You have been indefinitely blocked from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. (TW) |
|||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
== April 2019 == |
== April 2019 == |
||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]''' from editing because it appears that you are [[Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia|not here to build an encyclopedia]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <span style="font-size: x-small">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</span></span> 19:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:Uw-nothereblock --> |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]''' from editing because it appears that you are [[Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia|not here to build an encyclopedia]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <span style="font-size: x-small">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</span></span> 19:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:Uw-nothereblock --> |
||
{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''I think it's crazy I've been permanently blocked!! What's good is it gives me new material to talk about in my updated Wikipedia chapter. Here's the current one: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=597) I'm including my last comment that I wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard. One day there will be enough evidence release (such as the actual FISA warrants) that will make it clear that a lot of people were spied on.''}} |
|||
:I'm not sure what meatpuppetry is, but no one tells me when to contribute to Wikipedia. I decided to post on the SpyGate talk page because it's amazing to me how there is plenty of publicly available evidence that Trump was spied on, (including a book titled SpyGate) and so it seems unbelievable Wikipedia still calls it a false conspiracy theory. Now, the author of the book (a former cop and secret service agent!) is called a "clown" by longtime Wikipedia editors, and his word is "not to be trusted." That slander keeps them ignorant. |
|||
:As I wrote on the talk page, imagine if Bush 43 had been wiretapping Obama, and Wikipedia refused to acknowledge it, and only called it a conspiracy theory. You would think you are living in crazy times. The other amazing thing is how many people here are implicitly defending unauthorized surveillance (by saying it didn't happen) and defending the politicization and weaponization of the US intelligence community. The US federal government has committed crimes, and Wikipedia defends democracy by saying it didn't happen. [[User:KeithCu|KeithCu]] ([[User talk:KeithCu|talk]]) 21:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:54, 15 April 2019
References
Just a note on references that you may not be aware of. When you cite something as you did to George W. Bush, it's good to add more than just the URL.
Just to give you an example:
1. Here is how you cited to the White House Press Release:
<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html]</ref>
If you take a look at the footnote section, you'll see that when you format a cite like this it only appears as a numbered hyperlink and it ruins the professionalism of the article.
2. To improve it, you could cite it like this:
<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html "Enter text here that will show up as the hyperlink"], "insert relevant citation information here."</ref>
3. So, based on the specific link you provided, I would format the cite like this:
<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts], Office of the Press Secretary, March 13, 2001</ref>
I'll go ahead and change them to the article along with edits that I make. Hope this helps. SpiderMMB 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem. I appreciate that you explain your edits, which is more than most people do. I'm just anti-POV in articles, and these political articles are about the worst with it. Granted, my own POV will come through sometimes too, but I think if everyone contributes in good faith it eventually balances itself out.
- Good luck with future editing. SpiderMMB 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
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 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 the 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.
O3000 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Template:Z33
Administrators' noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC){{unblock|reason=I think it's crazy I've been permanently blocked!! What's good is it gives me new material to talk about in my updated Wikipedia chapter. Here's the current one: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=597) I'm including my last comment that I wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard. One day there will be enough evidence release (such as the actual FISA warrants) that will make it clear that a lot of people were spied on.}}
- I'm not sure what meatpuppetry is, but no one tells me when to contribute to Wikipedia. I decided to post on the SpyGate talk page because it's amazing to me how there is plenty of publicly available evidence that Trump was spied on, (including a book titled SpyGate) and so it seems unbelievable Wikipedia still calls it a false conspiracy theory. Now, the author of the book (a former cop and secret service agent!) is called a "clown" by longtime Wikipedia editors, and his word is "not to be trusted." That slander keeps them ignorant.
- As I wrote on the talk page, imagine if Bush 43 had been wiretapping Obama, and Wikipedia refused to acknowledge it, and only called it a conspiracy theory. You would think you are living in crazy times. The other amazing thing is how many people here are implicitly defending unauthorized surveillance (by saying it didn't happen) and defending the politicization and weaponization of the US intelligence community. The US federal government has committed crimes, and Wikipedia defends democracy by saying it didn't happen. KeithCu (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)