User talk:Internet Informant

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

Internet Informant, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Internet Informant! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Inception, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones (radio host) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know how to respond to you directly, Ian.thomson (User talk:Ian.thomson). Has this gotten through to you? I'm still learning the basics of some of Wikipedia's more complicated features. I was just restoring information that I thought was important to the subject. And I won't do a direct, illicit restoration like that again. 12:48am, 28 March 2017 (UTC+10:00)
When someone reverts an edit you make (especially three different editors who have been here long enough to know what they're doing), you generally should not restore it right away. You should go to the talk page and address their reasons for removing it. Not what you imagine are their reasons, but what they say are their reasons. In this case, on the talk page, MjolnirPants explained that the "addition is supported entirely by primary sources" -- in other words, it is based on InfoWars itself, which does not establish further notability. Now, you could have pointed out the Guardian piece. However, MjolnirPants also raised the issue that the addition "only tenuously connected to Jones in a way which strongly implies a much more important connection" -- in other words, you would need a good source or two that explicitly blames Jones (instead of mentioning Jones as one of many popular anti-vaxxers). As MjolnirPants pointed out, our biographies of living persons policy does not allow us to say "that Jones is personally responsible for the measles outbreaks" (without plenty of good sources explicitly blaming him for it and not just mentioning him as part of a wider trend). Even if you, I, and MjolnirPants are all personally disgusted by Jones's delusional fear-mongering, we have to be sure that any statement can be defended in court with "we're just repeating what multiple reliable sources said."
Insulting MjolnirPants by accusing him of being an anti-vaxxer was not the way to go. He's here to help just as much as you or I are. Reverting the material over and over without proper discussion was not the way to go.
If you wish to add the material, find additional sources that are more explicit in blaming Jones (but be sure that they are mainstream academic or journalistic sources) and then try to work with MjolnirPants (and/or others) to try and find alternative phrasing that works with those sources. This source, while reliable for documenting the reality that there is no connection between vaccines and autism, does not mention Jones or InfoWars. The Guardian source only mentions InfoWars in two sentences out of the whole thing, and only mentions Jones as the owner of InfoWars (not as having any personal responsibility). After other users have agreed with the proposed revision, then add it.
Usually, the easiest way to write an article is to find sources first and then summarize those sources. It's harder to write an article by saying something and then looking for sources later. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you change "Trump" to "Drumpf" at Unite the Right rally?[edit]

How do you justify this version which changed Trump to "Drumpf"? Doug Weller talk 13:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Internet Informant. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)