User talk:Alainlambert

An extended welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Alainlambert. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Important notification regarding discretionary sanctions
--Neutralitytalk 02:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works and the problems with your editing
Hi Alainlambert: I wanted to take a few moments to explain Wikipedia's core policies, and how your recent editing has run afoul of it (on Project Veritas) and elsewhere:


 * Wikipedia content is based on reliable (mostly secondary) sources. Effectively all content must be cited to a reliable source. Contrary to your suggestion in your edit summary here, high-quality news articles in sources like the Associated Press, WBUR are highly reliable sources; they are not "opinion content."


 * The minor edit button is only for non-substantive minor edits (like typos or formatting fixes). It's not for adding or removing substantive content, etc. Many of the edits you marked as "minor" are not minor edits.


 * When other editor (particularly multiple other edits) have reverted changes you have made, and explain why they are doing so, please do not simply make your edit again. That's called an edit war. If you make an edit and it is challenged on some ground, you have to take it to the article talk page to make your case and then obtain consensus. See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.


 * We are not a vehicle for promotion or advertising. See WP:PROMO and Avoid mission statements.


 * Finally, and most importantly, please carefully read Biographies of living persons (BLP). That is a policy that sets forth special considerations when making edits dealing with, or implicating, living or recently deceased individuals. On Project Veritas, you made changes to downplay or remove references to the deceptive nature of that group's videos. That creates a false and negative impression about the individuals &mdash; including relatively private persons &mdash; named in the videos. We take BLP very seriously here, so that's simply not an acceptable thing to do.

Please let me know if you have questions on this. Neutralitytalk 02:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir, thank you for the input. I will read with interest the links you provided. The fact remains, adding sources where below express their opinion should be exposed properly and presented as such: people's opinion. If you could find another 100 sources where people have the same opinion will not change the nature of the facts. As you want to have the page on Project Veritas is biased, non-informative and non-balanced at all. While I am all for following the Wikipedia rules, I am convinced that providing balanced and informative information is in line with core values of Wikipedia. I will read some of the link you provided and decide what the best course of action to render the page balanced. As far as your statement that I made changes "to downplay or remove references to the deceptive nature of that group's videos that creates a false and negative impression about the individuals" is absolutely not true. I added the description of Project Veritas as per its website, I deleted adverbs that turn opinions into facts and added a Section for you and other to develop the negative side of Project Veritas, as its critics see it. I fail to see why anyone wouldn't want balanced pages. Kindly. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Further thoughts on this page
My philosophy about editing on Wikipedia can be summed up in a post I recently wrote on my cycling blog. I tell the story about climbing Whiteface Mountain listening to the Beatles Red Album (1962-1966). That is when I discovered that you can’t listen to the Beatles with only one earbud. Try it with All My Loving. You can clearly hear Paul’s bass and George’s guitar on the left side and there is pretty much only the singing on the right side. Ringo is faint on each side. That’s just the way they were recording back in the days, I guess. In other words, if you listen to the Beatles with only one earbud, you only get part of the song.

Which to me is the same thing in politics and media. There are people on "both sides of the aisle” who believe their sources of information gives them the whole truth when in fact, they are only getting a part of it, like listening to the Beatles with only one earbud. I personally have a very broad and diverse source of information which “crosses across the aisle”. I have a paid subscription to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. I read Politico and Breitbart. I listen to NPR and Rush Limbaugh. I watch CNN and Fox News. To me, being informed means using the “left” earbud and the “right” earbud.

One of the main obstacles to being truly informed is that some people believe certain news outlets present what is normative, that they present THE reality, when in fact it isn’t so. Personally, I prefer All My Loving with two earbuds. The same applies to all the other songs on the Beatles Red Album and Blue Album.

Many pages about political matters on Wikipedia, including the one on Project Veritas give you only part the song. It takes two earbuds to get a full Beatles song, only one isn't enough. It takes two earbuds to get a full political point, only one isn't enough.

Here are two examples:

Quebec Language Laws:

In the Province of Quebec, many in the anglophone community - which represents about 10% of the population - feel that the province's language laws discriminate against them.

The Province of Quebec, with a French speaking population of about 7 million is surrounded by 360 million English speaking people. In order to preserve its language and culture, the Province has language laws designed to give prominence to French in most aspects of life.

Both statements are true. If I wrote on Wikipedia about Quebec language laws, I could decide to focus on only one of the two aspects noted above and through 'sourcing' I could present an unbalanced and misleading page which respects Wikipedia's rules. Seat belts

Seat belts save lives.

Seat belts kill people.

Both statements are true. If I wrote on Wikipedia about seat belts, I could decide to focus on 'seat belts kill people' and through 'sourcing' I could present an unbalanced and misleading page which respects Wikipedia's rules.

