User talk:Mr. Daniel Plainview

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. Daniel Plainview, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to TaskRabbit. 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! JesseRafe (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Mr. Daniel Plainview! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:26, Thursday, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Disruptive editor

Canvassing to bring in a disruptive editor with far-right views is in bad form. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about @Atsme:? This is the second time you've accused me of something within the past few HOURS. Why do you think that it's ok to do this to other editors? That article you linked to doesn't say anything about how I can't talk to other editors that have commented on the same topic as me. She started the survey! I don't know anything about her being disruptive or far-right as you say but I think you owe us both an apology. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore his comments, Mr. Daniel Plainview. His comments about my views are ridiculous (if he's even talking about me, I'm thinking not). Don't take anyone's WP:BAIT, do not respond directly to his off-the-wall comments, the ~~RfC~~ local survey is in full swing, and that's all that matters. Just sit back and wait for consensus to decide the outcome. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme has claimed the NYT and WaPo are gossip. He recently claimed that we are all about to find out that the FBI is part of a deep state effort to depose the current President of the US. You have asked the wrong person for advice. You have not been here long. As Cat Stevens said in Father in Son, "that's not your fault". But, we are about NPOV. It is absolutely required to maintain credibility. We must not be a part of varous political campaigns and conspiracy theories. O3000 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Reminder: This entire area is under discretionary sanctions which implies an extra duty to be civil and not cast aspersions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying to give good advice and can document what I said. I had also already stated on the TP that the canvassing may have been accidental, even after aspersions were cast against me (and the score of aspersions from another editor) and stated that I didn't want to BITE. But, I take your advice as good counsel. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please document what you said.

Just curious... I've never seen myself as the person you've described. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NeilN. I started reading the article and I think I understand most of it but I'll have to go back later and finish. I will be careful to not take people's bait and go edit somewhere else for a while if things get heated. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Daniel Plainview! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel^(talk) 05:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Lionelt - great essay!! Hope it's ok, but I made a few edits to it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Mr. Daniel Plainview! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I’m inviting you to join other people who edit conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can ask questions and meet new colleagues. You'll also discover DYK: the easiest and funnest way to get your article on the Main Page. I hope to see you there! – Lionel^(talk) 07:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience

Mr. Daniel Plainview, I commend your cooperation in editing Joy-Ann Reid. I made some edits earlier today that reflect your input, and greatly appreciate your use of Talk:Joy-Ann Reid to help us navigate these turbulent waters. My cautiousness derives from Wikipedia's core principles of fairness, particularly in BLPs. The first week of this latest Reid controversy struck me as especially conducive to violations of WP:NPOV, which with your help I believe we've avoided. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, pleasure working with you! By the way it's a bit hard to deduce tone from nothing but text of course, but I speak somewhat bluntly just in the interest of getting points across effectively and without getting too far into the weeds. No reason for things to get heated or otherwise unpleasant despite the controversial nature of the person and material. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

You should attribute this to Giuliani. He's not at all trustworthy, but he did make the claim. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get in the habit of attacking living persons - my preference would be just to use what the sources say. I will respond on the talk page, where someone has created a section about this. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody already fixed it. Attribution is not "attacking" anyone. Leaving such a controversial claim, especially from a notably untrustworthy person, is simply not allowed, and I thought it would be best for you to do it since you made the edit, but since leaving it unattributed isn't good, someone else fixed it.

We always attribute controversial opinions. It's a matter of course, not something unusual. We don't attribute uncontroversial claims like "the set sets in the West" and "the apple will fall to the ground if you let go of it". Otherwise we attribute. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't talking about the content (although an administrator recently changed some material to call somebody's comments "racist and inflammatory" without any attribution, in the lede [1] and defended the choice), rather your unsourced attack/criticism of Giuliani as "untrustworthy". I don't want to wade into those waters. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage?

