Hello, Mr. Daniel Plainview, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to TaskRabbit. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe ( talk) 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
-- 20:26, Thursday, April 5, 2018 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Canvassing to bring in a disruptive editor with far-right views is in bad form. O3000 ( talk) 21:58, 12 April 2018 (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.-- NeilN talk to me 00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you NeilN. I started reading the article and I think I understand most of it but I'll have to go back later and finish. I will be careful to not take people's bait and go edit somewhere else for a while if things get heated. Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 15:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Daniel Plainview! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I’m inviting you to join other people who edit conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can ask questions and meet new colleagues. You'll also discover DYK: the easiest and funnest way to get your article on the Main Page. I hope to see you there! – Lionel( talk) 07:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Daniel Plainview, I commend your cooperation in editing Joy-Ann Reid. I made some edits earlier today that reflect your input, and greatly appreciate your use of Talk:Joy-Ann Reid to help us navigate these turbulent waters. My cautiousness derives from Wikipedia's core principles of fairness, particularly in BLPs. The first week of this latest Reid controversy struck me as especially conducive to violations of WP:NPOV, which with your help I believe we've avoided. Thank you. KalHolmann ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
You should attribute this to Giuliani. He's not at all trustworthy, but he did make the claim. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO Since Objective3000 doesn't want to clarify his views, I'll address the comment you made toward me on his talk page. What exactly are you referring to as "garbage"? "Objective"'s disruption? His aspersions? His false claim that I "filed a report" against him at BLP/N? Please be more...specific. Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 19:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
"Trump’s remarks late Wednesday were in response to comments about members of MS-13 and other undocumented immigrants who are deported for committing crimes."[3] That completely contradicts your narrative that he was referring to all immigrants. CNN was caught taking Trump's remarks out of context in order to advance their political agenda. AP says:
"AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s “animals” comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members". [4] Another nail in the coffin for the argument that you made. That's directly from their Twitter accounts, so you don't have to worry about right-leaning sources. You may say the stories weren't false, but CNN and AP disagree with you and acted accordingly. You were wrong, and you owe me an apology for correctly pointing out that these two news orgs were putting out fake news. Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 21:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
And by "terrible," you mean "conservative."Again, you put words in my mouth I never said and never believed. I give up. No matter what I type, you change the words in your mind falsely claiming I believe things that never entered my mind. Communication is not possible under these circumstances. O3000 ( talk) 21:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You are trying to claim that editors should use the sources that you like, which are invariably left-leaning sources.And yet again, a completely false statement. For the fourth time you put words in my mouth that I never said and never believed. You simply aren’t honest. You debate by falsely claiming the other person believes and says things they do not believe or say. Strawman after strawman. How do you ever expect to convince anyone of anything when you don’t even pay attention to their words and pretend they believe in ways alien to them? I will tell you once again, you haven’t the faintest concept of what I think. And, you will never get anywhere by ignoring what people say and adding ridiculous strawman arguments based on, it would seem, what your sources tell you about how people think. Since you are talking to yourself instead of me, I'll leave you to yourself. O3000 ( talk) 21:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about the section heading BullRangifer but which article states that starting a new section with someone's user name in the title is against policy? Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop
battlegrounding at
Talk:Sean Hannity, as you recently did most blatantly
here. Save those sorts of polarizing comments for user talk or WP space. I'm not about to report you, but it's disruptive, distracting, and unpleasant, and if it continues for much more then eventually I will request DS. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
18:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, you're practically begging for trouble by associating yourself with The Devil's Advocate, as you did here. Presumably that was inadvertent, but still. A word of advice, stay as far away from GamerGate harassment as you possibly can. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
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.Doug Weller talk 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Incredible, isn't it? Just all of it. "Period full stop".
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓
04:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —
DoRD (
talk)
15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC) |
You're a sock account? Ugh. Go away and don't come back, okay? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Hello, Mr. Daniel Plainview, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to TaskRabbit. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe ( talk) 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
-- 20:26, Thursday, April 5, 2018 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Canvassing to bring in a disruptive editor with far-right views is in bad form. O3000 ( talk) 21:58, 12 April 2018 (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.-- NeilN talk to me 00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you NeilN. I started reading the article and I think I understand most of it but I'll have to go back later and finish. I will be careful to not take people's bait and go edit somewhere else for a while if things get heated. Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 15:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Daniel Plainview! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I’m inviting you to join other people who edit conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can ask questions and meet new colleagues. You'll also discover DYK: the easiest and funnest way to get your article on the Main Page. I hope to see you there! – Lionel( talk) 07:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Daniel Plainview, I commend your cooperation in editing Joy-Ann Reid. I made some edits earlier today that reflect your input, and greatly appreciate your use of Talk:Joy-Ann Reid to help us navigate these turbulent waters. My cautiousness derives from Wikipedia's core principles of fairness, particularly in BLPs. The first week of this latest Reid controversy struck me as especially conducive to violations of WP:NPOV, which with your help I believe we've avoided. Thank you. KalHolmann ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
You should attribute this to Giuliani. He's not at all trustworthy, but he did make the claim. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO Since Objective3000 doesn't want to clarify his views, I'll address the comment you made toward me on his talk page. What exactly are you referring to as "garbage"? "Objective"'s disruption? His aspersions? His false claim that I "filed a report" against him at BLP/N? Please be more...specific. Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 19:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
"Trump’s remarks late Wednesday were in response to comments about members of MS-13 and other undocumented immigrants who are deported for committing crimes."[3] That completely contradicts your narrative that he was referring to all immigrants. CNN was caught taking Trump's remarks out of context in order to advance their political agenda. AP says:
"AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s “animals” comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members". [4] Another nail in the coffin for the argument that you made. That's directly from their Twitter accounts, so you don't have to worry about right-leaning sources. You may say the stories weren't false, but CNN and AP disagree with you and acted accordingly. You were wrong, and you owe me an apology for correctly pointing out that these two news orgs were putting out fake news. Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 21:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
And by "terrible," you mean "conservative."Again, you put words in my mouth I never said and never believed. I give up. No matter what I type, you change the words in your mind falsely claiming I believe things that never entered my mind. Communication is not possible under these circumstances. O3000 ( talk) 21:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You are trying to claim that editors should use the sources that you like, which are invariably left-leaning sources.And yet again, a completely false statement. For the fourth time you put words in my mouth that I never said and never believed. You simply aren’t honest. You debate by falsely claiming the other person believes and says things they do not believe or say. Strawman after strawman. How do you ever expect to convince anyone of anything when you don’t even pay attention to their words and pretend they believe in ways alien to them? I will tell you once again, you haven’t the faintest concept of what I think. And, you will never get anywhere by ignoring what people say and adding ridiculous strawman arguments based on, it would seem, what your sources tell you about how people think. Since you are talking to yourself instead of me, I'll leave you to yourself. O3000 ( talk) 21:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about the section heading BullRangifer but which article states that starting a new section with someone's user name in the title is against policy? Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop
battlegrounding at
Talk:Sean Hannity, as you recently did most blatantly
here. Save those sorts of polarizing comments for user talk or WP space. I'm not about to report you, but it's disruptive, distracting, and unpleasant, and if it continues for much more then eventually I will request DS. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
18:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, you're practically begging for trouble by associating yourself with The Devil's Advocate, as you did here. Presumably that was inadvertent, but still. A word of advice, stay as far away from GamerGate harassment as you possibly can. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
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.Doug Weller talk 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Incredible, isn't it? Just all of it. "Period full stop".
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓
04:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —
DoRD (
talk)
15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC) |
You're a sock account? Ugh. Go away and don't come back, okay? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))