I personally don't care much about Project Veritas, but I do care about truth. Alainlambert (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"I am not sure why balance isn't the primary goal here"
Two references for you:
 * Begging the question - which applies to your heading ("In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it")
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE - "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity [emphasis added]." The fact that you, above, cite Politico and Breitbart as if they were of equal validity as sources of information tells me that you need to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy and practice. Breitbart, in fact, is such a lousy source that it is specifically deprecated on Wikipedia regarding factual matters. --Calton &#124; Talk 01:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Calton; thank you for the comments. Here is my response.

"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." All my edits on Wikipedia thus far represents more than minority views. Who actually decides on Wikipedia what is considered mainstream scholarship?

"The fact that you, above, cite Politico and Breitbart as if they were of equal validity as sources of information." You put words in my mouth. I never mentioned any of my sources' validity as sources of information. I cited a number of news sites which I read to illustrate the point I am making: I seek to be informed which means to read various publications each with their own bias and agenda, including the New York Times, the Washington and NPR.

Many of my best friends share your point of view. They think because they read or listen to certain sources which 'they' declare as more credible than others, 'they' are then more informed than most and their knowledge is 'normative'. By deciding which sources have more weight, editors on Wikipedia import the political bias of these organizations on Wikipedia pages. That, in great part, is what renders those pages un-balanced and why they don't offer the full spectrum of reporting on certain topics. Pretty sad for an encyclopedia. Best regards Alainlambert (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * POV is a policy aimed at preventing editors' biases from driving the point of view within Wikipedia articles. Nothing sad about it. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Copy right
You have been now reverted at least twice for copy right violation. Pleae read wp:copy, if you continue it can lead to a block.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

