User talk:ICEERO

April 2021[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at 2019 Nevada killing spree. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are neither defamatory, or complementary. They simply are facts.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2019 Nevada killing spree. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop threatening me. I posted factual information.

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at 2019 Nevada killing spree, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Save your threats. Factual information provided and more detail is just that - FACT.

ICEERO, good day. The messages above are no threats but to inform you that you need to have source to support your claim. If you not adhere to the guidlines then you might be blocked from editing. Pls use Template:Cite Web to provide inline citation if your source is from the web. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are already cited in the materials posted, along with things like the publicly available laws (8 USC, the Immigration and Nationality Act etc). Nothing has been posted from myself that is not 100% factual. Thanks for the concern - but you were not there or involved.

It is incumbent on you to provide an actual written reference to a reliable source about his family's immigration status, and to make a persuasive argument that this information is WP:DUE for inclusion in this article. Adding contentious unreferenced information about living people is a policy violation. Present your case on the article talk page. Which specific reliable source now in the article verifies the content you wish to add? Verifiability is a core content policy, as is the Neutral point of view. Adhering to core content policies is mandatory. Persistent editing against consensus and edit warring are blockable offenses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the articles already included which mention the having to travel to El Salvador to interview the family after their removal from the US? Review documents before you insert your opinion. Good lord.

Hi ICEERO, Pls be polite when communicate with other editor as this is the Wikipedia guidelines. If the source is included in the article, then you need to state that in the edit summary, so editors may check. see next edit on how to input edit summary. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. In addition to all the other warnings/reports. You are FAR beyond acceptable edit-warring. STOP NOW. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

blocking me for stating facts and using legal definitions is reprehensible. By codified law an Alien is someone who is a citizen and national of another nation. Aliens can be here legally or illegally. Illegal means in violation of the law. If an Alien enters the nation illegally, they are in fact an illegal alien by definition as found in 8 USC and the Immigration and Nationality Act. CNN is NEVER a source for anything other than opinion. An immigrant is someone who comes the the US LEGALLY to live here for an indeterminate amount of time. An Immigrant can thus either be a LEGAL alien in the form of a lawful permanent resident, or someone who gains citizenship upon entry or later naturalization. Again - the Immigration and Nationality Act and 8 USC clearly spell this out. This page should be factual. ICEERO (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:37, 2 April 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.

I specifically addressed the reason for the ridiculous block. People with no knowledge inserting their opinion should NEVER override FACT and DEFENITIONS. These are simple things. I was blocked - for stating and providing truth. You backing this sort of thing up further shows how Wikipedia is a tool of the uneducated. ICEERO (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ES[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 ~~~~}}.

You are also violating the policy against edit warring. The relevant policies have been explained to you. You will not be permitted to violate them. Comply when your block expires. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen - you are a California resident, with zero knowledge on this topic. Citing CNN and their incorrect language is not a source - that is called an opinion piece. It is reprehensible that you silence facts and replace them with your opinion. Read 8 United States Code and the Immigration and Nationality Act for CORRECT legal language.

My state of residence is irrelevant and I would take the same action as an administrator if I lived in New Zealand or Tanzania. You will not be permitted to edit war. You will not be permitted to add contentious material without consensus and without a specific inline reference to a reliable source. As for CNN, it is widely accepted as a reliable source, and if you want to change that consensus, discuss the matter at WP:RSN. You cannot unilaterally impose your own personal preference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is NOT EVER reliable, particularly on matters of the law. I have already shown you the definition of Illegal Alien. This subject was arrested by ICE Deportation Officers, and an ICE detainer was placed upon his transfer to local custody. Bottom line - illegal alien is the proper legal definition. If you have an issue with this - please legislate the issue. As of now the issue was already legislated through congress as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and codified in 8 United States code. I note that you don't seem to care about anyone else "edit waring" but someone that you disagree with on a PC made up term. Let's be truthful and honest here - you know, instead of actually imposing your own personal preference (which you and the others did over and over). Thanks

