I will go ahead and appeal. If you have any other recommendations, let me know. Also, if you don't mind me asking, do you think the block was fair? No pressure. Thanks, -GDP ⇧ 11:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see below: As you can not reply on my talk page, I am copying this here. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This had originally deleted by a friendly talk-page watcher. I am thankful for every second that other people help me to save for answering serious requests, and removing personal attacks is very welcome. Especially requesting revision-deletion of severe attacks is definitely very helpful. However, I do respond even to requests that other people might consider to be silly or lacking even the most basic competence that is required for editing Wikipedia. Unless someone personally attacks specific editors or sends a message that can not be normally replied to, I often prefer to keep these messages.
In this specific case, the user who sent the message has later been blocked for allegedly being either "competence challenged" or "intentionally trolling us all". See
the block log for reference.
Blocking someone for an alleged lack of competence is perhaps the most problematic and controversial type of blocking to do. I personally would avoid ever doing this. There are experienced administrators who are willing to do this, and they do a good job, but this specific type of block is extremely problematic in my eyes. Blocking someone based solely on the "
Competence is required" essay (!) will always be controversial, and enforcing such a block retroactively is definitely not something I will do on my talk page.
In a nutshell, thank you very much, and do feel free to continue helping, but this specific message really has a right to stay.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
You were very helpful, but some people are not. I'm about to be blocked for that nomination after users that have JUST WP:BULLY'd me complained and lied about arbitrary things. See my thread and my rebuttals on ANI titled: "I'm being accused of being a vandal". Three admins are now in the process of blocking me and refusing to give reasons. After posting this post, look what this user did on ANI after that. (Sorry, the ANI link is not working). I even have a new WP:MENTOR that recently said I'm WP:HERE. Oh well. Like I said, this started spiraling downhill after I said I watch Fox News. After just saying that too on that admin's page, they've now changed their mind and is now also blocking me instead of defending me. I am upset and think I will soon just get rid of my account and leave. I would like to report this incident to the bureaucrats that run WP, but I'm not sure where to go. I'll be looking around for that. -GDP ⇧ 09:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
"This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#I am being accused of vandalism. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
GDP Growth, I found out about your ban on the Alex Jones talkpage, so how is your situation? Can you still make edits? And no, I am completely opposed to Alex Jones, but I do find your ban to be harsh. 138.75.40.151 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
We are not stupid you know. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said we are not stoopid, I suggest you do not attempt this again, though I now suspect it is way too late, you are not going top be allowed back now. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
GDP, you were asked to make a plain statement, not to apologize. Maybe you ha be not understood so lets try again. You were blocked for prevarication, for continuing to not agree to conditions but rather just continuing to make non committal statements. You are doing the same again. Your only option now is just to post "Yes I agree to all of the above without caveat". If you post anything else I suspect you will lose any friends you have here. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
________________________________________________________________
Done.
-GDP
⇧
02:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Now it's beddy bed time in the UK?? =) It's like 5:30am =) byteflush Talk 04:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I hope this is not too off-topic, but does a block/ban apply to all Wikimedia, or just WP? -GDP ⇧ 21:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Well Simon, I suppose this is a good time to make the appeal? -GDP ⇧ 09:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}
. I personally will wait for this submission before asking more questions. There may be a longer discussion; the "unblock" template in a new section is a good way to start it.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)GDP Growth ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I obviously jumped way into the deep end in WP upon joining. Simon was kind enough to agree to start to mentor me once he would return from a break from WP. I did not get that the point of a mentor was to ask questions about most edits before posting them. What led to my block was an AfD nomination, and spurious use of ANI, which is tantamount to blanking the entire page, setting the WP server on fire and then having it sucked into a black hole. One admin linked a pie chart showing how my editing was proportioned. I thus realized that I was also contributing way too much to TP's. I should have waited for my mentor to get back from his break before all these actions. I hope no one really thinks that I'm trolling anyone. Simon advised me to accept a 1 year voluntary topic ban. Honestly, I don't think it's necessary, but if the admins think it is, then I can definitely agree to not edit current politics and political media topics, broadly construed, for until August, 2019. -GDP ⇧ 02:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Indeffed because there is either such a CIR problem nothing can solve it in a reasonable amount of time, or we've all fallen for an elaborate troll job.The explanations that were given at that ANI test the limits of good faith, even if given in a seemingly civil way, and honestly reading through the ANI, it sounded just like this unblock appeal.Before unblocking you should take at least 6 months off from the time of your initial block (So that means no editing until around February 2019) and then consider the standard offer, which I'll take the time to point out is not a right for you to be unblocked after 6 months, but an rather an opportunity for you to demonstrate to the community that you have learned from your mistakes. Finally, this might just be me, but I've gotten to the point where I'm rather cynical about mentorship as a condition for unblocking: it can be helpful, but at the end of the day, you need to be able to demonstrate that you won't be disruptive.Also, as advice going forward, the instant you understand how to appeal to the ideas in WP:BITE, whether you link to it or not, is the second you know enough about Wikipedia for it not to apply to you. Focusing on being new and needing help and mentoring rather than discussing what you did, what you have learned, and what you will do in the future to avoid it will not get you unblocked. You need to be able to explain those three things in a way that makes it clear that you, not anyone else, gets it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:26, 21 October 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.
GDP Growth ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I suppose it's been about 6 months since I was blocked. You can see the above request. I hope this shows that I'm here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks, -GDP ⇧ 04:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm a bit worried by
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake news (2nd nomination). This was a stunningly bad nomination. Everyone makes bad judgments at AfD sometimes, but you said that
Fake news "uses sources that are the typical suspects of 'fake news'
". That makes me think that you have no idea how to identify a
reliable source. You can't edit Wikipedia without understanding how to identify reliable sources. So, please make a new unblock request that shows you can.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
07:42, 12 March 2019 (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.
GDP Growth ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I should have explained further. I honestly am not sure that I can make that judgement now. I thought I did before and it turned out bad. Therefor, I accept a topic ban from post 1932 politics, and when/if the ban is lifted, I will seek advice from a mentor or experienced user to make sure I know how to make that distinction. I think all the users I know here are recommending that I be unblocked with a TB. They are nice people and will help me through the process of of building up my judgement. -GDP ⇧ 16:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I will give you a chance as you have agreed to a topic ban as described on this page, appealable after six months. Good luck, and don't hesitate to ask for help or assistance. 331dot ( talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects.GDPG, I thought you intended to edit other projects, since you asked if you were allowed to [37] (I told you yes). I, at least, find it difficult to assess your improvement as an editor when you haven't edited anything. Your statement that you intend to take the advice of WP:ROPE doesn't help much either. What advice? WP:ROPE contains advice for admins, AFAICS — not advice for you. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC).
Oh, thank you for the ping. I think the only thing I should add is that I have already supported an unblock for exactly the same reasons 6 months ago. This has not changed. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, I have a good feeling about you.
If there is anything at all I can do to help, please drop me a line on my talk page. In particular, if you get into a conflict, I will be happy to tell you if the other person is being disruptive (or perhaps that you are the one who is being disruptive) and advising you on how to deal with the situation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)