User talk:PNH es corrupto

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 08:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:W. Kamau Bell are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at W. Kamau Bell, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Caller is not considered a reliable source, especially for WP:BLPs. We are relatively conservative about the sources we can use for possibly defamatory material in the biographies of living persons. Your argument about other sources is irelevant. Nor was the August 27th even an Antifa rally. Linking Bell with Antifa in that way appears to be a violation of our basic WP:BLP policy. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has clearly joined Google, Youtube and Facebook as liberally-slanted information sources. Watchdogs such as yourself operate under the guise of "neutrality" for the clear purpose of cleansing information that is unflattering and inconvenient to those with opposed viewpoints. I and many others have seen too many instances of double-standard when it comes to information sources and point of view. That doesn't make this an information source, but a narrative source... a liberal narrative source. You even deleted the entries on the talk page because you don't agree with them (as you'll probably delete this as well). It appears as though only talk that is flattering to those with a liberal bias is welcome.

Don't bother answering. I know your response will be filled with denial and sit behind the shield of wiki policy.PNH es corrupto (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this very carefully

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 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa (United States)

This is actually the reason I noted you. You wrote "In September 2017, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security officially classified Antifa activities as "Domestic terrorist violence". using this as a source. It doesn't say that. It says "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has formally classified the activities of anti-fascist groups (antifa) as “domestic terrorist violence” since early 2016, according to confidential law enforcement documents obtained by Politico and interviews." "According to" and "2016". There has been no official statement. You also used the Daily Mail as a source. There the issue isn't just that it isn't a reliable source, but that it is a source that the English Wikipedia community has decided should not be used, a decision which got a lot of publicity. Please don't use it again, as that wasn't just a recommendation or a guideline that might sometimes be ignored. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has clearly joined Google, Youtube and Facebook as liberally-slanted information sources. Watchdogs such as yourself operate under the guise of "neutrality" for the clear purpose of cleansing information that is unflattering and inconvenient to those with opposed viewpoints. I and many others have seen too many instances of double-standard when it comes to information sources and point of view. That doesn't make this an information source, but a narrative source... a liberal narrative source. You even deleted the entries on the talk page because you don't agree with them (as you'll probably delete this as well). It appears as though only talk that is flattering to those with a liberal bias is welcome.

Don't bother answering. I know your response will be filled with denial and sit behind the shield of wiki policy. PNH es corrupto (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

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 ~~~~}}.

Drmies (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From "1 inch flassid" to your recent accusations, BLP violations, citations of unreliable sources, and forum posts, it's pretty clear you're here to push an attempt at an agenda. Even your name might be a violation. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pelosi, BLM and Antifa thank you for your efforts. PNH es corrupto (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate block. Your very first edits were BLP vandalism. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]