SPECIFICO Since Objective3000 doesn't want to clarify his views, I'll address the comment you made toward me on his talk page. What exactly are you referring to as "garbage"? "Objective"'s disruption? His aspersions? His false claim that I "filed a report" against him at BLP/N? Please be more...specific. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just made three false accusations. I suggest you stop attacking other editors. O3000 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly attacking you or anyone. You, on the other hand, have been smearing other editors since I first started editing. I believe Atsme was the first to feel the brunt of your ire right here on my talk page. I won't tell you not to post on my talk page, as I can tolerate other people's opinions, but I would like you to be a little nicer if you're going to do so. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would like me to be nicer after making three false accusations and now adding a fourth? Seriously, you need to stop attacking other editors. O3000 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPT violations are subjective, so you can't unilaterally say that you did not disrupt our content discussion. WP:ASPERSIONS is the same situation, although it's pretty clear that smearing editors as "far-right" and falsely accusing them of repeating "fake news" easily qualifies. I filed a report at BLP/N to clarify if USAToday's report was a BLP violation. It wasn't, and I was not requesting corrective action for your remarks. And as far as you smearing Atsme, one needs only to scroll up to verify that that is exactly what you did, and you were warned by a Wikipedia administrator not to do that again. A warning which you ignored. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you need to stop these attacks. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mate you aren't being attacked. Just stop disrupting threads and accusing editors of doing things they're not. Unless you're not here to build an encyclopedia, in which case that's a separate issue that needs to be handled a different way. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, AP and CNN have corrected their false stories in which they falsely claimed (without evidence) that Trump was talking about all immigrants.[2] Just so there's absolutely no confusion. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will be more successful here if you stop using such terrible sources. After Trump was heavily criticized for his language, Sarah Sanders said he meant something different, and CNN came out with an updated story adding Sarah Sanders' claims. But, the comment that they were forced to take back their original story is false. We’ll never know what was in Trump’s mind because his wording wanders and disconnects. That’s not the fault of news sources. It is the fault of your source to claim: "CNN, AP Forced to Correct Stories Saying Trump....” and the CNN story was NOT false. O3000 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And by "terrible," you mean "conservative." Yes, we've established this and I don't share your view. Trump was "heavily criticized" by Democrats and their communications team (New York Times, CNN, AP, WaPo, etc.). CNN's tweet reads: "Trump’s remarks late Wednesday were in response to comments about members of MS-13 and other undocumented immigrants who are deported for committing crimes."[3] That completely contradicts your narrative that he was referring to all immigrants. CNN was caught taking Trump's remarks out of context in order to advance their political agenda. AP says: "AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s “animals” comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members".[4] Another nail in the coffin for the argument that you made. That's directly from their Twitter accounts, so you don't have to worry about right-leaning sources. You may say the stories weren't false, but CNN and AP disagree with you and acted accordingly. You were wrong, and you owe me an apology for correctly pointing out that these two news orgs were putting out fake news. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And by "terrible," you mean "conservative." Again, you put words in my mouth I never said and never believed. I give up. No matter what I type, you change the words in your mind falsely claiming I believe things that never entered my mind. Communication is not possible under these circumstances. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. I know you never said those words. I'm adding transparency to what you are saying. You are trying to claim that editors should use the sources that you like, which are invariably left-leaning sources. I asked you a few times to name some conservative reliable sources and you refused/ignored the request. But you've got it right when you say we cannot communicate if you continue to only pick one part of my comment to reply to, and ignore the rest. In this case, you ignored the direct tweets from AP and CNN correcting their false stories that you repeated, perpetuating fake news and disrupting the Sean Hannity talk page in the process. You tried to dismiss the tweets as fake news since they were reprinted by a conservative website, and when I provided them straight from the source, you ignored them. Intolerable. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to claim that editors should use the sources that you like, which are invariably left-leaning sources. And yet again, a completely false statement. For the fourth time you put words in my mouth that I never said and never believed. You simply aren’t honest. You debate by falsely claiming the other person believes and says things they do not believe or say. Strawman after strawman. How do you ever expect to convince anyone of anything when you don’t even pay attention to their words and pretend they believe in ways alien to them? I will tell you once again, you haven’t the faintest concept of what I think. And, you will never get anywhere by ignoring what people say and adding ridiculous strawman arguments based on, it would seem, what your sources tell you about how people think. Since you are talking to yourself instead of me, I'll leave you to yourself. O3000 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had this problem with anyone except for you, thus far. Conversely, I have witnessed you get into kerfluffle after kerfluffle with other editors. What does that say to you? Yes, by all means leave me be if you refuse to apologize for your error and making false statements about what Donald Trump said. CNN, the AP, and myself know what really happened. I knew it before they did, but what matters is that they came around in the end. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with what you're going through, Mr. Daniel Plainview, but I tend to blame the shift from journalistic objectivity to journalistic opinion and how some editors perceive news sources today, although they could be more collegial when responding to opposition. Regardless, no editor should have to endure the kind of bludgeoning some of us have been forced to endure and I commend you for your ability to maintain your composure through it all. If it's any consolation, it appears the media may finally be coming to their senses and will hopefully return to reporting real news...(nothing wrong with hoping)...

NYTimes opinion columnist
Columbia Journalism Review
NPR but I originally had this CNN link saved, but the page disappeared at the website and can only be accessed via web cache.
BBC

