MarkoOhNo

Bree

You recently added some possibly dubious information to the Bree article. Apologies if my reversion is in error, but I'm quite sure it is not mentioned anywhere in Tolkien's work that the Breelanders were loggers. Do you possibly have a citation for the information? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The changes weren't to Bree, but to Combe and Archet. Perhaps it's just the interpretation of the game designers, but Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar has the Combe Logging Camp between Combe and the Chetwood. (Plus it stands to reason any settlement of wood structures that close to a large forest would have a forestry trade.) I haven't found anything to indicate there was any agriculture trade at Combe whatsoever, much less forestry aside from the logistics and the game design. I changed the wording on that sentence too as it implies that ALL citizens of Combe were farmers, which is exceedingly unlikely in any community. Also, all of the Tolkien wikis I've found indicate that Archet is actually at the Chetwood border rather than within it, and that Combe is simply near. MarkoOhNo (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah right got you. It should really go in it's own section then to differentiate the adaptation specific information (which would improve the article as well as it would be less reliant on the primary source. Something like this...

Portrayal in Adaptations

In Lord of the Rings: Shadows of Angmar the people of Combe are loggers and blah blah blah

Thanks for the comments Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

I know that you put your user name at the end of the post at Talk:Abby Johnson (activist), but by not using one of these methods, a timestamp was not included at the end of the message. (Actually, because of where you had inserted it, the timestamp of a weeks-earlier message ended up there.) I have added a timestamp to your message, but using the tildes would make things easier in the future! Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

February 2021

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to CNN. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. CNN is very obviously not far-left. You know that. Please don't play games. DanielRigal (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:About, you may be blocked from editing. DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if inserting TRUTH disrupted the fantasy world in which you're participating. Perhaps your time would be better spent LARPing instead of intentionally presenting misinformation as though factual and actively silencing reality? It's worth considering. Might even be more enjoyable to you. MarkoOhNo (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Block Appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Not sure where exactly I'm supposed to insert this, so I'll try creating a discussion to make sure this is seen. It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an information source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For instance, I'm told that CNN cannot even be labeled as "left-leaning" (despite the painful obviousness of it) and that I would need to cite an article which proves this. Meanwhile, OAN is labeled "Far-Right" and the only articles supporting this are articles on right-wing and moderate politicians praising their work. Nothing which proves bias in any way, shape or form. That same level of "logic" would make the Taliban a Democratic party organization because the Biden administration called them "professional and businesslike". What's more, "far-right" implies radicalism, and there are no references to radicalism at OAN. I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates their associated bias, or even if this is a topic being ignored by the right or left. OAN is right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted. But the key here is consistency. Neither advertises themselves as possessing any sort of leaning, so either leave the perceived leaning out, or list it on both. Similarly, Pro-Life is listed as Anti-abortion, even though abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates. But apparently Wikipedia is edited by emotion and opinion rather than fact. This must be why people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference. Unblock me or not - I don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Calling it "vandalism" to call out this site's unquestionable bias just really shows what Wikipedia is all about. Done. Go back to ignoring me. MarkoOhNo (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, I didn't even finish reading this rant. If you want to make an unblock request, try again. But if you include some political rant in it, it's just going to be declined. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2021 (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.

Unblock (To Be Reviewed By Someone MATURE, This Time, Please)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

While I appreciate the honesty in admitting my request was not even read, Wikipedia is SUPPOSEDLY a professional, unbiased and open-minded project interested primarily in facts. If that's not the case, I will say good day and you can feel free to stop reading right here. But if that IS the case, you would read to the end. If you find you cannot, please have the courtesy to defer to another with a more fortified ego and less sensitive emotions. Thanks.

