User talk:Healinglaw

Welcome!

Hello, Healinglaw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 04:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar rules in articles about living or recently-deceased persons. Seeing as you don't get that InfoWars* somehow is not fake news, you should probably avoid both of these areas.

*(which claims that NASA is running child slave colonies on Mars, the Democratic party was using local pizza joints to run a pedophile ring, that DEAD CHILDREN are just "acting" so the FBI can take away our guns, Hillary Clinton is a witch straight out of what you'd find in the Malleus Maleficarum, and that the gov't is trying to use chemtrails to turn frogs and people gay) Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that any further attempt to defend InfoWars would result in a block. InfoWars is fake news according to any reliable source that has discussed the matter. There's over a dozen citations regarding that in the InfoWars article. That's why it was so thoroughly rejected at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_247#RfC_on_reliability_of_InfoWars. You decided to defend it as well as some of its conspiracy theories, so I can assume your attitude or relationship with reality is incompatible with this site's goals.

That you continued to defend it, or even did to begin with, raises grave concerns about your capacity to edit productively. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Healinglaw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am still new here but have made valuable contributions to several pages already. I wasn't aware open discussion is not allowed. I did not see the warning that is spoken of. I haven't even attempted to make changes as I wanted to understand the issue. Maybe I didn't go about it the right way, but I'm still learning. Healinglaw (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You clearly have a lot of learning still to do. At the moment, you manifestly lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia. You are welcome to try again in six months but for now, it would actively harm Wikipedia to unblock you. Hopefully once you've waited six months, you'll better understand why you have been blocked and will be able to explain to us how we can be sure you'll be a productive contributor. Yamla (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You've really missed what this is about.

InfoWars is pretty much the archetypal example of conspiracy theorist fake news.

If, out of ignorance, someone asked why we call that fake news but not other sites, we would be glad to explain why in the hopes that they improve as editors.

You insisted that not only was it not fake news but defended its conspiracy theories. That is beyond a waste of time and bandwidth for everyone involved.

There is no need for open discussion about whether 2+2=4 or if 2+2=7 is an equally valid "opinion": InfoWars is fake news.

You have demonstrated that we will not be able to expect you to follow or comprehend our reliable sourcing guidelines, which are necessary for following our biographies of living persons policy (which you also violated). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomsonI can have opinions that differ from my actions. If its not a reliable source I won't use it, never planned on it, never even considered it. I'm not here to break the rules, I was just talking. I wouldn't use them as a source. Nor would I use another news source, unless its an interview or something maybe.

I didnt make any edits to any persons profile, so I didnt violate anything. How did I violate any rule about editing a living persons page, when I didnt edit. I was talking about it, not editing his page.

Avoiding all news sources because you can't use InfoWars really isn't better. It really only makes sense if one assumes that InfoWars is equal to mainstream news, which, again, it's not.

WP:BLP applies to all pages anywhere in the site, not just in articles. Your posts at the Teahouse made statements about living and recently deceased persons that are not supported by any mainstream academic or journalistic sources and those statements maligned those individuals. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson Not avoiding news sources for the reasons you suggest, I don't think news is a good source for most information in general, nothing to do with your point. Ok, again I did not know that, nor do I agree. I was just having a conversation, I thought open conversation was allowed there. I obviously wouldn't change the page, that was why I wrote there in the first place! I wrote in the Teahouse, because I thought it was a place for open discussion. Obviously, it is not. I didn't make any changes to his page, nor did I try, I was seeking a solution.

"solution" implies there's a problem to be fixed. The effort you've put forth to defend InfoWars would indicate that the problem (from your perspective) is that we label InfoWars fake news.

That is not a problem.

People acknowledging that InfoWars is fake news is the solution to a real problem.

Your post made no indication as to what you would or would not edit.

Also, you've clearly not caught on to who the BLP violation was about. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson BLP violation is for talking about Alex Jones in the Teahouse in a way that the mainstream media, and clearly you disagree with. Clear on that. Again I'm done. I'm not here to debate infowars, it's not even what I do here. It just caught my eye, and I wanted to see if there was something that could be done. Obviously not, I'm not trying to argue. Can you please unblock my account, I won't bring it up again.

Wrong, the BLP violations were not against Alex Jones. That you keep missing it indicates that you don't understand the basic principle and have probably dehumanized the subject of the BLP violation in your mind to the point where you wouldn't see anything wrong with what you said. If you need it pointed out for you, that doesn't help your case.

If the discussion was not intended to improve the encyclopedia, then what purpose did it serve? Now, this does open the door to pointing to apparently casual discussions which do serve the purpose of creating community and helping new users find experienced users to learn from, so that doesn't work. Beyond those purposes, Wikipedia is not a forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson The discussion was to improve the content, from my perspective, not yours.... clearly. I know its not a forum, I thought the teahouse was more open, however, obviously it is not either. Now I know. I apologize.

Can you please unblock my account?

I can but I refuse to. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson Ok, well that's a bummer. Thanks for letting me know. Goodnight.

(edit conflict) To more fully explain: "to improve the content" would mean that edits would happen somewhere eventually -- otherwise, no content is improved. Given how you were defending InfoWars, the only logical conclusion was that you were planning to incorporate information from InfoWars into the article or at least legitimize them or else de-legitimize mainstream news.

You do not understand what this is about at all, and I've explained everything that needs to be understood, so far as would be necessary for an editor who was not going to be constant trouble for us.

You're clearly trying to balance maintaining your mistaken belief that they're not fake news with saying what you think I want to hear (as if it's pleasing me that matters rather than fundamental issues of ethics, competence, and grasp-on-reality). That, combined with the way your position is jumping around, doesn't give the best impression of you.

