User talk:Poet of Freedom

Poet of Freedom, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Poet of Freedom! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm Jamesx12345. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. James^x1 2345 22:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Public image of Barack Obama, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike,

I think threatening me with a block is unwarranted. My intent is not to be disruptive. I am working toward adding factual content based on reliable sources. Whether you agree or not, there are some who compare Obamacare to Hitler's T4 policy. Go online; and you will see the conversations in that regard. I understand that it's not a Wikipedia article's place to validate or support that belief; but I do want to report on the fact that that discourse is out there.

Just to give you a heads up, I will be trying to restore my work. In the meantime, however, I will try to find a better source than the discussion board/blog I was citing earlier. If you do see my continued edits, please note I am up for discussion about the topic.

Thanks in advance for your understanding and best regards,

Poet of Freedom (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's strong commitment to a neutral point of view does not in any way obligate us to give credence or undue publicity to every wackjob crackpot theory you can find on the net; see WP:FRINGE. No reliably sane conservative, leftist or libertarian sources can be found to back up the kind of nutbar content you are adding to articles here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Template:LaRouche movement. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I am One of Many (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -- I am sympathetic to your politics, and I feel it is my duty to warn you that you are basically walking around with a big "ban me" sign on your back. There are plenty of people here who will disagree with you, and you will quickly become a target for their wrath. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and follow them carefully. (That means that anything you add which may be controversial must have an iron-clad source, not a blog, which is what you used for your source at George Soros. Now, it is admittedly the case that many of the sources which are considered reliable by Wikipedia, such as the Washington Post, are lying propaganda rags. But if you want to continue to edit here, you are going to have to play by the rules, or you will get banned.) 99.122.152.216 (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: please do not delude yourself into thinking that you can sway your opponents, or neutral bystanders, with well-reasoned arguments. At Wikipedia, disputes are settled (not "resolved") by gaming the system. Your opponents will attempt to build a case for banning you, using any minor policy violations as ammunition. It's much simpler than arguing with you. A word to the wise -- 99.146.14.209 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. I am One of Many (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed, but that page was just linked to my user space. I see lots of other users disclosing thier biases on their user pages, such as whom they admire and don't admire. It's helpful to have people disclose their point of view up front, no? Poet of Freedom (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Look, I'm sorry, but this is just really not going to work out. Too many BLP violations, too much POV pushing, too much pretending to be calm and rational and friendly while pushing trash into too many articles. I've block you indefinitely. I'll leave a standard template below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for POV pushing, BLP violations. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Wow, isn't this premature?? I'm really sorry you feel that way. I'm still learning here. Please notice that I have given up my more controversial proposed additions, such as on Soros, Obamacare, and Rohatyn. I am seeing that Wikipedia is very sensitive when it comes to any potentially critical material on living persons; and I will respect that. Please reconsider.Poet of Freedom (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC) I wanted to follow up on the request, as I have not heard back in a while from those who were open to giving me another chance. The block came quick, and seemed quite heavy-handed. Moving forward I will not prusue edits like the ones that became subject of so much contention. Thanks, Poet of Freedom (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but this stretches credulity too far. Since the moment you arrived here, you've repeatedly violated our biographies of living persons policy, one of our strictest requirements for very good reason, in a blatant manner by implying Nazism in many BLP articles without the type of impeccable sourcing this would require, and by making a user subpage (now deleted) with images of living persons and extremely derogatory and unsupported comments about them. You've also proceeded to repeatedly push fringe theories, even after being patiently and repeatedly told what does and does not constitute a fringe position and a reliable source, and how to determine the appropriate weight (which is most often very little or none) for positions which are extremist or fringe. Yet you say the block was "heavy-handed". Given the number of times you were told nicely, I think that's a significant indication of not getting the point. Despite the fact that your behavior was extremely disruptive, you were given an extraordinary number of chances to listen, and didn't even pretend to listen until blocked. It's a lot more lenient than I would have been. I'm afraid I must agree that I just don't see it working out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 19 August 2013 (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.

I think you should be given another chance. If you do get another chance, read over how to avoid WP:BLP issues. In addition, everyone has a point of view and our points of view often can come through no matter how hard we try to keep them in check. One way to avoid the POV pushing is that when you have something that you think might be controversial, start a discussion on the talk page and see if there is consensus for the change you want to make. If there is not, accept it and move on to something else. It's not a perfect system, but it's not bad either. I am One of Many (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the advice. I will try to seek everyone's input on the talk pages before making a possibly controversial change, being extra careful when it comes to living people. I'll also continue to refrain from topics like Obamacare and George Soros, especially while I'm still learning the ropes. Poet of Freedom (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I'd advise you to keep away from any topic where Lyndon LaRouche (alias Lynn Marcus) and his acolytes have been slinging fringe theories and unsourced accusations, since your deleted edits seem to draw heavily on their conspiracy theories. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; and I understand now. I respect the fact that Wikipedia has to protect itself with the BLP policy. While I think LaRouche is spot on when it comes to the way he characterizes many people, such as financiers like Soros and Rohatyn, he has made quite a few enemies along the way (culminating, I believe in his prison time). I understand now that Wikipedia needs to avoid that controversy to protect itself. Poet of Freedom (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it up to the reviewing admin, but if it were me, I wouldn't unblock, no matter what assurances we get. Once someone has demonstrated that they want to push POV-laden fringe trash into articles (Obama is following Hitler's healthcare policies exactly, George Soros is a Nazi collaborator, and (on his now deleted user subpage) the Queen of England is a drug peddling whore), I don't think it's wise to let them edit here if they promise to tone down their trash-pushing to more manageable levels. Instead, I think it's wise to say "no thank you, people who try to push POV-laden fringe trash are not welcome, no matter how polite you are, and no matter how 'open to following our policies' you claim to be". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Floquenbeam, I don't literally think Elizabeth II is a 'drug pushing whore.' If anyone is interested in what I meant by that allusion, and why I am a staunch critic of the British monarchy, I will be quite happy to explain. But that's neither here nor there. If, as you mention, I get unblocked and start "trash pushing," then reblocking me is a simple procedure. But I don't want to waste my time that of anyone else and get reblocked again. I think I get Wikipedia now, and know to avoid matters of such controversy.
- Orangemike, I am One of Many, or Floquenbeam-- please do reverse the block. I would like to prove Floquenbeam wrong. :) -- Poet of Freedom (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have gone through this user's edits. As a previously uninvolved admin I would be seriously against an unblock here, on the basis of the content of said edits. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Anthony, please also notice going through the edits that I had stopped pursing the issues said to be in violation of BLP (related to Rohatyn, Soros, and Obamacare), did not continue with revert wars, and attempted to discuss the issues on the talk page. That being said I was still in the wrong regarding the content; and I have apologized. I understand the policies now. Moving forward I will not be inserting similar content.
  - Please do reconsider. I was just editing for several days. Do you really think a few bad edits (all easily revertable) on a few articles over a period of just a few days warrant a permanent, lifetime ban??? Poet of Freedom (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello out there ... I would like to follow up. I am One of Many or Orangemike, you seem more understanding when it comes to new users. Will someone be able to give me another chance? Again, I am very sorry about the previous edits. Poet of Freedom (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi. Several weeks have passed. After continuing to think about my actions, I want to apologize again. After this cooling off period, I hope people will trust me, as I promise not to continue adding such inflammatory content moving foward. Please unblock my account. I will not disappoint anyone willing to give me a second chance.Poet of Freedom (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
• do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
• do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
• do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
• do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.

Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (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.