User talk:24.119.20.133

Welcome!

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth". This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You have not resolved this situation. Pinging Orangemike so he's aware. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not make a legal threat to take legal action against a specific Wikipedian. I stated that one might go to jail if they were to violate U.S. Law and the rights of U.S. citizens, and I sought to explain what the law was, how that law came to be, and the reasoning behind that law. There is a very, very big difference. Those who commit illegal activity should be blocked, not those who object to and condemn such activity in a general way. Saying that one can be sued for libel or assault is totally different from saying that I am going to sue you for libel or assault. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. We should be far more concerned with the prospect that a growing number of editors and administrators are violating this core principle of Wikipedia and infringing on other people's most basic civil liberties than we are concerned that someone stated that Americans have a right to freedom of speech and a right to bear arms, and why, and that infringement on those rights is a violation of our constitution and Wikipedia's policies and founding principles. Stating the provisions and the rational for a law is permitted on Wikipedia. If I were to say on a page about violent crime or property theft, for example, that you might find yourself in jail if you stab someone or take their car, that would obviously not be a threat, and is certainly not a violation of Wikipedia policies, and the same is true in this case. As is always the case when someone commits a crime, the threat of legal action by the government or by the people whom they have victimized is implied. A 1 year ban for stating that a person might find themselves in jail if they violate other people's constitutional rights, a statement that was made over 7 months ago, is absurd and totally contrary to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. This is clearly not about any legitimate concern regarding the potential for a legal threat to have a chilling effect on other Wikipedians, but rather, this is clearly an attempt to permanently ban me from Wikipedia because of my political and social views, specifically because I believe that both sides of the debate on the right to bear arms should be communicated on Wikipedia, not just the anti-constitutional, anti-right-to-self-defense side, which is the only side that is represented on the page in question, in violation of the neutral point of view policy, and because I was very accurately explaining the relationship the establishment of a tyranny and the confiscation of weapons that are possessed by anyone and everyone who is not either a government employee or or a dedicated supporter of that government and its policies. This is one of the most important political truths in history, and the primary rationale for the existence of our right to bear arms in America. Those who repeatedly censored every point of view on the Nazi Gun Control page that was not pro-gun-control or anti-right-to-bear-arms, and who abused their privileges as administrators and violated numerous Wikipedia policies in the process should have their administrative privileges revoked, in accordance with Wikipedia policies. This latest witch hunt against me, 7 months after the fact, following without me having instigated this new block in any way, is further evidence of that. I did not make a legal threat, but I certainly do retain my right to take legal action against anyone who violates my rights or the rights of others, and I cannot agree not to do so regarding any specific case where my rights or the rights of others may have been violated, since by doing so I would be admitting that my rights or the rights of others have not been infringed when in fact they may have been. To think that there would be no consequences for such actions would be ridiculous. According to Wikipedia policies on legal threats, "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." My intent was to inform the administrators and editors who were censoring a broadly accepted and reliably sourced point of view on a topic of the utmost importance to the survival of freedom and democracy that Americans have a legal right to bear arms, that Wikipedians have a right and a responsibility to allow both sides of this issue to be represented on Wikipedia in proportion to the extent that each side is held by the public and subject matter experts, and to explain why these laws and policies exist and what the consequences are for individuals and for society when these laws, policies, and civil liberties are ignored, violated, or misconstrued. 24.119.20.133 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You wrote, "those who have imposed this unlawful block will be identified and located, and all possible legal, economic and social costs will be imposed on the offending parties". Yes, that's a legal treat. You're welcome to pursue legal means, but you aren't welcome to edit Wikipedia at the same time. Talk page access revoked. Huon (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2017 (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.

Note for reviewing admin: See this made after NLT block was levied and please review recent edits. TPA might have to be removed if history is any indication. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

---