User talk:Ablust

Welcome!

Hello, Ablust, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Richard C. Zilmer, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dusti^*poke* 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard C. Zilmer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Richard C. Zilmer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dusti^*poke* 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard C. Zilmer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Richard C. Zilmer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dusti^*poke* 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Major General Gurganus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Major General Gurganus.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

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.

Neutrality^talk 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Notice regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Neutrality^talk 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Civility

Please read and review Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comments like this and this in edit summaries violate those policies and are not acceptable. Neutrality^talk 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by this edit summary, you haven't heeded the advice of Neutrality's above warning and also appear to again be POV pushing, as was the case in the aforementioned diffs. Acalamari 01:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton article

Hello! The edits you added to the Hillary Clinton article were removed, and you restored them. I am going to remove them again because any such edits, especially to the lede, need to be discussed and reach consensus before they can be added. I just wanted to warn you I was going to do that, because of the Discretionary Sanctions at that article. If you re-add it again, you would be in violation of the Discretionary Sanctions rules against edit warring and 1RR, and you could be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator as a result. Please come to the talk page, propose some wording, and let's agree on what should be in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently 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 any 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

August 2018

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to InfoWars, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Ian Thompson is clearly inciting his own personal bias/anger in Wikipedia articles, and engaging in Wikipedia:No personal attacks by calling people incompetent and half-brained

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=Ian Thompson is clearly inciting his own personal bias/anger in Wikipedia articles, and engaging in [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] by calling people incompetent and half-brained |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=Ian Thompson is clearly inciting his own personal bias/anger in Wikipedia articles, and engaging in [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] by calling people incompetent and half-brained |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=Ian Thompson is clearly inciting his own personal bias/anger in Wikipedia articles, and engaging in [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] by calling people incompetent and half-brained |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason to remove the material would be failure to understand that:

CBS is a reliable source.
The CBS article cited is "Don't get fooled by these fake news sites," with an entry in particular about InfoWars. In short, they identify it as a fake news site. (Also, that is the only citation at that point in the article, but far from the only one.)
InfoWars is a fake news site to anyone with half a brain.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is saying "you have half a brain" not a shining example of your own personal rage/bias (aka NOT credible, neutral facts) and not a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks? People like you are why Wikipedia will never be seen as a credible source by anybody with half a brain.

Unfortunately, Ablust, we go by reliable sources, as outlined above. Also, there is no personal attack, for a number of reasons which I will gladly spell out. a. it is a well-known phrase in English, meaning something like "to anyone", though the phrase is somewhat abbreviated, with "at least" to be imagined just before "half a brain". b. the phrase is used generally, not of a particular person. c. it's so metaphorical that a literal application would be very odd, though I don't doubt that there is someone, somewhere, who lost half their brain. d. I don't even think Ian.thomson meant to say "you clearly must only have half a brain since you don't accept it as a fake news site"; again, take it metaphorically. And I might add that it is really hard to understand for boring people like me (and maybe Ian.thomson) that someone would take Infowars seriously. Which doesn't mean we're believing you are a crisis actor, of course. Seriously, it was foolish to edit war over this. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oh, the classic "this is why no one says Wikipedia is reliable" sour grapes whining. Any editor who knows how things works here knows that Wikipedia fails its own reliable sourcing guidelines -- it's obvious to anyone that it's not a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source, it's a user-generated summary of such sources. InfoWars has long been officially declared an unreliable source for this site. They promote nothing but ridiculous conspiracy theories. If you really think that "InfoWars is fake news" is bias, WP:CIR applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thompson is clearly saying these things from a place of personal bitterness, anybody with "half a brain" is capable of seeing that. It literally even states on his own page that he's a liberal, so he's not really in a position to defend himself as some sort of neutral authority. I'm glad you acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a credible source though, Ian, thus likewise acknowledging that what is posted about Infowars is not "actually" a credible fact, but rather something that is merely being "called" a fact by someone that's got a history of inciting personal bias and just so happens to be in a position of power. If it's so darn obvious that Infowars is a fake news website, please reference for me one specific time a fake news article was published to the site. I see you keep giving me the same redundant articles which basically state nothing more than "well, it is because we say so"... but I don't see a single specific example.

"We go by reliable sources" is what is called the appeal to false authority fallacy. You guys do realize that CBS also has a history of publishing fake news stories, right? RE: Killian documents controversy

Just sayin' :)

Look, at this point you can either promise to step away from the topic of InfoWars or I can make your block indefinite under WP:NOTHERE. If you don't think that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is fake news, or that conspiracy theories about the Stoneman Douglas HS shooting victims is fake news, then you don't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Step away from the topic? I see, so you're threatening to censor me after you literally just said censorship isn't allowed here. Got it Ian. This is beyond ridiculous. I am not here to cause any problems, and I have done nothing to violate anything on that list. I've got a totally logical and sound argument when I say that a 24 word paragraph is NOT credible evidence to support a very bold (and frankly false) claim, and I think any college professor would completely agree with me. It appears the only crime I am guilty of is striking a nerve of a very biased and bitter administrator who just so happens to be in a position of power here. Go ahead and censor me then, Ian. This website and other free speech censoring tech companies is the reason why I am a Computer Science major.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]