Nakedtruth

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Nakedtruth! Thanks for the contribution over on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC).

Best of luck, Nakedtruth, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Just wanted to commend you on your efforts on the Charlie Sheen article. We've done a good job my friend! Article actually isn't a defamatory bunch of lies now and reads pretty well! Congrats :) - Glen TC (Stollery) 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Terrorstorm.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Terrorstorm.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot

You commented with strong oppose, but put your comment in the neutral section [1]. Also, you forgot to sign your comment [2]. —AldeBaer 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove your signature after someone else had to put it in. Thank you. Acalamari 19:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was trying to put it in. I thought that's what you were asking me to do in the first place.

Replaceable fair use Image:AlexJones.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexJones.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MartialLaw.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MartialLaw.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:MartialLaw.jpg

Dear Nakedtruth, The image MartialLaw.jpg was deleted under our policy WP:CSD#I5 in conjunction with WP:NFCC#7. It was tag on October 11, 2007 as an orphaned or unused non-free image and was deleted on October 18, 2007, in accordance with policy. Regards, nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's makes no sense. The image in question meets all 10 of the criteria at WP:NFCC#7. And it wasn't "orphaned"! It was originally put in as cover art. Cover art is allowed BY YOUR OWN REGULATIONS provided that it's used for CRITICAL COMMENTARY! You guys keep changing the rules as you go along. Plus Alex Jones has repeatedly given permission on his radio show for his ENTIRE FILMS to be used freely for educational purposes. So clearly cover art is included. This is free content.

Firstly, all cover art, logos and the likes are considered non-free by default. secondly, The image in question did not meet #7 of our NFCC policy. The only reason it would have been deleted if it was orphaned. Someone removed it, therefore it was your responsibility, if you did not wish for the image to have been deleted to ensure that the image was in use before the deletion deadline which is 7 days after being tagged. Thirdly, it does not matter if Alex Jones has repeatedly given permission on his radio show for his Entire Films to be used freely for educational purposes: unless he has a signed document releasing the images to GDFL, Public Domain or for the free usage of image whose copyright is owned by him, and that document is sent to the Wikimedia Foundation or placed on his website, it will be automatically considered non-free, and therefore would fall under our NFCC policy. We do not change the rules as we go, the only time the rule change is when a long discussion is done and the members of the community who participated in the discussions have reached consensus. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Terrorstorm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Terrorstorm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

October 2019

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 Hunter Biden, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I wish you would be honest about Hunter Biden. It is NOT disruptive to quote Joe Biden's on reason as stated on videotape as to why and how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. You wonder why people don't donate to Wikipedia? This is why. Nakedtruth (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2022 (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.

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.

• And this appears to be an attempt to smear the subject of a BLP. Please consider this a warning. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hunter Biden; 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. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

November 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.

Thank you. - MrX 🖋 23:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2022

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 articles about 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

It appears that in the last three years, all your contributions have been focused on Hunter Biden and I cannot see any that have met with consensus. You will be topic banned and/or blocked if disruption continues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please also note that Hunter Biden is subject to a 1 revert per 24 hours restriction, violation of which can result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: It's not. BRD-cycle differs from 1RR. Why did you use rollback? Politrukki (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, it's BRD as you said. I used rollback as the edit summary made it clear that user was making a WP:POINT and the edit was bad faith and disruptive (as are nearly all removals of "without evidence", "falsely claimed", etc. on AP2 articles). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then you should now that using rollback was perhaps unwise. That is still a content dispute. Perhaps it's better to include "without evidence", but the context – the following sentence and so on – makes it clear that removing "without evidence" does not rise to the level of vandalism. WP:POINT doesn't apply here, because it's actually certain the user actually agreed with their edit, see WP:NOTPOINTy. Politrukki (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for continuing disruption without regard for the warning at October 2022 above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)