User talk:Ag97

Proposed deletion of Card Pack 1: Secrets and Sabotage
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Card Pack 1: Secrets and Sabotage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as being a listing of not otherwise notable merchandise related to The 39 Clues series.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Card Pack 1: Secrets and Sabotage
I have nominated Card Pack 1: Secrets and Sabotage, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card Pack 1: Secrets and Sabotage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of A Missed Call
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MLauba (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

About your card article up for deletion...
It you want to preserve the information, you can go to www.wikia.com and ask for your own wiki, dedicated to the game series. There are no rules on what you can have there, so upload all the information you want, and have fun with it. Its hard having your first article deleted. It wasn't harming anyone, there is no shortage of server space, and its something some people would find interesting and useful. No one who didn't like that sort of thing, would be likely to ever read it. But, there are rules to follow these days. Make sure to click "edit page" and copy everything there someplace you can get to it later on, before the page is deleted. That'll make it easier for you to later on to put it elsewhere.  D r e a m Focus  18:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Ag97, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My 'Mistaken' Deletion
I'm sorry. I was editing at that time using my notepad on my laptop. I copied it from there and replaced it there. Meanwhile, I also put up the 2nd set of cards at the article. Should the cards be on a different article? (just asking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertdaniel222 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Your edits at Dalton McGuinty
Hi Ag97. Please be aware of our policy regarding the biographies of living persons. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2016
- MrX 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC) - MrX 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of existence of discretionary sanctions for content related to living persons
Neutralitytalk 15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Fringe topics and content touching on living persons
Please review Biographies of living persons, Fringe theories, and Neutral point of view. Where content in the encyclopedia negatively touches upon a living person (e.g., accuses the of misconduct), and where the range of reliable sources describe the claim as disproven or baseless, it must be described as such in the text. See in particular WP:EVALFRINGE, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPGOSSIP.

These recent edits of yours do not comply with these policies and guidelines:
 * 10:21, December 2, 2016
 * 18:31, December 1, 2016
 * 18:28, December 1, 2016

You also should not describe straightforward news reporting that debunks fringe theories as "the opinion of the writer." Please see Reliable sources: "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." Neutralitytalk 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And this edit of yours - 10:40, December 2, 2016 presents the same problem. You are also incorrect that BLP does not apply to disambiguation pages; as the policy clearly states, BLP applies across Wikipedia.
 * Let me be perfectly and unequivocally clear. You have two simple choices. You can either stop edit-warring in violation of our fundamental policies and guidelines. Or you can continue this conduct, and I will pursue and very likely obtain Arbitration Enforcement remedies against you. The choice is yours, but I strongly recommend the former. Neutralitytalk 15:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, but Neutral point of view supersedes BLP. By using the word falsely, you are editorializing and directly violating WP:NPV. There have been legitimate concerns raised, including suspicious emails released by Wikileaks, and disturbing images posted by the restaurant's owners on Instagram. None of this has been disproven. You cited no sources to support your "falsely" claim, and the consensus on the talk page is that people agree that this word should be removed. It's sad to see that your are using your administrator rights to bully and threaten people who disagree with your personal opinion, while violating fundamental wikipedia policy on neutrality and ignoring talk page consensus. Ag97 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) No, BLP does not "supersede" NPOV; the two are both fundamental policies of equal significance; and they do not contradict each other.
 * (2) No, as the actual reliable sources indicate, any "suspicions" are the insane fever dreams of conspiracy-theorist kooks. The reliable sources clearly identify the conspiracy theory as a false, debunked smear spread by fake news websites.
 * (3) No, contrary to your claims, there is no consensus to ignore the reliable sources. The only support for describing these conspiracy theories as anything other than false comes from IP editors, other new or inexperience users who have made few or no edits, or POV pushers who wish to use Wikipedia as a platform for smears. And, in any case, even if a local consensus existed, it can at no point override BLP.
 * (4) I'm going to rigorously enforce the policies and guidelines, especially when they deal with harmful, fake nonsense as to living people. Neutralitytalk 16:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of others' talk pages
Do not edit my user talk page to promote your fringe conspiracy theory. It violates BLP, it is nonsensical, and I am not obliged to countenance it in my userspace. Neutralitytalk 16:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even promoting the theory, I'm just saying that the article should be written in a neutral way! I have made a legitimate argument in favour of removing the word "falsely" that you obviously can't refute, so you keep deleting it instead. So since I won the argument, please stop edit warring with me. Either refute my argument or delete the word "falsely" from the article. If you fail to do so I will continue to edit the article, and I will report you for abusing your administrator privileges. Ag97 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Kuru  (talk)  17:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This block is unjustified. I have repeatedly made arguments defending my edits, and user Neutrality undid my edits without justification. I have attempted to negotiate with him, but he selectively deleted arguments that he was unable to refute rather than responding to them. See his talk page history, I made arguments in favour of my edits that he simply deleted. I simply believe that Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view. Neutrality started this edit war and refused to counter my valid arguments about neutrality. Now he unjustly got me blocked for standing up to his blatant attempts at abusing his administrator privileges by editorializing Wikipedia pages and blocking anyone who tries to stop him. Neutrality is the one who should be blocked, and his administrator privileges should be revoked. Ag97 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your content dispute; I care about your behavior. You are welcome to continue your discussion when your block expires, but continuing to revert the article to your preferred version before concluding  the discussion and forming a consensus is not a good idea. I suspect that if you are unable to calm down, you will find yourself blocked again in short order. Kuru   (talk)  17:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

