65.210.8.4

BLP violations

Consider this your only warning. As I said as BLP/N I don't really give a flying flip about your dispute with some other pilot. I do care about enforcing our BLP standards. It's one thing to challenge an article because you feel it lacked sufficient fact checking and relied too much on what someone told the journalist. It's quite another to imply a story was commissioned by an involved party who paid the media organisation for the story, but it was not clearly labelled as such. While sponsored content is unfortunately a thing with modern media, most reputable organisations require at least some labeling of any such content. And importantly, for most journalists, if they are going to be involved in such sponsored content, it's an ethical expectation that the content needs to be labelled appropriately. If you suggest that a journalist allowed their name to be on a byline of a story which was sponsored but not labelled as such, either your suggesting that they are a complete idiot who didn't realise this happened or your suggesting they did something which for most journalists would be a serious ethical violation. Either way, I consider this a serious BLP violation since although you did not name the journalist, anyone checking the source will see the name. Therefore I will ask for you to be blocked if you repeat such claims without evidence. As I said, there is no reason why you have to make such unsupported claims simply to challenge the reliability of the source, it's easy for problems to arise without it being a piece sponsored by an involved party. Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more, maybe approaching this from a different direction will help you. First, while looking into the dispute at BLPN and the article history little more carefully, I noticed that it seems we included some claims when we only had court documents for them. This should not have happened and you have my sympathies for any distress or problems the inclusion of this material caused. That said, since you seem to understand we should not include information sourced only to court documents, I'm not sure why you felt they would be particularly helpful in convincing us a reliable source was incorrect, let alone press releases.

Also, like Zaerath, although I personally care little about the dispute, I can understand why this means a lot to you. However while I can understand why, it doesn't mean I'm willing to ignore significant problems you cause on wikipedia. As I said, we are guided by reliable secondary sources, presenting court documents and press releases helps little.

Most importantly, and the main reason I wanted to comment again, consider how you come across when you make unsubstantiated allegations that an article in some significant media organisation was an unlabeled commissioned/paid piece. I appreciate there is ¥1 million in direct dispute, as well as reputations, prestige etc; and money had clearly been spent on court cases and the like. But while I know almost nothing about The Palm Beach Post, my read of our article is that while it's not a massive media conglomerate this is not some tiny media with no reputation etc. It's a paper with a decent reputation and size. Do you really feel it's plausible they will allow an unlabeled sponsored story over something which, even if it's a big deal to you, is a relatively inconsequential dispute in the grand scheme of things? How much money do you think would need to be spent for something like that and who's paying it?

I'm not sure if you just worded your comment poorly, you didn't think through what you were suggesting, or you simply don't know how the media works or what; but when you make such claims, it makes it hard to believe anything else you're saying because it's simply not plausible. And as I said, you do not have to make such claims to argue we need to take care of not use the source. There could be a number of reasons why it's a problem, even though no one paid for it.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wang Zheng (pilot). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. read what was already explained to you. Hydromania (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wang Zheng (pilot); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wang Zheng (pilot). . You have been asked multiple times to take your discussion to the talk page. Please do not continue to make the same edits over and over again with discussing with other editors. Melcous (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism of MAGA and Make America Great Again

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

15:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-dropframe (talk · contribs)

---

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Maga, you may be blocked from editing. —Non-Dropframe _talk 15:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Make America Great Again. —Non-Dropframe _talk 15:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

---