If you wish to contest the reliability of CNN, then there is a place to do it, and that place is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Until the Wikipedia community agrees that CNN is not a reliable source, then you must accept the fact that it is reliable for use on Wikipedia despite your dislike of it. As for edit warring, which other editors have been violating that policy on this article other than you? State their account names and I will warn or block as appropriate. As for the content about the family members of the accused also being illegal immigrants, please point to the specific reference in the article that verifies this content. It is a grave and severe policy violation to add contentious material about any living person without providing an inline reference verifying the assertion. If you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia, then you must comply with the policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen - once again FACTS are not contentious, they merely are facts. Calling fact contentious is reprehensible. As part of the investigation into Martinez-Guzman, his family was researched by ICE. Shortly after Martinez-Guzman was taken into custody his mother was taken into custody by ICE also in Carson City. She was allowed to remain free (not detained) due to care for a minor child (Wilber's sister) who also had an immigration record. Further Martinez-Guzman's father is actually an ICE fugitive who was at large within the US at the time of this case. Facts are not contentious, ever. And CNN REGULARLY lies and makes up stories, let alone uses bs terms like "undocumented immigrant" which is nothing but pc nonsense. You can see the endless edits and undo's to what I wrote (some of which come from yourself). So let's dispense with acting like you don't see those. Again - FACTS are all that matter on this. No opinions, not that you don't like a word - FACTS.

You are a new editor and clearly unfamiliar with policies and guidelines. One of our most important policies is Verifiability. In short, if you assert that anything is a fact, then you are obligated to provide an inline reference to a reliable source that verifies that information. That is mandatory. Millions of people have committed crimes and the vast majority are not mentioned on Wikipedia because their crimes are relatively trivial or run-of-the-mill. But if anyone writes "Joe Blow is a burglar" on Wikipedia, then they MUST provide a reference to a reliable source stating that Blow was convicted of burglary. You seem to be making assertions about this case based on your own personal knowledge, which you assert are the facts. Please be aware that is contrary to another core content policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Things you know to be factual can only be added to Wikipedia if you can find and cite a published reliable source. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unless sealed, court records are viable by anyone in the public - ie: verifiable facts. Save your condescension for your Sunday morning coffee while you scoff at anyone who disagrees with you. Facts are FACTS. Period. Unlike your opinion.

Here are a few facts for your consideration: I have been a Wikipedia editor for about twelve years and have written about 100 articles and have expanded many hundreds more. No article I've written has been deleted. I have been an administrator for about four years and to date, have blocked 3865 accounts for policy violations. I have never been blocked myself and my administrative work here has been praised by many experienced editors. You, on the other hand, have been here for a few days, have already been blocked twice, and are likely to be blocked indefinitely if you keep violating policies. So, the choice is yours. Follow the rules or get blocked. If you want help understanding the policies and guidelines, I will assist. But if you insist on violating policies, you will be blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Yup - thank you for proving my point. Let me know when you chose to be an adult and discuss. Until then, you have zero valid point. ;) Your intent is clear though, you will ban, silence and censor all who chose to speak factually if you don't like the facts. Again - facts are always king. Prove me wrong. Or you can go back to your intention, to silence me. Which will you chose?

In this particular case, silencing you seems the best idea. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:24, 4 April 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 ~~~~}}. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect - you are clearly a tyrant.

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).

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

Request reason:

Wikipedia is and should be a place for facts. Blocking people because of your leftist political beliefs is nothing by tyranny at it's purest form. Jpgordon has shown that he is a tyrant. Every correction I made to the ONE article is all fact. Just because people are offended by simple definition's, does not mean those legal definitions should be attacked. So an excuse is made to block me for "not here to build an encyclopedia, when literally I was adding facts and correcting misstatements. People like Jpgordon, and others, should value fact above all else. Instead they take the cowardly way of enforcing their opinion on the less informed. The more informed they use their one iota of power to try to censor. This is not what wikipedia was designed to be. It was designed to be a source of factual presentation. I challenge anyone of the above to point out where I made a single factual error in the additions and corrections I made. Bottom line - they have yet to contest one actual thing I said, and instead take issue with their feelings being hurt over words. This block, if allowed to stand, sends a clear message that truth will not be tolerated. ICEERO ICEERO (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:GAB explains how to craft an appropriate unblock request, unlike this rant. You'll likely only get one more chance so make it count. Yamla (talk) 00:11, 5 April 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.

It is not a rant. Though funny, I could swear personal attacks aren't allowed and yet ........ defenition of irony.

I apologize for getting the number of your blocks wrong. At that time, I was also interacting with another editor who had been blocked twice and I made a mistake. Nobody objects to facts. We just require that facts be cited to reliable published sources, so that the information can be verified by our readers. That is not tyranny. It is a common sense standard that has led to Wikipedia being one of the world's most popular websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: it would appear that this editor has decided to continue their crusade at another account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ICEERO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]