User talk:Nippaz

April 2023

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Elie Honig seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

How is it not neutral? He clearly endorsed Bragg and was featured prominently on Bragg's campaign website, which is accessible on the link provided from the Wayback machine. He has extensively covered Trump's indictment without disclosing his endorsement of Bragg and has been lambasted by conservative radio and tv for lacking journalist ethics in failing to disclose his endorsement. Those are just facts, not shaded one way or the other. Nippaz (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there any WP:RS that says that his endorsement was unethical? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/should-opinion-journalists-say-who-theyre-voting-for/ Nippaz (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Elie Honig. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You have to use WP:RS in the article, and just showing the website on the Wayback Machine doesn't verify there's any controversy. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You added commentary to your edits first. I was just responded. More importantly, you are clearly trying to protect a liberal commentator from facts indicating unethical journalist behavior. Not so neutral, are we Muboshgu? Nippaz (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

All articles need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Your edits aren't following those key principles. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's your left-wing opinion. I've provided facts and sources to justify my edits. Nippaz (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"My left-wing opinion". No, that's how Wikipedia works. If you want help, go to Help:Contents. Maybe someone at the Wikipedia:Teahouse can better explain this to you than I have. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You removed my edits again, now without any explanation and clearly to protect left-winger Honig. If you want me to file suit against Wikipedia and personally name you (and unmask your moniker with your real name), I will gladly do so. My edits addressed your (bogus) allegations that my prior edits were not "not neutral." Now, I have simply included facts (1. Honig endorsed Bragg on his website. 2. Honig has been reporting prominently on Bragg's indictment of Trump) with supporting documentation that appeared on Bragg's campaign website and CNN YouTube channel. If you want to turn this into a legal battle, let's do it. Nippaz (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.  – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You've also been edit warring and appear to me to be WP:NOTHERE to contribute collaboratively. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Dude you are literally a liberal piece of trash. My additions to Honig's page are hyper relevant, particularly in comparison to portions of his page indicating when he had his bar mitzvah lol. I have submitted several other constructive contributions to other pages. I will see you in court, loser. Nippaz (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You haven't listened to a word I've said. And if you're going to continue to make personal attacks and legal threats, no matter how empty, I've got no choice but to revoke talk page access. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #71724

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the legal threat is only a part of this user's problem. User needs to learn how to resolve disputes without violating WP:CIVIL, without making personal attacks, and without WP:edit warring. I will leave a CTOP/alert in case user does manage to posit a viable unblock request. User will need a WP:partial block for Elie Honig as a condition of unblocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User should read and understand our policy against legal threats -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, given that their editing on Honig's page was related to the Manhattan DA who is prosecuting Trump, and their outward right-wing comments ("That's your left-wing opinion" even before calling me "literally a liberal piece of trash"), I think that if unblocked, they would need to be warned about the contentious topic of American politics as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

CTOP alert American politics

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)