Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
::Oh no!! I am merely attempting to add legit content, that I find lacking to the articles. Please: Don't be so critical. I am just Adding to a ''Talk Page'' to further discuss with others. would have conformed and supported the wiki. I'll stay away from wiki contribution just for you.. bye ~ [[User:Bought the farm|Bought the farm]] ([[User talk:Bought the farm#top|talk]]) 03:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC) |
::Oh no!! I am merely attempting to add legit content, that I find lacking to the articles. Please: Don't be so critical. I am just Adding to a ''Talk Page'' to further discuss with others. would have conformed and supported the wiki. I'll stay away from wiki contribution just for you.. bye ~ [[User:Bought the farm|Bought the farm]] ([[User talk:Bought the farm#top|talk]]) 03:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
*OK, then maybe you won't mind if I make that a more formal thing, by topic-banning you from American Politics for three months, and I'll tell you why: after these warnings, after the comments made in responses to your comments on talk pages, you still seem to think that "further discuss" is a goal here. I find no realization, not even after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKanye_West&type=revision&diff=863650149&oldid=863646970 this flurry of edits] (will you ''please'' use preview? or think before you type?), that you committed a ''serious'' BLP violation, that you accused another editor of having mental issues, and that Wikipedia is not a forum to simply chat around--[[Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#No_proof_is_necessary_to_accuse_somebody]] is another example. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC) |
*OK, then maybe you won't mind if I make that a more formal thing, by topic-banning you from American Politics for three months, and I'll tell you why: after these warnings, after the comments made in responses to your comments on talk pages, you still seem to think that "further discuss" is a goal here. I find no realization, not even after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKanye_West&type=revision&diff=863650149&oldid=863646970 this flurry of edits] (will you ''please'' use preview? or think before you type?), that you committed a ''serious'' BLP violation, that you accused another editor of having mental issues, and that Wikipedia is not a forum to simply chat around--[[Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#No_proof_is_necessary_to_accuse_somebody]] is another example. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |
|||
|imagesize=50px |
|||
|1=The following [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] now applies to you: |
|||
{{Talkquote|1=You are banned for three months from editing any page, including talk pages, or making any edits related to the topic of American Politics post-1932, broadly construed.}} |
|||
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s decision at [[WP:ARBAPDS]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]. This sanction has been recorded in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2018|log of sanctions]]. Please go to [[WP:TBAN]] and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for an extended period, to enforce the ban. |
|||
If you wish to appeal against the ban, you may do so via the procedure outlined here, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors]]. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
Revision as of 03:44, 12 October 2018
ready to edit
just starting out here Bought the farm (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hi, Bought the farm. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Thegooduser, thanks so much for the welcome.Bought the farm (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're Welcome! Please feel free to drop by My talk page anytime to leave a message if you need any help!Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Bought the farm, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Bought the farm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC) |
Trump Derangement Syndrome
Hello, Bought the farm. I see you are new here; welcome! You do need to understand Wikipedia's principles in order to edit here. The most important is neutrality. That means that we must not say things in Wikipedia’s voice that are not neutral. If we are saying something derogatory or negative, or for that matter if we are praising something, we must only do so to the extent that we can credit that actual wording to a source. It also means that we can only use Reliable Sources, sources that have editorial control (in other words not blogs or opinion pieces) and have a reputation for accuracy in reporting (in other words not like the National Enquirer which routinely makes stuff up). In your recent edits to Trump Derangement Syndrome, you cited unreliable sources, and your own entry included judgmental terms in Wikipedia’s voice ("noting the numerous calls for impeachment, the media’s coordinated editorial attacks and the continued outrage on the left while asking a critical question that few have raised," "the hysterical and hypocritical media coverage by CNN and the New York Times"). These edits have been removed. But if you feel they have merit and belong in the article, you can go to the article’s talk page, Talk:Trump Derangement Syndrome, and offer revised wordings, or your arguments for why the material should be included in the article. Wikipedia works by consensus, so if other people agree with you, the material will be used. If you have questions or comments for me, you can put them here; I will see them. Your comments about the edits you want to include should go at the article talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your great effort in fighting against anti-Trump bias. 1.136.108.0 (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC) |
- thanx! jus doin a 'lil edittin Bought the farm (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Note that the wording of the barnstar admits and encourages a battleground mentality. That's not good. We should just follow what RS say, and that will usually be "anti-Trump" and factual. That's just the way it works. At other times and with other presidents it might be otherwise. He just happens to be on the wrong side of facts much of the time, and since RS document that, it appears they are being "anti-Trump", when they are just defending facts.
