User talk:7valentine7

January 2020

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. I noticed that you recently removed content from Talk:Gays for Trump without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 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 the 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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 16:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I made my point. I wont revert anything else right now. Though I still stand that the edits made are opinion based. You should not allow opinions to guide your editing. Rather it be popular or unpopular opinion even if news sites say so does not make it true. We caution that opinions should not rule on wikipedia. Facts should. 7valentine7 (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you believe that there are child labor camps on Mars? That Democrats are running pedophile clubs in basements of pizza joints with no basements? That Obama wanted to set off a nuclear bomb in Charleston> And on and on. We go by reliable sources, not our own opinions. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I made my point. I wont revert anything else right now. Though I still stand that the edits made that are not mine are opinion based. You should not allow opinions to guide your editing. Rather it be popular or unpopular opinion even if news sites say so does not make it true. We caution that opinions should not rule on wikipedia. Facts should.

Just because it appears those from a certian side of the political spectrum take more notice in rules and procedures to cover for the fact that you rewrite history based on opinions does not mean that what is written is fact.

Instead the writing of articles based on popular opinion and based on only news you consider as factual because it proves the narrative you wish to present does nothing but destroy the use of wikipedia.

Opinions are not fact. While you accuse individuals of conspiracy you prove that opinions which is a big part of what makes up conspiracy is in fact exactly what drives you.

Change facts to opinion and you only become what you accuse. 7valentine7 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Btw do you calls of rape from Kavanaugh, pee pee tapes, russiagate, kids in cages from picture of AOC screaming at a parking lot.. Etc etc to be real news? Websites and groups like CNN have announced these fake news and conspiracy theories for a long time and many are found out to be just that. So if I go to the CNN wikipedia right now or newscasters from these sites will I be able to see them labled as far left wing, fake news, conspiracy theory sites? I prove my point you pick a few artices and statements from a site or a individual and you place labels on them. These are your opinion. If they were not you would place these on CNN, Abc, msnbc, and others right now. I bet you won't. 7valentine7 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failing to understand Alex Jones is the Ronald McDonald of conspiracy theorists.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As Guy Macon pointed out: Let's review for our newly-arrived Infowars/Newswars/Prison Planet minions, shall we? Alex Jones claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps... Sounds legit to me!

There's no point in even warning you if you don't understand that InfoWars is the McDonald's of conspiracy theories. Pretty much any response I can imagine you making (just about any appeal but agreeing to a permanent topic ban relating to politics and conspiracy theories) will likely result in talk page access being revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2020 (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).

7valentine7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I already agreed that Alex Jones csn be considered a conspiracy therorist. My issue is declaring full websites and describing individuals as far right without providing actual proof. I see you have been on this site for a long time. My point is the website you build is based on more opinions than fact. If what conspiracies you said are fact then I can agree with you. My issue is that although I may be on a different political spectrum as you appear to be I think opinions should be moved to different areas of subject. I do think you provided enough to establish he is a conspiracy therorist its why I backed off. I still think other things are questionable in his page. I did also say I would refrain from further edits of his page and similar pages. I agree to not edit conspiracy pages. Will that satisfy you to be unblocked? I am not here to present opinions. Thank you. 7valentine7 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias and does not present all points of view as having equal weight. We present the sources so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to their accuracy or bias. If you see this as posting opinions, there isn't any reason to lift the block- and you also don't tell what topics you will edit about instead of conspiracies. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2020 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

7valentine7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I still feel as I should be allowed to edit, I already said I would not touch Alex Jones page, I would only edit items that I have reliable sources for. Not that the statement I made about opinions was that in these listings I was saying that there were "opinions" that were not backed by any facts or articles or sources and that if these were to remain on pages they should have a source to back them up. That is what I meant. I also did not add anything to the article and understand the need to back up things with sources. As for providing what I will edit, I am a new editor I would hope to help improve articles or write articles in the future. I think blocking me over an argument over Alex Jones is unnecessary as I indicated when I saw that it was causing a edit war I stopped editing and just wrote my feelings in the talk page. I could also if needed provide the article by the creator of wikipedia who now feels that too much opinion on wikipedia has killed the whole point of the site.