How come Neutrality isn't also blocked? He participated in the edit warring just as much as me. How come his opinion is supposed to be more valid than mine? Ag97 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

And how can I have a discussion when Neutrality simply deletes my arguments rather than responding to them? Ag97 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to take a step back and think about what you're doing here. Wikipedia has emplaced extremely strong policies regarding material about living people, particularly negative (defamatory) claims about living people. This is because we are not a rumor factory, we are not a free-speech haven, we are a project to collaboratively build an Internet encyclopedia based upon reliable sources. The fact here is that the "Pizzagate" claims are unanimously considered to be false by reliable sources, which have thoroughly debunked them, exposed them as being the evidence-free fabrication of conspiracy theorists, and without the slightest hint of truth. This is a fact. We will not permit the encyclopedia to be used to spread false, fabricated and defamatory lies about living people. The end. That you cannot understand that fact or that you have willfully blinded yourself to the truth of the matter is your problem, not ours. If you wish to continue editing the encyclopedia, you need to accept that when reliable sources such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, PolitiFact and other outlets say something, they are the sources we give credence to. That's what we do on Wikipedia. If you can't accept that, you need to find another project to edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My argument is simply that the claims of both sides should be presented in a neutral manner. Take the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories for example. That is also a theory that was proven false by reliable sources and says false, defamatory things about living people, yet the article states the claims of supporters of the theory, and doesn't say the theory is false. Why the double standard? Ag97 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works. We do not give equal validity to unequal sources. On one side is The New York Times and other major media outlets with longstanding traditions of journalistic and investigatory credibility. On the other side is... anonymous Internet users on an anonymous Internet forum. We do not weight those equally.
 * If there are problems with the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, they should be addressed. Problems with one article do not excuse adding more problems in another article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration enforcement discussion
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Sagecandor (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Notification of AN/I Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --  Dane talk  21:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Accusations of bias at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Seaman_(journalist) regarding reason for discussion. The thread is Accusations of bias at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Seaman_(journalist). The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you.Slatersteven (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump difficulties
The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.

I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands like you (or 3 others that I wrote to). Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.

Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Usernamen1/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=754347721

Consider commenting on the Donald Trump talk page about this sample revision. I do not plan on extensive discussion on the talk page and will leave it up to you. Let me know what you think.