If nothing else, the reading will help keep your mind off the other stuff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can only hope, Atsme. I think it's absolutely shameful and sad what has happened to journalism in recent years, particularly the last 3 years or so (no coincidence). I especially liked the one about magazines not having the time to bother with checking facts. Absolutely brilliant, that. What I find particularly frustrating is that after definitely proving that what some of these people are printing and saying on television is demonstrably false, there will always be those who insist that we consume information from only certain outlets without a hint of skepticism and maintain a childlike trust of talking heads and writers. I personally need to do a better job of staying level-headed and not letting it get to me when I encounter such blatant bias and de-facto banning of non-liberal sources on Wikipedia. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care about the section heading BullRangifer but which article states that starting a new section with someone's user name in the title is against policy? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to use a better heading. I'm on my phone, so searching is difficult. Ask any admin. We only use names on noticeboards, where the name must be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the heading in question but the guideline is WP:TALKNEW: "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks NeilN. Will avoid using user names in the future for new sections. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please stop battlegrounding at Talk:Sean Hannity, as you recently did most blatantly here. Save those sorts of polarizing comments for user talk or WP space. I'm not about to report you, but it's disruptive, distracting, and unpleasant, and if it continues for much more then eventually I will request DS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're practically begging for trouble by associating yourself with The Devil's Advocate, as you did here. Presumably that was inadvertent, but still. A word of advice, stay as far away from GamerGate harassment as you possibly can. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DrFleischman I was responding to a question from Markbassett, not "battlegrounding" anybody. If you would like discussions to continue elsewhere, there's a nicer way to ask than putting a big red hand on someone's talk page. I don't have any trouble keeping a civil and good-faith attitude, so long as the same courtesy is extended toward me - if not, my patience is tested, which is one of my many faults. I can't help but notice that you've forgotten to put the hand on Objective3000's talk page, after he kicked the door open into a content discussion and started arguing about some random thing Trump said that he didn't like. His comment was far more off-topic and disruptive than mine, although I appreciate you trying to keep the peace. Thank you for the advice about GamerGate, although I must confess that I know very, very little about the topic so staying away will not be a problem. I didn't realize linking to an article meant that I am associating myself with the author, but I believe it has direct relevance to Markbassett's approach to improving the article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might find that article helpful, but I suggest you keep it to yourself. The author is toxic here among a great many veterans, including ArbCom members. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who postdate (or didn't pay attention to) the GG nightmare are probably not aware of what took place. Anyway, the issue that concerns me is the fact that there is no consistency in the way Hannity and Maddow are being presented, one is a liberal pundit and the other a conservative pundit. There's a section in Hannity titled Political commentary, controversies, and criticism whereas in Maddow the equivalent section is titled Political views, and the article is one big puff-piece rather than an encyclopedic article written in a dispassionate tone in compliance with NPOV. Don't want to shock anyone, but Maddow actually has been criticized, she promotes conspiracy theories and she gets stuff wrong. 😳 HuffPo, called her out on the Nigeria story, as did Slate, she doubled down in Adweek, Nigeria Today called her out on her attempt to blame Trump for the Nigeria incident, MSN headlines have her show listed under Conspiracy Theories, so we could actually call her a conspiracy theorist, Paste Mag headline: "Rachel Maddow Is Lost in Her Cold War Conspiracies", Fox took a stab at it, and on and on. Odd as it may seem, I couldn't find a thing in the Maddow article about her noteworthy gaffs/conspiracy theories. There's also the Trump tax return embarrassment: US News - Down the Tax Return Rabbit Hole, CNN - Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle and so on. Mr. DP - you can move this info over to Maddow's TP and start collaborating in an effort to get the article right, if you've a mind to; we should at least try to get it compliant with NPOV. I'll be happy to help later but right now I'm working on an article that requires some pretty extensive source research. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say except that I have little interest in Rachel Maddow and I started this thread to address conduct, not content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for living persons

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Doug Weller. Responded on the talk page. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes

~~Incredible, isn't it? Just all of it. "Period full stop". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't know what to make of any of this, to be quite honest! The policies seem alarmingly clear from my perspective, but I'm listening to a bureaucrat talk about how he/she doesn't need to prove anything because they know what's in someone's soul, and oh yes, that person is also a racist (per WP:SOUL again, I'm guessing). Oh that's actually a WikiLink. Learn something new here every day. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —DoRD (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

You're a sock account? Ugh. Go away and don't come back, okay? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I probably won't, Winkelvi. Honestly, I was spending WAY too much time here. So I stopped trying to hide my identity and pulled out all the stops. What's that they say about criminals secretly wanting to get caught? It's kind of like that. Good luck with the bureaucrat who thinks he can put stuff into the article because he can see into "Trump's soul" lmao. But it makes sense, right? Last night I just decided to say screw it and started editing from my normal IP, even though I knew I would eventually get nailed by a CU. Just didn't think it would take one day haha. DoRD did me a big favor. I need to spend more time reading and working on passion projects that don't involve constant conflict and negativity. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrevan - thanks for the ping. A quick note - I wasn't blocked for being a "right-wing POV pushing sock," rather for socking to evade a block placed by a pro-abortion activist administrator (without a reason or diffs, no less). Please don't drag me into your zany Red Scare conspiracy theories to find a scapegoat for Hillary's loss. Given your recent ouster as a bureaucrat and subsequent resignation in disgrace as a sysop, it's probably best that you don't launch attacks on blocked editors, especially since mentioning post-1932 politics while doing so is a glaring violation of your current topic ban. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | talk 23:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]