Doniboy71
June 2019 edit
Just want you to know Doniboy71 that your attempt to comply with the principle of what Wikipedia alleges to stand for....that is sourced truth provided by a community of editors, is noble and acknowledged by me. Thank you for your efforts. Thank you for sourcing the truth with information based directly from broadly published and respected sources. Thanks for being true to the intention, despite the biased editing you received in return. It's clear that Wikipedia has diminished to a propaganda outlet and have no intention of publishing truth. It's a shame and a sham. I've seen it in other 'locked' entries as well from them. When Truth is no longer honored, propaganda is the hull mark of totalitarianism and oppression. Thanks for standing up for what is right. I applaud you.
The reason I even became aware of this page is because I noticed the lie being pushed in a locked editing format and wanted to publish my edit suggestion. The lie is that Luo Dobbs is "anti-immigration". You correctly pointed out that this is an intentional twisting of the truth, that in fact, Lou Dobbs was very very public in promoting the Dreamers plight. He in fact was one of the biggest supporters of the Dreamers early on in main stream media. To claim he is "anti-immigration" is a mischaracterization at best, but the fact that you attempt to correct it was thwarted in so emphatic a way that that alone is proof that mischaracterization is less than what has been done. It's intentional slander. It's meant to mislead. It's meant to deceive the casual and uninformed reader.
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to say so. It is truly a frustrating to witness a group of activists take over this former;y world class Web Site. Doniboy71 (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
April 2017 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Alternative facts has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Alternative facts was changed by Doniboy71 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.871625 on 2017-04-20T03:54:56+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
May 2019 edit
Your recent editing history at Lou Dobbs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
Not only was your argument invalid (until you prove the cited sources were, as you claim, opinion pieces), but you also reverted way too many times--you're well over the bright line of 3RR. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Doniboy71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe that this block is completely and totally based on bias. I made a legitimate change, I provided reasons and citations. I was continually reverted by a single user. Then, suddenly, a "retired" editor came in and took over the argument. He acted as judge, jury and executioner. He determined that my edit wasn't valid, he decided some arbitrary barrier I needed to clear to prove my case, and then he banned me. There is a gang of Liberal editors protecting this false data by violating the revert rule themselves. This biased, retired editor who banned me, also reverted more than 3 times and never once posted on the talk page. The very simple edit is to remove false language. The subject is not anti-immigration, he is anti-illegal-immigration. The article itself has several mentions, much further down, that he supported dreamers and has mentioned that he would support an increase in immigration. How can this article be correct when it says he is against immigration and supports immigration? This is an obvious bias by this editor who suddenly came out of retirement to protect this liberal bias. It is also a disgusting abuse for a person to be able to ban me from telling the truth because they don't like it. Please unblock me now, revert the article to show my factually correct changes, and investigate this gang of friends who teamed up to game the system and push their political agenda. Although, if things work out as I suspect, it will probably be the editor who banned who also hears my appeal...another biased practice.
Decline reason:
Please review WP:3RR; you were up to at least seven. As everyone in an edit war believes they are correct, that is not a defense. There are proper channels for addressing editing disputes that you did not make use of. Edit warring is almost never acceptable, and there is a forum for addressing that as well. As such, the block is valid, and I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2019 (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.
By the way, the user you claim is retired has on their user page "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia but will still occasionally edit the world's fifth biggest website just like anyone else" so they did not come out of retirement to target you. I am declining your request. Blocking admins are not supposed to review their own blocks. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
So my block appeal is summarily dismissed? What a ridiculous waste of time that was. Why even bother having a appeal process? And Why is it that I am responsible for the edit war, when it was my changes that should have been debated? Instead they were simply undone by users with political biases, and then those users were forgiven for this action. Check the talk page. I posted twice. Not one comment from any other user followed. Not only that, but others have brought up the same issues in the past and they were dismissed as well.. No discussion...simply return to the incorrect language. I was reverted 7 times... and somehow I am responsible for the fact that they refused to debate the issue. And now you tell me that the substance of the article doesn't matter??? The Article contradicts itself...but thats fine because a few partisans decided they like what it says. Check out the users who are actually guilty of the war. They seem to defend each other quite a bit. Not to mention that their user pages proudly display all the times they have been accused of Left-Wing bias. And my only recourse was to have you summarily dismiss my complaints? Unreal. I guess this is simply a propaganda site now. Doniboy71 (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I only held you responsible for your own behavior- which is the only thing that you can control. If others are edit warring against you, you are not permitted to carry it on yourself, you should instead make a report at WP:ANEW or make use of the dispute resolution channels that are available to you. You also need to work in a collaborative manner with others who may have differing political views from yourself if you want to participate here. If you object to my assessment of your request, you are free to make another request that will be reviewed by someone else. If you feel, however, that this is a "propaganda site", you may wish to find a project that is more compatible with your views. Good day. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Then why, by default, is the factually incorrect language back in place? Thats the point. My edit was not partisan, the revert was, and it stands... and I doubt you blocked or banned the users who reverted without cause... I'd like to know if they are free to continue editing. It's interesting how selective the applications of the many rules of Wikipedia seem to be. I edited an article, backed it up with citations and facts, It was reverted without discussion. I used the talk page, to no avail, I made my case to a retired admin who dismissed me for his own partisan reasons and then banned me...and the result, as always, is that the liberal, partisan, incorrect language stands...nothing changes... and anyone who dares question it is banned. Thats why it is a propaganda site, and you are helping it to be that way with your dismissive "appeal" that was determined before you even read a word. This small group of far left wiki editors who have memorized the rules of Wikipedia simply attack any attempt at factual editing, they gang up, and you admins are more than happy to ban the frustrated editors who only want to make the articles true. I'll wait my 60 hours of censorship and I'll be back. Rather than giving me a condescending answer about finding another place to go, maybe you could tell me how I could get my obvious, factual edit made. Keep in mind, this is an article that says a man is against immigration and then, later in the article quotes him supporting immigration..... The change should be obvious... but I'm sure i'll get banned again... No worries, your propaganda will remain safe...the guards are working overtime. Doniboy71 (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Interesting how much I am learning by searching conservative bio's on Wikipedia. User Snooganssnoogans simply reverts any edit that might not be far left, then his friendly admins protect him, and others. As I suspected, a gang of left-wing editors completely controls all edits on these political pages, they game the system, and protect each other and their propaganda. Disturbing. Check out the article titled The Donald Trump Presidency. It may as well have been written by Samantha Bee, its a total hit piece and basically calls the President a traitor and murderer.. of course Snooganssnoogans disallows any factual edits, and the admins ban anyone who tries. This has been enlightening. No wonder this site is so bad. Doniboy71 (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I carefully considered your request. I actually want people editing, not to keep them from editing, but your attitude and lack of indication that you understand the reason for the block led me to decline your request. If you continue your disruption and poor attitude after the block is expired, you will be blocked again probably for longer. I address the unblock requests that are in front of me, I don't go hunting down others to review. You are not being 'censored', as this is a private website where free speech does not apply(just as you can restrict what people say in your residence). You are blocked to prevent your disruption. If you could assure an administrator that there will be no disruption, you would be unblocked.
- Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state, not in merely posting what you or others term 'factual'. Wikipedia deals in what can be verified, not what is true as truth is in the eye of the beholder. It is possible to be against one aspect of immigration policy and in favor of others- we use what the sources use. If you have independent reliable sources to support your edits, you shouldn't have a problem, but the article will not be whitewashed to favor a conservative view, either. As I have indicated, there are proper channels to use instead of edit warring if others are wronging you in some way. You should make use of them. I was not being condescending in suggesting that you find a project more compatible with your views(Conservapedia, or others), I was suggesting a way for you to be more comfortable with what you do. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You carefully considered my case and rejected it about 45 seconds later? Yeah...got it. My attitude is the result of the experience. It is as if I was punched in the face 10 times, and when I punched back I was arrested. When anyone attempts to make an edit to any of these Biographies about Conservatives, they are attacked, then banned by the far left editors who control them. It happens over and over and the far left view is always the one standing at the end. Your idealistic view of Wikipedia is completely unfounded, given these glaring biases. As for your comment about immigration policy: I agree, it is possible to be for some parts of immigration law and against others...most people are. Thats why I find it odd that I was banned for making that exact point. If someone is against illegal immigration and for legal immigration, calling them Anti-Immigration is simply false. The article contradicts itself. Yet a glance at the talk page shows that this issue has been brought up several times and the gang of liberal editors rejects it every time. Changing the language to be correct is not a Conservative whitewashing, it is fixing liberal Propaganda. The more I research the more prevalent it seems to be. I never knew it was this bad.... I will research the "proper channels" to fix this one article and attempt to fix it when my block is up. I know I will not be able to. You gatekeepers are doing your job well. No wonder my daughter's teachers tell their students not to use Wikipedia as a resource. Doniboy71 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and does not claim to be. Those teachers are quite correct. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Doniboy71 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Edit: You linked my own talk page by accident. I finally realized what comment you are talking about. Personally I do not see how agreeing with someone on their talk page and mentioning that I too have noticed bias is uncivil. I didn't even mention the offending editors by name. Am I supposed to pretend that it didn't happen, keep my mouth shut, and simply accept the status quo because I am outnumbered? I really don't see what I did wrong. Doniboy71 (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert relating to BLPs, please read edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.