User talk:Dgahary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at American Free Press. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dgahary, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

American Free Press[edit]

You removed almost all of this article - obviously because you didn't want criticism in it. You added material from the AFP website, a copyvio violation. You are trying to remove critical material from Jim Tucker's article as well. This is in violation of several of our policies and if you wish to continue to edit you must stop this behavior. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, Dgahary. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article American Free Press, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Final warning[edit]

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. This is a PBS documentary where he says this. I'm not saying it, he is.Dgahary (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)



You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 days as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, if I had gotten to this account before Ohnoitsjamie, I would have blocked indefinitely. I instruct you not to edit the Larry Silverstein article or mention him again in editing any page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who are you to be typing like this? "I would have blocked indefinitely"?! "I instruct you not to edit the Larry Silverstein article or mention him again in editing any page"?! Are you some kind of joke? Who are you? You don't instruct anything.Dgahary (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of restriction[edit]

I'll do this more formally. As an administrator on this site. I have noted with grave concern your recent edits relating to Larry Silverstein, which violate our policy concerning material about living persons.

Pursuant to the administrator instructions for special enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy, you are hereby indefinitely topic-banned and prohibited from making any edit relating directly or indirectly to Larry Silverstein. If you violate this restriction, your account will be blocked indefinitely.

This restriction is without prejudice to any action that any other administrator may take relating to any other disruptive editing in which you may engage.

Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this more formally as well. As an infrequent editor of this site, "I have noted with grave concern" the absence of extremely important information relating to Larry Silverstein, specifically the content of the PBS documentary where he says that after consulting with the NYC fire department commander regarding WTC Building 7, which was not attacked on 9-11, they made the decision to “pull it” – a term which implied they decided to take down the building using controlled demolitions. How could that not be in this guy's entry? Why is it not? How many other people have wondered the same & entered it & had it knocked down & gave up trying to get this important information out? Why is this information being CENSORED by you & User:Ohnoitsjamie & User:Fat&Happy?! Why was my FIRST warning my FINAL warning?!

Why would I be "hereby indefinitely topic-banned and prohibited from making any edit relating directly or indirectly to Larry Silverstein"?

Who are you, you anonymous twit, to issue this type of decree, & how could anyone take Wikipedia seriously after this?

I've used Wikipedia for years, having been on the 'Net since '95, & I've heard rumors of censorship, but never experienced this myself, as I've made only a few edits.

The other day when the yellow bar popped up for donations I almost pulled the trigger, after all these years. Funny how things work out.

I am in the media, & have regularly promoted Wikipedia, but will now be educating my listeners & readers about this matter. You & your ilk are destroying this country by blocking the information people need to make informed decisions. If you have any conscience or allegiance to the truth, you should find a new line of work, immediately.Dgahary (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)