To help you understand why this is the case, here are just a few of the myriad RS (I have saved literally hundreds of very RS on the subject) which document Trump's dubious relationship to truth (completely off-the-charts, beyond anything fact checkers have ever encountered):
- "I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace[1]
- "How to cover a habitual liar"[2]
- "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward."[3]
- President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims.[4]
- Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'[5]
- "...what's even more amazing than a President who is averaging -- repeat: averaging -- more than eight untruths a day is this: Trump's penchant for saying false things is exponentially increasing as his presidency wears on."[6]
Sources
|
---|
|
Trump's falsehoods |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Trump's falsehoods
As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks,[2][3][4][5][6] and experience teaches that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards"[7] because he's a "habitual liar".[8] In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".[9][10][5] Fact checkers have kept a close tally of his falsehoods, and, according to one study, the rate of false statements has increased, with the percentage of his words that are part of a false claim rising over the course of his presidency.[5] According to The New York Times, Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office,[2] 1,318 total in his first 263 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" political analysis column of The Washington Post,[11] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day.[12] After 558 days in office, the tally was at 4,229 false or misleading claims, and it had risen to an average of 7.6 per day from 4.9 during Trump's first 100 days in office.[13] Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."[14] Kessler also wrote: "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered ... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."[3] Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."[15] Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media.[16] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.[16] Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims.[17][18][19][20] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures,[21][22][23] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts".[24] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."[25] Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research."[26] She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".[27] In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."[28] David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true.[29][30] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York.[31] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses.[32] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving[33] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."[34] Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement;[35][36] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide";[37][38][39] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;[40][41] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".[42][43][44] A poll in May 2018 found that "just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy".[45] The Editorial Board of The New York Times took this telling sideswipe at Trump when commenting on the unfitness of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court: "A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth."[46]
Fact checking TrumpTrump's incessant attacks on the media, reliable sources, and truth have kept an army of fact checkers busy, the latter having never encountered a more deceptive public person. Tony Burman wrote: "The falsehoods and distortions uttered by Trump and his senior officials have particularly inflamed journalists and have been challenged — resulting in a growing prominence of 'fact-checkers' and investigative reporting."[52] Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:
The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:
NOTE: Many of the sources above are older. The situation has not improved, but is rapidly getting much worse, as described by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ashley Parker: "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true."[70] As Trump rapidly accelerates the rate of his false statements, one suspects he is following the advice of his friend and advisor, Steve Bannon:
References
|
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Citations on talk pages
Inline citations are really not needed on talk pages. If you want to mention a source for something you're saying, just put it in plain text or use a normal hyperlink. Adding the <ref> tags just hides your references at the bottom of the talk page and makes things confusing, especially if that discussion isn't the bottom-most talk section. If for some reason you feel you must still use the ref tags, please at least insert {{Reflist-talk}} in your text in order to contain the ref list. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- -- Fyrael, Can do. So is the content worthy of being included in the article?? Bought the farm (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- You've participated on multiple talk pages, so you'd have to be more specific, though I'd rather leave discussion about a particular article on that article's talk page instead of splitting the discussion between there and here. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that your rapid talk page edits make it extremely difficult to carry on a conversation. Generally, the practice is to think about all of what you want to say, then post a comment, and maaaybe (but not usually) make a tweak or two afterward if it doesn't really change the meaning. Your style of going back and changing what you've said (including the timestamp!) over and over and over again makes it near impossible to respond coherently to. I mean how can someone reply to a statement you've made if the statement is gone or changed completely an hour later? If you feel you need to add more after you've posted a comment, then just add it underneath your original post. See WP:REDACT for a better explanation. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- You've participated on multiple talk pages, so you'd have to be more specific, though I'd rather leave discussion about a particular article on that article's talk page instead of splitting the discussion between there and here. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
