User talk:JasonCarswell

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

08:15 Saturday 15 June 2024 - - - - WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE

Please click "New section" above to leave any new message, and please sign your message (just type ~~~~).

If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere, to make discussions easier to read.
If you reply to a message here, please indent (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
If you are discussing any particular page, please provide a link to it - it makes life easier for me and anyone else seeing this page.

Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell

Jump to the #Bottom.

Pixel DJ Soft Skull & Headphones - Clear BG; 100% Pixel; 50x50.png

Top

Jump to the #Bottom.

Pixel DJ Soft Skull & Headphones - Clear BG; 100% Pixel; 50x50.png

WP:ANI Thread

I have closed the WP:ANI thread to which you were privy with a consensus to implement a topic ban for your editing. Effective immediately, you are hereby prohibited from editing any page on or relating to Fringe theories on Wikipedia for a period of one year. This topic ban is to be understood as applying to any FRINGE-related material in the article, draft, or userspaces. A record of your topic ban has been noted here. You may petition to have appeal this topic ban one year from now at WP:ANI, at which time the matter will be reviewed. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit skirts the leash line. You know very well that Lionel's programming focuses on American politics, and you've previously added plenty to the article on him regarding conspiracy theorism. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I just added a birth date. I didn't know I couldn't edit non-controversial things on personalities who may have diverse ideas, not even on his page, but the disambiguation page. I thought my ban was about the "fringe" and "US political" topics. There's nothing fringe or political about a birthday. Now I know, I guess. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"any page on or relating to" means that if you made non-fringe and non-controversial changes to say, Talk:Alex Jones (radio host), you'd still be in violation of your topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Great NHS Heist

The article The Great NHS Heist has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film, no independent coverage, does not meet WP:NFF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 13:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explain...

...How creating an article about a movie that claims that there's some conspiracy involving the food and health industries and western governments to actively poison people (causing 70% of deaths in the US), citing a network noted for airing conspiracy theories, does not violate your topic ban on fringe theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that I am banned from "fringe" and "US politics". The film, which I haven't seen yet but look forward to, is about the British health care system. I don't think that everything political, financial, or health-related is a conspiracy. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering The Great NHS Heist doesn't mention food and doesn't cite RT, you should know I'm talking about Eating You Alive. Don't play dumb, don't throw out red herrings. You created an article about a movie that, per a source you cited, claims that there is a conspiracy by the food and health industries and western governments (which would include the US government). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if I didn't get the right one. It's 1am and I'm tired and I didn't read it well. I can be dumb at times, like anyone, even you. I did both pieces at the same time. I didn't pause to remember which had what, except that Thom Hartmann interviewed both.

Regarding the vegan documentary, which I also haven't seen but look forward to, I wasn't paying attention to the "conspiracy" part of it. It slipped past me. I was more interested in the food and diet aspect. Now that you point it out I suppose I'm guilty. I was just trying to help and add a documentary stub about healthy food options. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The title of the RT citation alone ("Big Ag & The Politicians They Own Are Eating You Alive") should have been enough of an indication that you needed to back away. The description on the Youtube page (claiming that "Big Ag and the Food Industry - and the politicians they own -" [are] "forcing us to eat ourselves to death") should have likewise been a sign that this was dealing with a conspiracy theory. The first five minutes of the video, which further presented all animal products as poison deliberately foisted on the American people in some sinister plot by the food industry and the American government (supposedly resulting in 70% of deaths in America) should have also confirmed that the film was well within the scope of your topic ban. There is simply no way it could have slipped past you, unless you need to be indefinitely under WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating your topic ban on fringe theories. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I went with a year, in line with your topic ban. I did not set the end date to coincide with when your topic ban will be over because you either have not been forthright in descriptions of your editing or else you cannot distinguish between reality and conspiracy theory and need as much time to learn the difference as possible. If another admin decides to shorten it, I won't object, but you've repeatedly demonstrated that you are either unwilling or incapable to edit from the mainstream perspectives this site sides with. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Clearly Ian.thomson has had a grudge against me and has been rude to me from the start. He's also made it clear that he's been monitoring my contributions. I have no reason to deceive now or ever. I may make mistakes. I don't read everything on every page I cite. I'm doing the best I can. I also don't take everything literally. For example, I hardly think the fast food industry is poisoning us all, but it's pretty safe to say the food is not healthy, and that learning about healthy options is not a bad idea. I forgot that Wikipedia considers the RT news network some kind of "fake news" source. Also, because I have not seen the documentaries but hope to, I can't say what they are really about. My wording was neutral. I put it out there hoping it would either get accepted or not, preferably with constructive criticism from which to learn and grow from. Instead I've been banned. Wikipedia seems a hostile place for people just trying to contribute to the greater good. Also, while I now see how it seems I crossed the ban, I want to clearly state that it was not consciously intentional. I was just trying to contribute where I saw missing information about something I wanted to learn about. When I come across this or that I always look them up on Wikipedia. If something is missing I try to add it. That's all I'm doing. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If your claim not to have realised what you were doing were true, it would indicate that you lack the competence to edit constructively, so unblocking would not be helpful. However, believing that would entail accepting that you have repeatedly made edits without checking what you were doing and each time by a really funny coincidence your edits just happened to accidentally add content exactly in line with the sort of stuff which by your own admission you have in the past been trying to use Wikipedia to promote. You also do not increase the likelihood of your unblock request succeeding by accusing the blocking administrator of malicious motives, as you would have known had you taken the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before making the request. Having looked at the history which led first to your topic ban and then to your block when your repeatedly tried to skirt round the ban, I think the only aspect of this block which might reasonably be subject to review is the fact that it is for a limited time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (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.

@JamesBWatson: I'd be plenty fine with a longer block if you believe that's necessary. The discussion above is the most readily available example of why I believe this user has been regularly lying about his motives and actions here, but too much of the topic ban discussion was repeatedly pointing out similar discrepancies between his claims and his actions. However, the consensus for a topic ban only being a year instead of indefinite threw me for a loop.

@JasonCarswel: I wouldn't've posted the above if you hadn't continued to claim that you somehow missed out on the conspiratorial nature of the RT source, which could only have been accomplished by citing it without reviewing it and even without seeing the title of the source you added. Possible honest and competent responses would have required admitting that you understood there was a conspiratorial aspect to the source (too late now), showing sincere remorse for repeated lies or at least a desire to leave all lies behind in the past (you've demonstrated that you're fluent enough that there was no misunderstanding), promising to avoid all such actions in the future, and explaining how you intend to do so (editing topics that one couldn't possibly formulate conspiracy theories about would be a good start). Again, though, that's too late for that now, as far as I'm concerned. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The Great NHS Heist for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Great NHS Heist is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great NHS Heist until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BOVINEBOY2008 13:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bottom

Jump to the #Top.

Pixel DJ Soft Skull & Headphones - Clear BG; 100% Pixel; 50x50.png