Disclaimer: I am a foreigner and not a registered Republican or Democrat. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks your post. Unfortunately, I am about to get banned from this website because I posted some opinions on a talk page that the Thought Police doesn't agree with, which led to me being viciously attacked by a large group of angry editors who have been pushing to get me banned. It seems that this website is controlled by anti-Trump administrators who block anyone who tries to fix biased articles. It's very clear pro-Trump editors aren't welcome here. But maybe it's a good thing. Trust in the mainstream media is now at an all time low after their biased media coverage, I suspect Wikipedia is heading towards a similar fate. Now that this website stopped being neutral, and has taken a distinctive anti-Trump editorializing slant, encouraged by certain administrators who block editors who try to stop this, I predict a significant drop both in donations and number of people who come to this site. If you want to continue fighting this, I wish you luck. But it seems to be a losing battle. Still, it's not a big deal. The mainstream media tried 100% to bring trump down, and they failed, and this website joining in isn't going to change that. In the long run, Wikipedia is going to bring more damage to itself. It's just becoming another liberal echo chamber, and the millions of people who are opposed to this will simply leave the website, taking their donations with them.Ag97 (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's get something straight first. I am not a Trump supporter. Now with that out of the way, it is my feeling that Wikipedia should have high quality neutral articles. However, if a particular article were to start slanting, then there are two ways to approach it. Either try very hard to improve the article or go the other way, let it become so slanted that it becomes laughable.


 * About your topic ban, feel free to discuss things with me on my talk page if it makes you feel more calm. I cannot promise you that I will edit but I will be a listening ear, at the very least. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Usernamen1 It looks like just letting it become so slanted that it becomes laughable might be the better approach. I see from your talk page that people are already trying to get you banned, like so many other people who tried to write from a NPOV were. If you look at the AE page, every single person who tries to make political articles neutral, like me or you ends up being banned. As long as a high amount of admins on this site are compromised and don't follow the NPOV policy it's impossible to and futile to stop this. It's probably better to completely switch strategies and go the other way, and make high profile articles lDonald Trump ridiculously anti-Trump biased. This won't receive anywhere close to the amount of opposition that writing from a neutral point of view gets. Eventually the articles will get so bad that something will happen. Either new administrators will take over that follow the NPOV policy, or this entire website will start being seen by the public as a joke, with donations, amount of readers, and reader trust dropping significantly. Now that wikipedia started editorializing articles, this will be the single greatest factor leading to wikipedia's decline. I would hate to see this happen to wikipedia, but it might be necessary in order to get back to neutral articles sometime in the long-term future.Ag97 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Politics
It's likely that you will be topic-banned from the area of US politics. Everyone completely understands that you sincerely believe you are right, and that Wikipedia is de facto subsumed into the conspiracy to suppress The Truth, and that's part of the problem in that it implicitly imputes motives, which is uncivil. Either way the problem is not that your views are at odds with the consensus of reliable sources (though that is undoubtedly the case), but that your style is excessively aggressive, and you are not listening to good faith attempts to help you not to be a WP:MASTODON. So, my recommendation to you is to walk away form the contended area and any residual interpersonal disputes that arise form it, find somewhere entirely peaceful, and do some Wikignoming. I'm sure you have hobbies you would like to write about, or an interest in your local area and its landmarks and natural environment? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I regret the outcome of this ANI discussion, but have to agree with Guy above that there are probably a lot of other areas in which one could be productive. And most of those other areas are going to be a lot less controversial. Also, alternately, there are a rather large number of reference works over at wikisource, like can be found at wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries and other pages, which, basically, just need to be proofread there. Much of that content could later, not unreasonably, be imported here. Particularly given that I have had multiple people tell me our coverage of historical matters is really negligent, and a lot of those sources provide good coverage of historical matters, such proofreading there could be extremely useful here as well. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