How to ping
I notice that you often ping other editors, and that's okay, but I fear that it often isn't working as intended. This is one example where it won't work. The ping and signature must happen in the same edit. If you want to add a ping to a previously saved comment, erase the old sig and sign again. Then it should work. Otherwise, as long as your sig is fresh, the pings you have just included should work. I hope that helps. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics
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 power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- this is not disruption, it is contribution on the discussion talk page. This Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics better be in good faith, cause it seems to be a little restrictive to me. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's only restrictive to those who are pushing the limits of what's acceptable here. If you only used RS, you would't have these problems. Now that you have been warned about the DS restrictions, you can't claim ignorance when you get blocked, a topic ban, or a full ban. If you accept the advice you've been getting, you may have a long and pleasant career here. I hope so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- well I hope to be a full contributor. Implied restrictions are hard to accept... I'll say a little prayer for you.. ~ Bought the farm (talk)
- Hey,
Power andBR, lighten up. Yes, Bought the farm needs to be aware of the restrictions on editing articles. And it is appropriate to let new editors know about the restrictions, which does not imply that they have done anything wrong. The comments you are objecting to were on talk pages, which is different. It's not as if they put their opinions into articles. (Although Bought, you should avoid political opinion on talk pages - even if it's things you read somewhere.) And BR, Bought has not done anything that even comes close to violating the DS. Please stop threatening bans and blocks, which you are in no position to impose or determine, and go read WP:ASPERSIONS. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)- BullRangifer, many things I mentioned on Brett Kavanaugh talk page reference comments US Senators stated during impromptu TV interviews. Don't know if a TV broadcast is RS here - but it is truthful. I don't like on-line BULLYing ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bought, just so you know, senators or other politicians giving interviews are absolutely not considered Reliable Sources for factual information. Probably the least Reliable Source out there, in fact. Just look at the way they contradict each other, citing opposite facts; they can't both be right and quite possibly neither of them is. An example of a political claim not to believe: Trump likes to claim that any protests against him are from "paid professional protesters". Not only is there zero evidence of any such thing, but it doesn't even pass the believability test. Millions of people, all over the country, recruited and hired overnight? The biggest corporation or the richest millionaire could not possibly pull that off. (Maybe he is thinking of his own 2015 announcement of his campaign for president, where he actually did pay some actors to appear as supporters.) Bottom line, you can believe what you like and who you like from a personal standpoint, but Wikipedia only accepts neutral reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, learning ~ Bought the farm (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bought, just so you know, senators or other politicians giving interviews are absolutely not considered Reliable Sources for factual information. Probably the least Reliable Source out there, in fact. Just look at the way they contradict each other, citing opposite facts; they can't both be right and quite possibly neither of them is. An example of a political claim not to believe: Trump likes to claim that any protests against him are from "paid professional protesters". Not only is there zero evidence of any such thing, but it doesn't even pass the believability test. Millions of people, all over the country, recruited and hired overnight? The biggest corporation or the richest millionaire could not possibly pull that off. (Maybe he is thinking of his own 2015 announcement of his campaign for president, where he actually did pay some actors to appear as supporters.) Bottom line, you can believe what you like and who you like from a personal standpoint, but Wikipedia only accepts neutral reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, many things I mentioned on Brett Kavanaugh talk page reference comments US Senators stated during impromptu TV interviews. Don't know if a TV broadcast is RS here - but it is truthful. I don't like on-line BULLYing ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey,
- well I hope to be a full contributor. Implied restrictions are hard to accept... I'll say a little prayer for you.. ~ Bought the farm (talk)
- It's only restrictive to those who are pushing the limits of what's acceptable here. If you only used RS, you would't have these problems. Now that you have been warned about the DS restrictions, you can't claim ignorance when you get blocked, a topic ban, or a full ban. If you accept the advice you've been getting, you may have a long and pleasant career here. I hope so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Barnstar 2
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your great effort in fighting against anti-Trump bias. 1.136.108.0 (talk) 23:10, 06 October 2018 (UTC) |
- Why have you copied the barnstar from above and changed the date? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, Why Not!!! hmmm... I did this to futher document the Brett Kavanaugh controversy, and call-out the support for our Presidents' legacy.... I added this myself and will again, as appropriate...
