Brianhd71
April 2013
edit
Hello, I'm Widefox. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ashley Judd because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widefox; talk 23:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Brianhd71, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Ashley Judd does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Widefox; talk 09:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ashley Judd shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please be aware of this - repeatedly inserting / reverting Widefox; talk 09:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Ashley Judd NPOV
editI recognise that your last edit did not repeat the same edit, and the fundamental issue with your first edit there was that you removed a reliable source (ABC) and replaced it with a youtube reference (which is generally not a WP:RS). The ABC source seems to have confirmation from the originator of the ads, so I see no controversy over the term attack ad, apart from what you are creating. If there is, then find a reference and put both points of view in per WP:WEIGHT. Until you find references, your edits are WP:OR, and WP:NPOV violations. Best to discuss these issues that article here -> Talk:Ashley Judd to see what others who care about the topic think. Widefox; talk 09:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Brianhd71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
On April 10th, 2013 I read a section on Ashley Judd's page that showed bias. It said that American Crossroads launched an attack ad against Judd when they got word of her considering a run at Mitch Mcconnell's (R Kentucky) seat. The statement cites a biased ABC News article which doesn't contain the actual video. It is NOT credible. Yet, users like Widefox and Dmries change it back to the original saying it isn't constructive. Labeling a political ad that calls out Judd for statements she made is not an attack. It's educational. Wikepedia always asks, "Did you know you can edit this page?" They should add, ".., but if you think our statements are biased, don't bother. It's not constructive" Bottom line is, if you want this page to be credible, you need to explain why you think it's an attack ad, or stop making vague accusations against political action committees like American Crossroads. Brianhd71 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block is deficient only in that it is not of indefinite duration. Looking at your edits, I see no interest in, or attempt to observe, our policy WP:NPOV on your part. Sandstein 19:08, 12 April 2013 (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.
Brianhd71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Look, if you want to be considered a credible website, then you ought to know that labeling a political ad is a biased point of view, no matter who you cite. Therefore, you are violating your own policy also with no attempt to observe it. For example: "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." WP:NPOV That's according to your own policy under heading: Avoid stating opinions as facts I only seek to clarify that it is labeled as an attack ad by an extremely partisan article published by ABC News Brianhd71 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
An unblock request isn't a place to argue your rationale or defend your actions, especially not after being blocked for soapboxing. If you'd like us to consider unblocking you early, you have to convince us this isn't an issue that would happen again. Say, for example, by talking about how you'll deal with this sort of stuff on the talk page in the future, not in the main article space. m.o.p 13:36, 13 April 2013 (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.
It's a bit facetious to pretend you got blocked for the "attack ad" word choice: you were blocked specifically for BLP violations, silly comments like "calling Tennesse her home and being a California radical feminist". (I assume "California radical feminist" is a bad word in the right-wing blogosphere and "calling Tennessee her home" makes her a kind of "outside agitator".) In addition, you saw fit to comment on Wikipedia in the article--"Interestingly enough, the source doesn't contain the actual ad, yet is considered credible by the powers that be at Wikepedia." Your edits so far have made it clear that the only interest you have on Wikipedia is editing Judd's article in a negative manner; if you wish to actually edit here, rather than soap-box (your block will expire shortly), it would be wise to start editing other articles, in manners that agree with our guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Ashley Judd, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. [1] :I didn't understand that. What might help is reading Verifiability, not truth. This page isn't for such WP:SOAPBOX/WP:ADVOCACY . You are a WP:SPA and if you continue, you will be blocked. Widefox; talk 14:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead and block me. I'll remember that come December when you are looking for donations. You Widefox,Dmries, Tennabrae, Sandstein are the reason scholars can't trust Wikipedia as being credible.Brianhd71 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm an editor like yourself. What makes you think you're not bound by the guides the rest of us have to accept and edit by? Widefox; talk 18:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, you're the reason I have to tell students they can't cite Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Widefox: you must think I should happily accept the fact that you represent opinions as facts. Clearly that is a violation of the same guidelines you are telling me to accept. Furthermore, I read your soapbox/advocacy links and I don't understand how you can think your having the label "attack ad" in there isn't a subtle form of just that: Soapboxing/Advocacy I read lots of articles on Wikipedia. Many of them informative and benign as far as opinions go. But, when I saw this one the attack ad made me cringe. I was under the assumption that I could set the record straight, but I'm afraid I was wrong.
Dmries: I graduated at the top of my class. Proper citation includes attribution. For instance, According to ABC News, American Crossroads released an attack ad.. Or, American Crossroads released what ABC News labeled as an attack ad.
I am not soapboxing. I'm clarifying an opinion and not representing as fact. I may have been wrong to simply edit before discussing it, but I'm not wrong about the current content in on Judd's page. Brianhd71 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Still, the only thing you are willing to mention is the "attack ad" thing, which is the least of my concerns, and certainly not the reason your were blocked. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It may be the least of yours, but it is the most of mine. I don't care as much about being blocked as I do about being able to get accurate un-biased information from Wikipedia. If I can't even edit a page to make it more accurate then what good is your business model? If I can't contribute to a talk page without the threat of being blocked, why should I waste my time with this site? I still haven't seen a decent explanation as to why you think it is an attack ad. All you do is hide behind your policies.
Brianhd71 (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, you can't read, top of your class or not. I don't care about your attack ad or your modification thereof. That's not why you were blocked. Look at this edit. A few words are for this "what ABC calls an attack ad". (That should be "called" of course.) And the rest is a bunch of nonsense about what Wikipedia editors supposedly think, and the claim that ABC is unreliable because it doesn't contain a link to the video (that's a silly argument anyway--that it doesn't have the link doesn't mean it's unreliable). You're right, you don't have to waste your time here, and I don't have to waste my time on this talk page. But thanks for providing the link: that's an attack ad, yes. You don't need ABC to confirm it. If you cain't tell that's an attack ad, you ain't fit to be discussing these things. To whomever is following: voila. Happy days, Brianhd71. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I said straight away how you can get this supposed "attack ad" controversy in with references. If you don't have one it is WP:OR and the issue is going nowhere. Widefox; talk 08:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You must be stuck on stupid Dmries. I'm not arguing about why I was blocked. I'm saying that ABC News has an opinion that the ad was an attack ad. It's not a reliable source because it is biased, and the no original research policy is a dumb policy. Why would you not want to see the actual ad for yourself? Oh, I know. We're all too stupid to figure out what the actual ad means. We need ABC to break it down for us. Save it. You have an agenda and you won't let anyone interfere with it. I feel sorry for any student who would get stuck in one of your classes. They probably end up dumber for the experience!Brianhd71 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Brianhd71, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This personal attack on another editor's intelligence and work is not acceptable. Widefox; talk 07:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus is against you, read WP:LISTEN. Drop it now, else if you continue this disruption you will be blocked. Widefox; talk 07:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
editHello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Widefox; talk 18:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)