User talk:MarkoOhNo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

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. MarkoOhNo (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, I didn't even finish reading this rant. If you want to make an unblock request, try again. But if you include some political rant in it, it's just going to be declined. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock (To Be Reviewed By Someone MATURE, This Time, Please)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

While I appreciate the honesty in admitting my request was not even read, Wikipedia is SUPPOSEDLY a professional, unbiased and open-minded project interested primarily in facts. If that's not the case, I will say good day and you can feel free to stop reading right here. But if that IS the case, you would read to the end. If you find you cannot, please have the courtesy to defer to another with a more fortified ego and less sensitive emotions. Thanks.

It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For example, 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 the bias of OAN in any way, shape or form. (In the professional world, this is called libel.) 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 offered which showed radicalism at OAN. On the other hand, I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates the associated bias, or even if the topic is being ignored by the right or left. OAN is displayed as right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted by the public as fact. 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 under Anti-abortion (or did Wikipedia go so far as to list it under the extreme far-left term Anti-Choice?), which is thoroughly dishonest - abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates against (euthanasia, death penalty, concentration camps, abuse, etc, etc). In the interests of consistency, Pro-Choice would then need to be listed under Pro-Abortion. But nobody would ever allow that, I'm sure. A true encyclopedia is not edited by emotion and opinion, just by fact. (This must be why so many people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference.) Unblock me or not - I really don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia when it was new, before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency, consistency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Without these, you have no business calling this an encyclopedia. Calling it "vandalism" to point inconsistencies and bias just really tarnishes what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Anyway - done. Feel free to hit that Deny button and go back to ignoring me. MarkoOhNo (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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=While I appreciate the honesty in admitting my request was not even read, Wikipedia is SUPPOSEDLY a professional, unbiased and open-minded project interested primarily in facts. If that's not the case, I will say good day and you can feel free to stop reading right here. But if that IS the case, you would read to the end. If you find you cannot, please have the courtesy to defer to another with a more fortified ego and less sensitive emotions. Thanks.

It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For example, 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 the bias of OAN in any way, shape or form. (In the professional world, this is called libel.) 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 offered which showed radicalism at OAN.
On the other hand, I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates the associated bias, or even if the topic is being ignored by the right or left. OAN is displayed as right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted by the public as fact. 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 under Anti-abortion (or did Wikipedia go so far as to list it under the extreme far-left term Anti-Choice?), which is thoroughly dishonest - abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates against (euthanasia, death penalty, concentration camps, abuse, etc, etc). In the interests of consistency, Pro-Choice would then need to be listed under Pro-Abortion. But nobody would ever allow that, I'm sure. A true encyclopedia is not edited by emotion and opinion, just by fact. (This must be why so many people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference.) Unblock me or not - I really don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia when it was new, before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency, consistency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Without these, you have no business calling this an encyclopedia. Calling it "vandalism" to point inconsistencies and bias just really tarnishes what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Anyway - done. Feel free to hit that Deny button and go back to ignoring me. [[User:MarkoOhNo|MarkoOhNo]] ([[User talk:MarkoOhNo#top|talk]]) 07:00, 4 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=While I appreciate the honesty in admitting my request was not even read, Wikipedia is SUPPOSEDLY a professional, unbiased and open-minded project interested primarily in facts. If that's not the case, I will say good day and you can feel free to stop reading right here. But if that IS the case, you would read to the end. If you find you cannot, please have the courtesy to defer to another with a more fortified ego and less sensitive emotions. Thanks.

It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For example, 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 the bias of OAN in any way, shape or form. (In the professional world, this is called libel.) 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 offered which showed radicalism at OAN.
On the other hand, I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates the associated bias, or even if the topic is being ignored by the right or left. OAN is displayed as right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted by the public as fact. 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 under Anti-abortion (or did Wikipedia go so far as to list it under the extreme far-left term Anti-Choice?), which is thoroughly dishonest - abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates against (euthanasia, death penalty, concentration camps, abuse, etc, etc). In the interests of consistency, Pro-Choice would then need to be listed under Pro-Abortion. But nobody would ever allow that, I'm sure. A true encyclopedia is not edited by emotion and opinion, just by fact. (This must be why so many people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference.) Unblock me or not - I really don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia when it was new, before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency, consistency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Without these, you have no business calling this an encyclopedia. Calling it "vandalism" to point inconsistencies and bias just really tarnishes what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Anyway - done. Feel free to hit that Deny button and go back to ignoring me. [[User:MarkoOhNo|MarkoOhNo]] ([[User talk:MarkoOhNo#top|talk]]) 07:00, 4 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=While I appreciate the honesty in admitting my request was not even read, Wikipedia is SUPPOSEDLY a professional, unbiased and open-minded project interested primarily in facts. If that's not the case, I will say good day and you can feel free to stop reading right here. But if that IS the case, you would read to the end. If you find you cannot, please have the courtesy to defer to another with a more fortified ego and less sensitive emotions. Thanks.

It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For example, 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 the bias of OAN in any way, shape or form. (In the professional world, this is called libel.) 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 offered which showed radicalism at OAN.
On the other hand, I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates the associated bias, or even if the topic is being ignored by the right or left. OAN is displayed as right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted by the public as fact. 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 under Anti-abortion (or did Wikipedia go so far as to list it under the extreme far-left term Anti-Choice?), which is thoroughly dishonest - abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates against (euthanasia, death penalty, concentration camps, abuse, etc, etc). In the interests of consistency, Pro-Choice would then need to be listed under Pro-Abortion. But nobody would ever allow that, I'm sure. A true encyclopedia is not edited by emotion and opinion, just by fact. (This must be why so many people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference.) Unblock me or not - I really don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia when it was new, before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency, consistency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Without these, you have no business calling this an encyclopedia. Calling it "vandalism" to point inconsistencies and bias just really tarnishes what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Anyway - done. Feel free to hit that Deny button and go back to ignoring me. [[User:MarkoOhNo|MarkoOhNo]] ([[User talk:MarkoOhNo#top|talk]]) 07:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}