BullRangifer, maybe it's time 4u to make it easy onn yourself??? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- --MelanieN, I am not familiar with the animosity on Wikipedia. I will continue to attempt contribution, but will limit my content accordingly. Wikipedia has a lot of adversity built into it. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- You are learning, that's good. And you have done well to mostly limit yourself to talk pages and not to try editing articles just yet. Because if you started putting material into the articles without a reliable source, or worse yet based on your own opinion, you would get batted down pretty fast. On talk pages you will learn what kinds of talk is encouraged and what is discouraged. Basically, talk about the actual content of the article, and to keep your suggestions within the bounds of established fact. (Hint: we can't usually rely on politicians to give us established facts.) We all have opinions, of course, but we try to set them aside when editing Wikipedia - to focus on keeping the encyclopedia accurate and neutral. When someone seems to be here to try to promote a particular point of view (BTW this barnstar you are so proud of seems to suggest that is why you are here), they will be met with resistance and sometimes hostility. I have already told BullRangifer that he is out of line to make threats against you. Hopefully he will back off, and hopefully you will not give him cause by posting opinions, or material based on unreliable sources, on the talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I don't know anything about barnstar, but yes I will use and re-use this. ~ proud of what ? The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar while covering the facts.. are u sure BullRangifer is a he??? doesn't seem to be a 'he'. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a male, as in a "bull". (A bull rangifer is a male reindeer, of which I have shot 16.) I wondered about the barnstar because we don't give them to ourselves. The one you copied from above was a nice gesture from an IP. Great. It's the copying and reusing (and changing the date) that I've never seen before. Whatever. There are no official rules about barnstars. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- While it's certainly not against any rules, it's just a disturbing sign of the kind of thinking and editing this user employs. By pretending that they've received another supportive message from another editor when they in fact haven't, it shows that they don't much care about the truth of things. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, Cool, I've not received much support here on Wiki for a pro-Trump, pro-conservative voice. we will get by ~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Gotcha. It's cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- -- Fyrael, you've bought the farm. Why do you not add content? YOU, Just stay off my talk page, will you? I will never respond to you again - GO AWAY~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Gotcha. It's cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, Cool, I've not received much support here on Wiki for a pro-Trump, pro-conservative voice. we will get by ~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- While it's certainly not against any rules, it's just a disturbing sign of the kind of thinking and editing this user employs. By pretending that they've received another supportive message from another editor when they in fact haven't, it shows that they don't much care about the truth of things. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a male, as in a "bull". (A bull rangifer is a male reindeer, of which I have shot 16.) I wondered about the barnstar because we don't give them to ourselves. The one you copied from above was a nice gesture from an IP. Great. It's the copying and reusing (and changing the date) that I've never seen before. Whatever. There are no official rules about barnstars. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I don't know anything about barnstar, but yes I will use and re-use this. ~ proud of what ? The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar while covering the facts.. are u sure BullRangifer is a he??? doesn't seem to be a 'he'. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- You are learning, that's good. And you have done well to mostly limit yourself to talk pages and not to try editing articles just yet. Because if you started putting material into the articles without a reliable source, or worse yet based on your own opinion, you would get batted down pretty fast. On talk pages you will learn what kinds of talk is encouraged and what is discouraged. Basically, talk about the actual content of the article, and to keep your suggestions within the bounds of established fact. (Hint: we can't usually rely on politicians to give us established facts.) We all have opinions, of course, but we try to set them aside when editing Wikipedia - to focus on keeping the encyclopedia accurate and neutral. When someone seems to be here to try to promote a particular point of view (BTW this barnstar you are so proud of seems to suggest that is why you are here), they will be met with resistance and sometimes hostility. I have already told BullRangifer that he is out of line to make threats against you. Hopefully he will back off, and hopefully you will not give him cause by posting opinions, or material based on unreliable sources, on the talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
October 2018
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 09:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
A warning
I've been looking over your contributions and it looks like you are spending a lot of time doing what we call "point of view (POV) pushing", that is, editing with an agenda of promoting a certain point of view. New users often come in with the false impression that Wikipedia needs people to advocate their points of view. We don't. We actually need the opposite...editors who are able to put their personal views aside and edit in a neutral manner that reflects what independent "Reliable Sources" say about a subject. You also seem to be using talk pages as a forum for political arguments rather than a space for discussing specific improvements to the article. If you continue in this vein you will quickly find yourself banned from editing articles about American Politics. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Awilley, I came here to leave a similar note, with some specifics--[1] here is a BLP violation, here is a personal attack, here is another personal attack as well as a smear...I could go on. Moreover, I think we have competency issues here: the user's prose is vague, to say the least, they seem to have no knowledge of WP:RS, and I have the feeling we're in fringy territory already. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh no!! I am merely attempting to add legit content, that I find lacking to the articles. Please: Don't be so critical. I am just Adding to a Talk Page to further discuss with others. would have conformed and supported the wiki. I'll stay away from wiki contribution just for you.. bye ~ Bought the farm (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK, then maybe you won't mind if I make that a more formal thing, by topic-banning you from American Politics for three months, and I'll tell you why: after these warnings, after the comments made in responses to your comments on talk pages, you still seem to think that "further discuss" is a goal here. I find no realization, not even after this flurry of edits (will you please use preview? or think before you type?), that you committed a serious BLP violation, that you accused another editor of having mental issues, and that Wikipedia is not a forum to simply chat around--Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#No_proof_is_necessary_to_accuse_somebody is another example. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You are banned for three months from editing any page, including talk pages, or making any edits related to the topic of American Politics post-1932, broadly construed.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAPDS and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal against the ban, you may do so via the procedure outlined here, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)