It would seem I'm blocked for pointing out inconsistencies which reflect an egregious bias in editing. This completely discredits Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source, turning it more into a study on propaganda enforcement. For example, I'm told that CNN cannot even be labeled as "left-leaning" (despite the painful obviousness of it) and that I would need to cite an article which proves this. Meanwhile, OAN is labeled "Far-Right" and the only articles supporting this are articles on right-wing and moderate politicians praising their work. Nothing which proves the bias of OAN in any way, shape or form. (In the professional world, this is called libel.) That same level of "logic" would make the Taliban a Democratic party organization because the Biden administration called them "professional and businesslike". What's more, "far-right" implies radicalism, and there are no references offered which showed radicalism at OAN. On the other hand, I could reference applications like Ground News which display news articles from multiple sources on both sides of the aisle of bias, indicates the associated bias, or even if the topic is being ignored by the right or left. OAN is displayed as right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning. This is generally accepted by the public as fact. But the key here is consistency. NEITHER advertises themselves as possessing any sort of leaning, so either leave the perceived leaning out, or list it on both. Similarly, Pro-Life is listed under Anti-abortion (or did Wikipedia go so far as to list it under the extreme far-left term Anti-Choice?), which is thoroughly dishonest - abortion is only one of many battlefields in which Pro-Life advocates against (euthanasia, death penalty, concentration camps, abuse, etc, etc). In the interests of consistency, Pro-Choice would then need to be listed under Pro-Abortion. But nobody would ever allow that, I'm sure. A true encyclopedia is not edited by emotion and opinion, just by fact. (This must be why so many people scoff when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference.) Unblock me or not - I really don't care, honestly - just DO BETTER than this. I used to be excited about Wikipedia when it was new, before the rampant bias became so readily apparent. The world deserves honesty, transparency, consistency and personal distance in discussion of facts. Without these, you have no business calling this an encyclopedia. Calling it "vandalism" to point inconsistencies and bias just really tarnishes what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Anyway - done. Feel free to hit that Deny button and go back to ignoring me. MarkoOhNo (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I waded through this request. It's clear you are here to wage a political battle and not contribute to building this encyclopedia of human knowledge. It sounds like that you should find a project where you can be told only what you want to hear and that fits with your worldview, to stay comfortable in your bubble. I think this since you seem to think that people who beat police officers and bring a noose with them to attempt to assassinate the Vice President of the United States for doing his job are participating in a a "protest". Since you say you don't care if you are unblocked or not, neither do we. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2021 (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.

Blocked after this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#User MarkoOhNo WP:NOTHERE ANI thread. Meters (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the abusive, counter-factual, bizarre and irrelevant ranting below, I think it is time to revoke Talk page access here. Obviously, there is no realistic chance of a valid unblock request being submitted and, indeed, no sign of any understanding of why the block was required in the first place. Clearly this person fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of an encyclopaedia and presumably would be happier elsewhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ranting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A NOOSE?? 🤦‍♂️ Okay, first, WHY would a Trump supporter take a noose with them to a Trump rally with the intension of hanging VP Pence?? I can think of a couple other groups who would. Second, the "noose" you were told had been seen couldn't have supported a Christmas stocking let alone a person. That's like claiming you'd seen an actual skeleton walking New Orleans on Mardi Gras. You saw a protest prop. Which is likely why the Trump supporters roundly ignored it outside their rally. Third, this "noose" was photographed SEVERAL blocks from the Capitol, FAR from the "insurrection" - probably by the same ANTIFA jackass who took it to Trump's rally. Now, that said, if you're SERIOUSLY a senior administrator, after only three years and lacking the sense of a high school graduate, then I'll nod to your authority and leave confirmed in the lack of integrity possessed by Wikipedia administrators. However I clearly requested to be addressed by someone with maturity and you most certainly lack that since you didn't address a single item I'd listed and focused instead on one I didn't. (But a striking example of Wikipedia's misinformation database, so I thank you for that reminder.) MarkoOhNo (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC) One other thing, WHO was beating police officers?? That's one among MANY confirmed lies to which you're clinging. Trump supporters always back the blue, so if anyone was assaulting officers it was ANTIFA or BLM. All the video footage out there shows Trump supporters outside the building trying to ASSIST police. Other images show people in rather professional-looking tactical gear, which would be very out-of-place at a Trump rally (except among the far-right never-Trump protestors perhaps, or an FBI agent.) Night vision helmets aren't standard MAGA issue. lol The released security footage has discredited every accusation of which I'm aware. This was a NON-event. The only casualty of violence was a MAGA protestor. MarkoOhNo (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for a mature administrator to respond to the facts I've displayed instead of brainwashed child editorial protestors who want only to silence data which conflicts with their narrow, nonsensical and fictitious worldview.... ...assuming there IS a grown-up still in charge somewhere at Wikipedia....? Or is this now officially an ANTIFA-owned site? MarkoOhNo (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, this is really a sad reflection... is it seriously taking THIS long to locate an administrator with an ounce of maturity?? Is there really no one at Wikipedia who's still interested in fact and truth? Wow.... MarkoOhNo (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on your abuse of your talk page while blocked, and my well established reputation as a mature person, I am revoking your talk page access. Please see WP:UTRS for your options going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)