OR
Please read wp:or, you really do need to start discussion on the talk page once an objection has been raised to an edit of yours.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Complaints
Alain, I hope you don't mind that I reverted your talk page comment. Normally that is a no-no but I think this is a good idea. I can tell you are trying to improve what you, not unreasonably, see as a troubled article. The problem is you are, knowingly or not, marching into a fight that probably won't end well for you. Wikipedia has lots of odd, not obvious rules for how things should be done. I would suggest trying to find an admin and ask them about the issue. Start with what you think is wrong and ask their opinion and how to best handle it. For the most part the people you are likely disagreeing with are well meaning. They may not take the time to hold your hand since they may not agree with your overall direction but they haven't done anything I would view as problematic. You might try talking with an admin like or  or someone else (perhaps either admin could suggest a name) regarding how do be effective here. I see you are making a good faith effort but getting frustrated. It happens remember, WP:AGF is very helpful when dealing with those who don't agree. Springee (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Springee, I do not mind at all, quite the contrary. Thank you for the input and recommendations. The way I look at this, the issue isn't the rules. As I think you have clearly noticed, as a new editors, I am still learning the rules and I have responded positively to all editors recommendations to read certain rules and policies. The issue is with heavily biased editors like XXX with an obvious agenda to denigrate all things Prager; and he is a bully on top of it. As far as presuming good faith, I live by that principle and I have raised my six kids to live by the principle. There is a point though, where actions lead to clear different conclusion. I was on a flight back from Paris this afternoon and it gave me the time to attentively read all the PragerU page and sources on the page and the conclusion is clear: editors have selectively picked the most over the top critics of PragerU (all university professors, go figure), some editors have not accurately quoted their sources and in some cases, they leave out the positive in the sources and just cherry pick the bad stuff. The page is so biased, it is comical. But it is the world they live in, it is normative for them. Anyone who doesn't think like them is an anomaly to be ignored or smeared if they protest. I have read many other articles from a political nature on Wikipedia and I see the same pattern almost everywhere. The most egregious example I have seen is on the Hunter Biden page where an editor has changed the publicly available transcript between President Trump and the President of Ukraine and added words to it that are not in the transcript. As Dennis P says, the left ruins everything it touches and sadly, this includes the political pages of Wikipedia. Finally, yes I am frustrated as I believe in fairness, truth and I have not found an overwhelming amount here. PS: I have done some research on my friend XXX: quite the reputation. Best regards, Alain
 * Hi Alainlambert. I'm sorry you're frustrated. I don't expect you're going to react well to this comment, but I think we need to communicate, and see if it's possible for us to work cooperatively. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Alain, first of all you should read WP:NPA. You really should know that if you were not a newbie, you would have been censured by the community for your awful attacks on fellow editor Ronz. They appear to be responding in a very cooperative manner. I myself would have asked for you to be banned from the project had you attacked me in the way you are doing. Please stop pit, or you will be stopped from behaving this badly. Thanks. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Roxy, please note that I have amended my User Page and Talk page to be compliant with the rule you pointed out. Best regards and thanks for sharing. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear "Ronz", There is nothing more I’d like than communication and see it it’s possible for us to work cooperatively. That is why I offered it on our first interaction weeks ago. Your thoughts are welcomed. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, it would help if you removed all accusations against other editors. See WP:REDACT for ways that this can be done. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's something I can do, let me know. Personal phone calls are out of the question though. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, are there other methods of communication allowed by Wikipedia, other than public communication? Please advise. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Email. There's an "Email this user" link under "Tools" on the left of an editor's user and talk pages. I have mine set up. Is yours? --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, seems to work. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
 Do not edit war and discuss through edit summaries. Follow WP:BRD or you may be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please no bullying on my Talk Page. Alainlambert (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , notifying you of discretionary sanctions is not bullying. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Think it through overnight, you may feel differently tomorrow. Also, please don;t delete comments on pages without actually looking at the source. watch the interview with Mayor Giuliani and you will come to my conclusion 100% as it he is extremely clear in his arguments. You may not like them or think he is lying, fair enough, but that doesn't give you the right to just delete important additions to Wikipedia, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're not being bullied, you're being disagreed with. Please seek consensus for your edits, as is required, and please review the biographies of living persons policy. Use talkpages, and assume good faith.   Acroterion   (talk)   23:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read my sources in detail and please watch the Giuliani interviews. I am not asking you to believe him, I am only asking you to verify that his denials are clear and are as I reported them, dispassionately.I have reviewed the policy and I do understand the importance of living persons having the right to have they denials against accusations made against them be shared on Wikipedia, as long as there is a reliable source. As far as Brennan is concerned, my edits were extremely well documented and contained no opinion on my part. If nothing comes from the Durham against Brennan, I'll be the first one to go add this information to what I added today. This isn't personal to you, but I must admit that in my short time on Wikipedia, I have found it tough to assume good faith. Again, this is NOT a comment about you. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Possibly you haven't had enough time to assimilate the general rules and editing ethos of Wikipedia - you've only been here for a little more than three weeks. There's a learning curve, and you've jumped headfirst into some contentious areas before you appear to be ready to work within the editing structure. Editing biographies of people in current highly politicized disputes isn't a good or easy way top start out - you may want to sit the controversial things out for a while and edit in areas that are valuable to the encyclopedia, but aren't biographical or political. There are almost six million articles, and very few of them have to do with hot-button controversies.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion, in my short time on Wikipedia, I have learned a lot about how it functions on certain political article, which is all documented. Please don't lecture. I have learned a lot over the last three weeks on rules and sadly, those seem too often greatly discretionary in nature depending on certain editors agendas. I am convinced that the great majority of editors are fair minded people who have the best of intentions. I am also convinced their are exceptions to that. This in NOT a comment about you. Regards, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Your recent editing history at John Brennan (CIA officer) 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Muboshgu, I feel sad that when you have exhausted all arguments to defend your position which goes against multiple Wikipedia rules, you resort to threats and bullying. You kept undoing my work and you can only justifying it by advocating your point of view, contrary to Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia isn't about advancing a point of view the way you did today. Please refrain from bullying any further. Please think about your unsustainable position under Wikipedia rules and think it overnight. Once you have reread Wikipedia rules, I am sure you will see differently. Best regards. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's three reverts in 24 hours to restore a BLP violation: four would be a bright-line violation. Stop edit-warring. Multiple editors have expressed concern about your edits.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the user has now actually violated 3RR with the fourth insertion and has been taken to WP:3RRNB. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , what is "sad" is that you're on this POV kick, including inappropriate use of your user page, instead of engaging in constructive discussion. Your behavior has made any kind of constructive dialogue impossible. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you attempted to dialogue with me? Ask Ronz who has how I reacted. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS for changing consensus is on the person who wants to change the consensus. You didn't follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, as you were told to. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion, instead of threats why not try to be helpful. You can clearly see that I am trying to address everyone's concerns. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort please collaborate in a positive manner instead of bullying. OK? thank you. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You've done virtually nothing to collaborate with other editors or to listen to their concerns - you are using Wikipedia as a battlefield, as your userpage illustrates. Should this behavior resume after your block expires, the next block will be longer, and you will face formal editing restrictions.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Your userpage
You don;t get to place material that's been disputed by multiple editors as a violation of BLP on your userpage - you may not use Wikipedia to assert that a targeted criminal investigation is underway aimed at a particular individual, based on your narrow interpretation of reporting on a broader investigation. If this continues, you may face editing restrictions on biographies. BLP applies to all parts of Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion, in case you didn't read my text, there is nothing in there that cites Brennan as the target of a criminal investigation, unlike what some editors wrote about Rudy Giuliani who then deleted my text referring to Rudy's denial. You guys can't have it only the way you want, the way that fits your narrative. Please refrain from importing your point of view on Wikipedia as it is against the rules. Please be neutral as per Wikipedia rules, it is important to the relevance of the whole Wikipedia project. When readers come to those pages and see biased articles, it devalues Wikipedia, which is against its rules. Finally, please don't make threats to fellow editors to shut them up. That is also againts wikipedia rules. Sincerely, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

