User talk:TJ&TheAmericanWay

Discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros#Malia Obama and Plan B

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros#Malia Obama and Plan B. Thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.  Bishonen | talk 11:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Proof of the liberal left wing bias in Wikipedia. Ant attempt to remove "conservative" labels on political groups is blocked, as is any attempt to add "liberal" labels to groups. Any bias there? You got it.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You miss the point of such alerts. Please read it again and take it literally. If you can't accept our policies and guidelines then there's not much point in your being here. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Please avoid tendentious editing, which I see you doing on several articles. Your edits to Family Research Council are positively promotional, under misleading edit summaries such as "adding clarity and accuracy". You remove well-sourced criticism and add the organization's own mission statement into the lead (in Wikipedia's "voice", as if it were a neutral description, which makes it worse). Organizations must typically be described from what reliable secondary sources have said about them and not from their own mission statement. Compare also Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. Please help make Wikipedia articles more, not less, neutral. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Funny ... my edits removed politically biased comments so yes, we will all make Wikipedia more neutral by issuing these kinds of threats that block neutrality. Usual liberal left wing Wikipedia nonsenseTJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I picked a particular example where I thought you might benefit from my commentary — or at least might address it — without going into the usual generalities about "liberal left wing Wikipedia bias". But apparently not. Please try to answer more responsively and particularly. Do you understand what I said about how putting an organization's mission statement into the article lead, in Wikipedia's voice, is a no-no? Or not? Or are you only here to mouth political slogans while waiting to be blocked? Bishonen | talk 18:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Blocking, I was waiting for that, LOL. In the meantime, I'm busy reading the Washington Post article about Tim Kaine's son being arrested. I'm pretty sure that should be noted in Wikipedia.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, since you have continued disrupting articles and haven't even attempted to engage with attempts to advise you above, you haven't had to wait long. If the block below has no deterrent effect on your style of editing, the next step will be a topic ban from American politics. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Great. You do realize that you're proving my points don't you?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 19:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm appealing my block to who? You?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, certainly not. If you use the {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} template in the way the yellow box indicates, the code it contains will call a previously uninvolved admin to this page to review the block and your unblock request. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

• Though I suppose it's simpler to evade your block by editing logged out? If you do it again, I'll increase your block to a month. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

"Though I suppose it's simpler to evade your block by editing logged out? If you do it again, I'll increase your block to a month."  ??? What on Earth are you talking about?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

About this, coming right after this. Are you saying that wasn't you? Bishonen | talk 00:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

I had to explain this to another user yesterday. You, the person who set up this account, are blocked. Attempting to edit through an IP or another account is block evasion and will probably lead to a longer block and/or a topic ban. Sometimes we can detect such attempts simply by them being obvious, at other times we have to use WP:CheckUser Sso it's a bad idea and something you should avoid. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unequivocally, not me. Absolutely not. I've never made an IP edit. BTW, you do realize that Kaine's son is in all the papers don't you?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

This whole thing is ridiculous. Me: I've been on Wikipedia for three years and have never had a problem with an administrator. I enjoy going to political articles and making edits to ensure a left-right balance. Have never been accused of anything disruptive until now. Situation: The admin blocked me for 72 hours even though I did nothing I have not done for three years. AND THEN he blocked me for 30 days because I logged out of my account which I always do as a good security practice. (I'm on a shared workstation). I was also accused of making an IP edit which I did not make although once my block was over I was definitely going to make the edit as the story (arrest of Tim Kaine's son) is in all the newspapers. Looks like somebody beat me to it. Request you remove both blocks. I have many more edits to make on "progressive" web sites. All of the edits will conform to Wikipedia policies, promise!!TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= This whole thing is ridiculous. Me: I've been on Wikipedia for three years and have never had a problem with an administrator. I enjoy going to political articles and making edits to ensure a left-right balance. Have never been accused of anything disruptive until now. Situation: The admin blocked me for 72 hours even though I did nothing I have not done for three years. AND THEN he blocked me for 30 days because I logged out of my account which I always do as a good security practice. (I'm on a shared workstation). I was also accused of making an IP edit which I did not make although once my block was over I was definitely going to make the edit as the story (arrest of Tim Kaine's son) is in all the newspapers. Looks like somebody beat me to it. Request you remove both blocks. I have many more edits to make on "progressive" web sites. All of the edits will conform to Wikipedia policies, promise!![[User:TJ&TheAmericanWay|TJ&TheAmericanWay]] ([[User talk:TJ&TheAmericanWay#top|talk]]) 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= This whole thing is ridiculous. Me: I've been on Wikipedia for three years and have never had a problem with an administrator. I enjoy going to political articles and making edits to ensure a left-right balance. Have never been accused of anything disruptive until now. Situation: The admin blocked me for 72 hours even though I did nothing I have not done for three years. AND THEN he blocked me for 30 days because I logged out of my account which I always do as a good security practice. (I'm on a shared workstation). I was also accused of making an IP edit which I did not make although once my block was over I was definitely going to make the edit as the story (arrest of Tim Kaine's son) is in all the newspapers. Looks like somebody beat me to it. Request you remove both blocks. I have many more edits to make on "progressive" web sites. All of the edits will conform to Wikipedia policies, promise!![[User:TJ&TheAmericanWay|TJ&TheAmericanWay]] ([[User talk:TJ&TheAmericanWay#top|talk]]) 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= This whole thing is ridiculous. Me: I've been on Wikipedia for three years and have never had a problem with an administrator. I enjoy going to political articles and making edits to ensure a left-right balance. Have never been accused of anything disruptive until now. Situation: The admin blocked me for 72 hours even though I did nothing I have not done for three years. AND THEN he blocked me for 30 days because I logged out of my account which I always do as a good security practice. (I'm on a shared workstation). I was also accused of making an IP edit which I did not make although once my block was over I was definitely going to make the edit as the story (arrest of Tim Kaine's son) is in all the newspapers. Looks like somebody beat me to it. Request you remove both blocks. I have many more edits to make on "progressive" web sites. All of the edits will conform to Wikipedia policies, promise!![[User:TJ&TheAmericanWay|TJ&TheAmericanWay]] ([[User talk:TJ&TheAmericanWay#top|talk]]) 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}