PhilKnight (talk | contribs) decline |
My agenda is the truth, apparently we are in the tiny minority on the political web pages. |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|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.''|decline=You may be right about the spying thing or you may not. What concerns me is that you aren't providing assurances that you will edit Wikipedia according to policy, as opposed to pursuing your own agenda. In this context, I am declining your request. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 21:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)}} [[User:KeithCu|KeithCu]] ([[User talk:KeithCu#top|talk]]) 19:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
{{unblock reviewed|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.''|decline=You may be right about the spying thing or you may not. What concerns me is that you aren't providing assurances that you will edit Wikipedia according to policy, as opposed to pursuing your own agenda. In this context, I am declining your request. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 21:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)}} [[User:KeithCu|KeithCu]] ([[User talk:KeithCu#top|talk]]) 19:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
: I wasn't editing Wikipedia, I was posting in a talk page! I thought there was a difference in standards between talk pages and regular pages (where slander of Dan Bongino by other longtime editors is apparently allowed.) |
|||
: I have no agenda, unlike other people who simply keep repeating there's no evidence of spying. I would investigate the agenda of people to refuse to admit that a mountain of evidence exist, even while more comes out every day. My agenda is the truth, apparently we are in a tiny minority on the politics portion of Wikipedia, and banning me is easier than fixing Wikipedia falsehoods. [[User:KeithCu|KeithCu]] ([[User talk:KeithCu#top|talk]]) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Last Post to Wikipedia: |
|||
-------------------- |
|||
: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. |
: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. |
||
Revision as of 21:40, 15 April 2019
Welcome to my talk page:
Here is my home page: http://keithcu.com/
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)KeithCu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request 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.
Decline reason:
You may be right about the spying thing or you may not. What concerns me is that you aren't providing assurances that you will edit Wikipedia according to policy, as opposed to pursuing your own agenda. In this context, I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
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.
KeithCu (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't editing Wikipedia, I was posting in a talk page! I thought there was a difference in standards between talk pages and regular pages (where slander of Dan Bongino by other longtime editors is apparently allowed.)
- I have no agenda, unlike other people who simply keep repeating there's no evidence of spying. I would investigate the agenda of people to refuse to admit that a mountain of evidence exist, even while more comes out every day. My agenda is the truth, apparently we are in a tiny minority on the politics portion of Wikipedia, and banning me is easier than fixing Wikipedia falsehoods. KeithCu (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Last Post to Wikipedia:
- 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)