User talk:MarkoOhNo
MarkoOhNo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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.
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=Blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an information source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For instance, I'm told that CNN cannot even be labeled as "left-leaning" (despite the painful obviousness of it) and that I would need to cite an article which proves this. Meanwhile, OAN is labeled "Far-Right" and the only articles supporting this are articles on right-wing and moderate politicians praising their work. Nothing which proves bias in any way, shape or form. That same level of "logic" would make the Taliban a Democratic party organization because the Biden administration called them "professional and businesslike". What's more, "far-right" implies radicalism, and there are no references to radicalism at OAN. I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates their associated bias, or even if this is a topic being ignored by the right or left. OAN is right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted. But the key here is consistency. Neither advertises themselves as possessing any sort of leaning, so either leave the perceived leaning out, or list it on both. Similarly, Pro-Life is listed as Anti-abortion, even though abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates. But apparently Wikipedia is edited by emotion and opinion rather than fact. This must be why people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference. Unblock me or not - I don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Calling it "vandalism" to call out this site's unquestionable bias just really shows what Wikipedia is all about. Done. Go back to ignoring me. [[User:MarkoOhNo|MarkoOhNo]] ([[User talk:MarkoOhNo#top|talk]]) 01:32, 2 October 2021 (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=Blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an information source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For instance, I'm told that CNN cannot even be labeled as "left-leaning" (despite the painful obviousness of it) and that I would need to cite an article which proves this. Meanwhile, OAN is labeled "Far-Right" and the only articles supporting this are articles on right-wing and moderate politicians praising their work. Nothing which proves bias in any way, shape or form. That same level of "logic" would make the Taliban a Democratic party organization because the Biden administration called them "professional and businesslike". What's more, "far-right" implies radicalism, and there are no references to radicalism at OAN. I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates their associated bias, or even if this is a topic being ignored by the right or left. OAN is right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted. But the key here is consistency. Neither advertises themselves as possessing any sort of leaning, so either leave the perceived leaning out, or list it on both. Similarly, Pro-Life is listed as Anti-abortion, even though abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates. But apparently Wikipedia is edited by emotion and opinion rather than fact. This must be why people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference. Unblock me or not - I don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Calling it "vandalism" to call out this site's unquestionable bias just really shows what Wikipedia is all about. Done. Go back to ignoring me. [[User:MarkoOhNo|MarkoOhNo]] ([[User talk:MarkoOhNo#top|talk]]) 01:32, 2 October 2021 (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=Blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an information source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For instance, I'm told that CNN cannot even be labeled as "left-leaning" (despite the painful obviousness of it) and that I would need to cite an article which proves this. Meanwhile, OAN is labeled "Far-Right" and the only articles supporting this are articles on right-wing and moderate politicians praising their work. Nothing which proves bias in any way, shape or form. That same level of "logic" would make the Taliban a Democratic party organization because the Biden administration called them "professional and businesslike". What's more, "far-right" implies radicalism, and there are no references to radicalism at OAN. I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates their associated bias, or even if this is a topic being ignored by the right or left. OAN is right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted. But the key here is consistency. Neither advertises themselves as possessing any sort of leaning, so either leave the perceived leaning out, or list it on both. Similarly, Pro-Life is listed as Anti-abortion, even though abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates. But apparently Wikipedia is edited by emotion and opinion rather than fact. This must be why people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference. Unblock me or not - I don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Calling it "vandalism" to call out this site's unquestionable bias just really shows what Wikipedia is all about. Done. Go back to ignoring me. [[User:MarkoOhNo|MarkoOhNo]] ([[User talk:MarkoOhNo#top|talk]]) 01:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Bree
You recently added some possibly dubious information to the Bree article. Apologies if my reversion is in error, but I'm quite sure it is not mentioned anywhere in Tolkien's work that the Breelanders were loggers. Do you possibly have a citation for the information? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The changes weren't to Bree, but to Combe and Archet. Perhaps it's just the interpretation of the game designers, but Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar has the Combe Logging Camp between Combe and the Chetwood. (Plus it stands to reason any settlement of wood structures that close to a large forest would have a forestry trade.) I haven't found anything to indicate there was any agriculture trade at Combe whatsoever, much less forestry aside from the logistics and the game design. I changed the wording on that sentence too as it implies that ALL citizens of Combe were farmers, which is exceedingly unlikely in any community. Also, all of the Tolkien wikis I've found indicate that Archet is actually at the Chetwood border rather than within it, and that Combe is simply near. MarkoOhNo (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah right got you. It should really go in it's own section then to differentiate the adaptation specific information (which would improve the article as well as it would be less reliant on the primary source. Something like this...