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=I still feel as I should be allowed to edit, I already said I would not touch Alex Jones page, I would only edit items that I have reliable sources for. Not that the statement I made about opinions was that in these listings I was saying that there were "opinions" that were not backed by any facts or articles or sources and that if these were to remain on pages they should have a source to back them up. That is what I meant. I also did not add anything to the article and understand the need to back up things with sources. As for providing what I will edit, I am a new editor I would hope to help improve articles or write articles in the future. I think blocking me over an argument over Alex Jones is unnecessary as I indicated when I saw that it was causing a edit war I stopped editing and just wrote my feelings in the talk page. I could also if needed provide the article by the creator of wikipedia who now feels that too much opinion on wikipedia has killed the whole point of the site. |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=I still feel as I should be allowed to edit, I already said I would not touch Alex Jones page, I would only edit items that I have reliable sources for. Not that the statement I made about opinions was that in these listings I was saying that there were "opinions" that were not backed by any facts or articles or sources and that if these were to remain on pages they should have a source to back them up. That is what I meant. I also did not add anything to the article and understand the need to back up things with sources. As for providing what I will edit, I am a new editor I would hope to help improve articles or write articles in the future. I think blocking me over an argument over Alex Jones is unnecessary as I indicated when I saw that it was causing a edit war I stopped editing and just wrote my feelings in the talk page. I could also if needed provide the article by the creator of wikipedia who now feels that too much opinion on wikipedia has killed the whole point of the site. |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=I still feel as I should be allowed to edit, I already said I would not touch Alex Jones page, I would only edit items that I have reliable sources for. Not that the statement I made about opinions was that in these listings I was saying that there were "opinions" that were not backed by any facts or articles or sources and that if these were to remain on pages they should have a source to back them up. That is what I meant. I also did not add anything to the article and understand the need to back up things with sources. As for providing what I will edit, I am a new editor I would hope to help improve articles or write articles in the future. I think blocking me over an argument over Alex Jones is unnecessary as I indicated when I saw that it was causing a edit war I stopped editing and just wrote my feelings in the talk page. I could also if needed provide the article by the creator of wikipedia who now feels that too much opinion on wikipedia has killed the whole point of the site. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• The problem is that you've demonstrated you have no understanding whatsoever as to what constitutes a reliable source. Also, you're still acting pretty entitled to the privilege of using our privately owned site. We're not an exercise in the first amendment, we're a private community that welcomes anyone who wants to learn and cooperate. It wasn't that you had an "opinion," it was that you made a huge mistake. Jones isn't just "considered" a conspiracy theorist, he is objectively a conspiracy theorist. InfoWars is far-right batshit insanity. CNN can't just be considered "fake news," it's a generally reliable news organization with a well-earned reputation for fact checking. Your "opinion" of these sources are a delusion resulting from political gaslighting and a failure to think critically. While we don't have a problem with users disagreeing over cases in the gray (e.g. Slate or the Washington Examiner), InfoWars is so obviously wrong that anyone who doesn't get that it's fake news shouldn't even be allowed to edit Petunias. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I again reinstate this... does the calls of rape from Kavanaugh, pee-pee tapes, Russia-gate, kids in cages from a picture of AOC screaming at a parking lot. Etc are they considered sourced real news? CNN has announced these fake news and conspiracy theories for a long time and many are found out to be just that. You cannot tell me that you think CNN sources all the items they talk about? Not even Fox News does that. They all are guilty of fake news. I already agreed that a LOT of things that come out of InfoWars is a conspiracy and fake news. I do not even listen to Alex Jones. As I said there were other points in the article that could have been documented a bit more. As for this leftist term "privilege," no one has this.. I do know what a reliable source is and my argument had nothing to do with Info Wars being reliable or not. My point is if you are going to use a source you should make sure it is not just an article written in an opinion which we all know both sides do. That is the problem with news, no one just reports the news any more news sites try to make it. I am not talking about the 1st amendment either on your privately owned website. But if you are going to have a website that is supposed to be a factual page it should state the facts and follow by that example citing correct sources and trying to eliminate opinion from its articles. Again I am not touching Info Wars or Alex Jones, I made a point like many others in its talk page that if you are going to include a fact or opinion you should cite the sources and maybe even try to balance the sources out. That is all if you would even understand the point of what I am saying. Keep the site as neutral as possible. But it seems that anyone with just a sense of right-leaning is banned blocked or silenced. That's what makes Wikipedia as a whole just as bad as InfoWars [User:7valentine7|7valentine7]]