You've missed the point regarding InfoWars and fake news entirely.

You still haven't figured out who was the subject of your BLP violation, and the person who did suspect was the subject indicates that you don't understand the entire point of our biographies of living persons policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson I was aiming to remove the "fake news" label from the profile. I don't think its fair, that was my end goal. I wanted to see if that was ok. I wasn't defending infowars for their sake, but to improve (in my mind) the accuracy of their page. My point in countering your points was to demonstrate that it is not fake news, and remove that label from their wiki page. Which in my opinion is more accurate. I was not seeking to use them as a source at all. Nothing I work on, on here would make them a valid source.

The volation was for saying, in jest, that Hilary is "probably" a witch.

Ian.thomson Please unblock me...

No. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't understand how objective it is to label InfoWars as fake news, that you think that removing that label is an improvement, that you responded to thorough explanations with counter-arguments -- all that demonstrates that you would be a waste of time for the community.

That you needed this all so thoroughly explained and that you keep treating it as just "other people's opinions," no more valid that your own delusion that InfoWars isn't any worse than CNN... That and how long you failed to comprehend the point of the BLP policy and took so long to figure out how you violated it -- that demonstrates it would require a lot of effort by the community to render you a competent editor.

Both of those points leave me no reason whatsoever to unblock you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson One thing here is certainly not objective, and that is your treatment of me.

For differing in beliefs than you, you treat me unfairly and with bias. Hopefully one day you will learn how to treat people more fairly, rather than with your cult-like mentality. 'philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal' ----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

I started that discussion because I didn't want to break the rules, and ended up doing it anyway. I apologize for that, I am not here to break rules. Your lack of empathy, however, saddens me. Take care.

Nope, about the only beliefs I'll block on sight for are:

explicit Nazism, racism, or similarly inhuman bigotry
advocacy for pedophilia
the belief that InfoWars is not fake news, or that it's no worse than mainstream media

This is not to equate them any further than "erroneous beliefs that, if held, indicate that the user will not be able to properly contribute to the site." There's a wide variety of beliefs that I think are stupid and/or dangerous, yet which I don't block people for holding.

Hopefully one day you will learn to accept that you can be mistaken and to heed when others point out these mistakes to you, instead of calling the kettle black. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomsonYou are not hearing me out.

I didn't try to change the Infowars profile without permission, I didn't suggest that my way is the only way, I wanted to start a discussion and reach a consensus with the community and not act like a rogue agent by changing it on my own.

Again, my argument isn't that Infowars should be considered a valid source for wiki info, I wouldn't even use them even if it were. I just don't think its fair to call them fake news on their profile, that is my belief. I didn't attempt to remove it on my own as I thought it would be disrespectful, so I started a conversation.

I have made many rule-abiding edits to facts about glaciology, rock formations, as well as contributions to lawn care articles, many articles which were lacking any sufficient information or sources.

I have donated to the site several times and not purposely violated its rules. Had I known what I was saying wasn't allowed, I wouldn't have done it, I did not see the warning in your message as it looked like part of the previous comments by older posters. I only saw your response which was detached from the larger text and responded.

I don't know how I can heed anything or correct my mistakes as I was banned without seeing your warning, and have told you multiple times I would adjust my behavior according to what I learned. I am attempting to heed your advice, but don't have the space to exercise that, now that I am banned.

My crime is believing that it's not fair to label Infowars fake news. My argument was that the President calls CNN fake news, and we don't put that on their profile. The only objective decision here is to label CNN fake news, or remove the label from InfoWars. Maybe I wasn't that clear about why I was posting, but that is my argument. It's fine that the community disagrees, but how would I know had I not asked. I didn't seek to disrupt anything or spread false information. Honestly' I was having a lot of fun editing the pages on glaciation and rock formations and it really hurts that I was banned.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Healinglaw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to continue improving wikipedia as an online encyclopedia. Please review my contributions, to pages before I was banned. I was not here to break rules. I opened a discussion in the wrong way and was banned. I would like to continue editing pages and discontinue this discussion. Healinglaw (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Gad. The extended discussion on this page is bewildering. Please, state clearly and concisely what edits you will not make and what edits you will make. I think you are on the right track, maybe, but you need to state clearly what you will not do so that we can understand that the disruption will not resume. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dlohcierekim Hey, thanks for the response, I didn't edit anything wrong. It was in the Teahouse, I tried to open a discussion on infowars being labeled fake news. I didn't think it was fair, or truthful, so instead of changing it, I wanted to discuss the issue. I didn't realize it was such a big deal. In short, I won't discuss my feelings on Infowars anymore. It's not what I was here to do in the first place, it just came up, and I got banned. Thanks for listening...

Sure. @Ian.thomson: Thoughts on unblocking?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given how all this started, I'd be happier if he made it clear that he reviewed WP:RSP and (regardless of his opinion of its results) made it clear that he accepts that it reflects a widespread community consensus that he will respect that consensus by not trying to reinstate sources listed as "generally unreliable," "blacklisted," or "depreciated." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:Dlohcierekim Hi, sorry for the delay, I am in the process of moving. I have reviewed this set of source standards and will do so in the future. Again it was never my intention to source articles from Infowars, just talking about their wiki page. Again, I didn't know it was a contentious issue here, it just came up. I mostly use a rare thing called books for source material anyhow. Can I be unblocked? I have a lot to add to this site.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Healinglaw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the rules. Will you unblock now, or loss a great contributor forever?

Accept reason:

You have made a commitment to drop the thing about Infowars and to abide by the reliable sources list at WP:RSP (which is the condition set by the blocking admin), so I have unblocked your account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you!

Nomination of Carnegie Pension for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carnegie Pension is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnegie Pension until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]