Portrayal in Adaptations
In Lord of the Rings: Shadows of Angmar the people of Combe are loggers and blah blah blah
Thanks for the comments Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
April 2019
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
I know that you put your user name at the end of the post at Talk:Abby Johnson (activist), but by not using one of these methods, a timestamp was not included at the end of the message. (Actually, because of where you had inserted it, the timestamp of a weeks-earlier message ended up there.) I have added a timestamp to your message, but using the tildes would make things easier in the future! Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
February 2021
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to CNN. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. CNN is very obviously not far-left. You know that. Please don't play games. DanielRigal (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:About, you may be blocked from editing. DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if inserting TRUTH disrupted the fantasy world in which you're participating. Perhaps your time would be better spent LARPing instead of intentionally presenting misinformation as though factual and actively silencing reality? It's worth considering. Might even be more enjoyable to you. MarkoOhNo (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Block Appeal
MarkoOhNo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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.
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=Not sure where exactly I'm supposed to insert this, so I'll try creating a discussion to make sure this is seen. It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an information source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For instance, I'm told that CNN cannot even be labeled as "left-leaning" (despite the painful obviousness of it) and that I would need to cite an article which proves this. Meanwhile, OAN is labeled "Far-Right" and the only articles supporting this are articles on right-wing and moderate politicians praising their work. Nothing which proves bias in any way, shape or form. That same level of "logic" would make the Taliban a Democratic party organization because the Biden administration called them "professional and businesslike". What's more, "far-right" implies radicalism, and there are no references to radicalism at OAN. I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates their associated bias, or even if this is a topic being ignored by the right or left. OAN is right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted. But the key here is consistency. Neither advertises themselves as possessing any sort of leaning, so either leave the perceived leaning out, or list it on both. Similarly, Pro-Life is listed as Anti-abortion, even though abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates. But apparently Wikipedia is edited by emotion and opinion rather than fact. This must be why people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference. Unblock me or not - I don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Calling it "vandalism" to call out this site's unquestionable bias just really shows what Wikipedia is all about. Done. Go back to ignoring me. |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=Not sure where exactly I'm supposed to insert this, so I'll try creating a discussion to make sure this is seen. It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an information source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For instance, I'm told that CNN cannot even be labeled as "left-leaning" (despite the painful obviousness of it) and that I would need to cite an article which proves this. Meanwhile, OAN is labeled "Far-Right" and the only articles supporting this are articles on right-wing and moderate politicians praising their work. Nothing which proves bias in any way, shape or form. That same level of "logic" would make the Taliban a Democratic party organization because the Biden administration called them "professional and businesslike". What's more, "far-right" implies radicalism, and there are no references to radicalism at OAN. I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates their associated bias, or even if this is a topic being ignored by the right or left. OAN is right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted. But the key here is consistency. Neither advertises themselves as possessing any sort of leaning, so either leave the perceived leaning out, or list it on both. Similarly, Pro-Life is listed as Anti-abortion, even though abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates. But apparently Wikipedia is edited by emotion and opinion rather than fact. This must be why people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference. Unblock me or not - I don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Calling it "vandalism" to call out this site's unquestionable bias just really shows what Wikipedia is all about. Done. Go back to ignoring me. |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=Not sure where exactly I'm supposed to insert this, so I'll try creating a discussion to make sure this is seen. It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an information source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For instance, I'm told that CNN cannot even be labeled as "left-leaning" (despite the painful obviousness of it) and that I would need to cite an article which proves this. Meanwhile, OAN is labeled "Far-Right" and the only articles supporting this are articles on right-wing and moderate politicians praising their work. Nothing which proves bias in any way, shape or form. That same level of "logic" would make the Taliban a Democratic party organization because the Biden administration called them "professional and businesslike". What's more, "far-right" implies radicalism, and there are no references to radicalism at OAN. I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates their associated bias, or even if this is a topic being ignored by the right or left. OAN is right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted. But the key here is consistency. Neither advertises themselves as possessing any sort of leaning, so either leave the perceived leaning out, or list it on both. Similarly, Pro-Life is listed as Anti-abortion, even though abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates. But apparently Wikipedia is edited by emotion and opinion rather than fact. This must be why people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference. Unblock me or not - I don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Calling it "vandalism" to call out this site's unquestionable bias just really shows what Wikipedia is all about. Done. Go back to ignoring me. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}