community topic ban
Based on the results of this discussion at ANI, the community has topic banned you from editing articles related to United States politics and conspiracy theories, broadly construed, for a period of one year. This is separate from any arbitration enforcement actions that may or may not be taken. Katietalk 22:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I need to clarify this: the community has banned you from making edits related to these topic areas. This includes edits to talk pages and deletion discussions. Since I wasn't clear, I'll give you a pass on your edit to the AFD discussion, but that's the only one you'll get. Katietalk 23:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Noted. I made that edit before I noticed that you posted this message. I'm checking the timestamps, seems my edit was technically made a few minutes after yours, but I didn't see the notification or check my talk page until after you posted your first messageAg97 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just confirming as per your second comment above, that Ag97 is community topic banned from "these topic areas" (1) United States politicis, and (2) Conspiracy theories, both of them broadly construed, and not simply from the intersection of "United States politics and conspiracy theories". Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The text of the proposal was topics of US politics and conspiracy theories, and I take that to mean both areas and not simply where they intersect. It appears there'll be an AE ban from post-1932 US politics, though I don't know for how long. Katietalk 23:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably no AE ban, as Lankiveil closed it as moot with the implementation of a community ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Hahaha! You finally managed to get me topic-banned! Sure took you a long time to do that. Well guess what, the joke's on you: I was already planning on leaving Wikipedia on my own anyway. I only do this to kill time when I'm bored at work and I'm starting a new job in January. So after all your hard work to get me banned, the only thing that you accomplished is that you shortened my stay here by two short weeks. So you had one tiny, insignificant victory that doesn't even matter much since I wasn't even doing that much damage to your pizzagate censorship agenda. In fact, by starting so many high profile AE and AEIs, ironically you actually brought new readers and editors to the pizzagate article that weren't aware of it before. And now those new editors that you helped bring to that article can have a bigger influence on that article than anything that I ever had. On top of it all, you FAILED to get the pizzagate article deleted, and it looks like you're about to FAIL to get the David Seaman article deleted. In fact, the only thing that you accomplished is damaging your own reputation as a wikipedia editor. Now everyone knows that you're pushing an agenda on wikipedia and I'm sure people are going to scrutinize your edits more carefully. If like I suspect, you're being paid (by CTR or some other similar organization) to do this, you're doing a terrible job. I know if I hired someone to push an agenda online, and he did the same job as you, I would have fired him a long time ago. I hope for your sake that your boss is more lenient than me. So again, congratulations on your (small and insignificant) victory. With Trump being elected and millions of people believing pizzagate might be real (according to public opinion polling) this must not be a fun time for you guys. And now you just wasted a bunch of your time going after me, just some random, insignificant person on the Internet, while failing to get the articles deleted that you wanted. In fact, your AEs and requests for deletion just brought more attention to the very topics that you are trying to censor, so I think it's fair to say that your efforts totally backfired.

By the way, if you want to repost this message in an attempt to increase my ban, go right ahead. I couldn't care less or not if you succeed, and wouldn't mind if this post got a larger audience. I'm sure the last thing you want is more people taking a closer look at you and scrutinizing your edit history. Someone might start to wonder, why are you fighting so very hard to get the David Seaman article deleted when there are thousands of articles about less significant people on wikipedia that you don't have a problem with. Someone might also start to wonder why you tried so very hard to get the pizzagate article deleted, despite it being about a topic that received significant media converge from virtually every news source. And someone might take a closer look at your activities on wikipedia, to see if you are actually trying to make it better, or pushing a personal political/censorship agenda.

Best of luck,Ag97 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In light of your topic ban, posting things like this here is a bad idea and might get you blocked if you do it again. Please don't. Jonathunder (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I wouldn't count your chicken about the David Seaman article: right now the raw count is 12 Keep and 21 Delete, so it really depends on the quality of the arguments. which ones cite policy etc. If I had to bet, I'd say it was going to be deleted, but it could go either way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha you have no idea how much people attacked me for suggesting number of votes influences consensus. It's very amusing to see that someone is now using that exact argument against me.Ag97 (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, actually that's not the case. Yes, the !vote count enters into it in some manner, how could it not?, but 1000 !votes saying "Keep" because I like this article" will not trump one !vote which convincingly cites a lack of notability. However, all things being equal, the !vote count can act as a rough indicator of where the sense of the community is.  After that, it's up to the closer to evaluate the quality of the !votes and ignore, discount or devalue those which have no basis in policy.  So, again, you might want to save your "Haha"s for the actual result, and not make unwarranted assumptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Also lets make this clear, it was me that started the ANI that got you a topic ban, and your reaction here does not make me regret it. Look at how you react and how you come across and think about about it a bit. If you carry on like this it will be a wider ban.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, I'm Exemplo347. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message.Ag97 (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)