As above. I am not going to place a templated warning here, but please consider this a strong warning against violating WP:BLP again. You might want to re-read WP:UPNO. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Bonadea, please be more specific. Instead of just printing Wikipedia codes, please indicate the actual violation here. I have read the policy with great interest and respect for following all rules and I don't even remotely see a violation. When you get arrested while driving, the police officer can't say you are being stopped for violating the Highway Traffic Act. Thank you for pointing out the exact violation so it can be corrected. Alainlambert (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Bias?
Editors can link a reliable source about Giuliani having interest in the Ukrainian energy deal which can lead to prosecution and then they delete Giuliani's denial. An editor can link a reliable source about the fact that Attorney Durham wants to speak to Mr. Brennan as part of his criminal investigation, but other editors can delete it even though it doesn't go anywhere near the accusation on Giuliani? Obvious bias? For others to judge. Comments? Justification? Reasoning? Comments most welcome. Keen to learn Alainlambert (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2019 (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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note on my behalf that none of you guys have made any kind of effort to work collaboratively with me to find a solution. All you do is delete. I have made a good faith effort to address concerns but no one seems to care. Looks like censorship to me more than anything. I have read the policy on how to deal with new editors on Wikipedia and you guys have breached about all of it. My whole experience on Wikipedia is sad one and gives a whole new meaning to the word 'collaboration'. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , maybe if you had even once tried to discuss this issue rather than steamrolling forwards, we could have. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. El_C 20:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * so we are both guilty of the same thing? maybe that is the conclusion. alain Alainlambert (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No, you are the only one who violated the 3 revert rule that I can see. El_C 20:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

ALL of today's edits were different, illustrating a strong show of good faith. did anyone notice that? yes or no? Alain Alainlambert (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019


A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You were framed
I've blocked indefinitely. Stick to one account, or this account will be blocked too.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked this account for a week, and will bring your behavior up at ANI to discuss whether it shouldn't be indefinite.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea who Spurjump is, it is 100% not me, not directly, not indirectly. I have never heard of that name. What's your evidence? regardsAlainlambert (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   01:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is 100% a complete a set-up. Please provide evidence. Alainlambert (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A completely fabricated and unsubstantiated accusation and frame-up. Whoever created Spurjump is one sick individual. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're entirely correct - you were framed by one of our perennial troublemakers. I humbly apologize, I was fooled.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , that was a fairly convincing job by that perennial troublemaker. I was fooled as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the preliminary edits to Canadian topics were particularly convincing.In any case, @Alainlambert, the vandal is laughing, we got suckered, and you are free to edit. You haven't done anything wrong.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies sincerely accepted. Thank you guys/gals. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding, we try to get things right, or to make them right when we get them wrong, and it's a reminder that we get watched very carefully by trolls.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Guys/gals, I very much appreciate the quick and fair handling here. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation
You copy-pasted an entire paragraph from Vox in this edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, well done, you sound like a fair minded person. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Stay tuned. interesting times ahead. You may become famous, for all the right reasons. Best regards. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Editorializing
Stop inserting inappropriate commentary like "In Trump World ..." You're on the edge of a topic ban, or a block for more copyright violations. And it's not appropriate to ask editors who they voted for.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion, many thanks for you counsel and advice. I have deleted. Still trying to learn. Best regards. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I'm Canadian and do not have, as they say, a horse in this race. I just thought it would be interesting to match voting patterns with editing patterns, but if inappropriate under Wikipedia rules, then, more than happy to have removed the question. Much apologies. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop with the "edit war" warnings
Please stop warning other editors who have reverted you once to "stop edit warring." A single reversion, or edit, can never be an edit war. Please read WP:EW for what constitutes an edit war, and when another editor reverts you, consider that they may have good reasons for doing so.  General Ization Talk  04:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Bullying vs collaborative relationship contrary to Wikipedia rules. It never fails. Thank you for providing evidence. Much regards. Alainlambert (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not bullying. This is informing you of the definition of "edit warring", a term you which you are repeatedly misusing in stating your objections to other editors who disagree with your edits. The evidence is in your edit history, and will be presented for discussion at ANI if you prefer that to discussing it here.  General Ization Talk  04:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Alainlambert, please also review WP:BRD. You are on the verge of receiving another block. This is probably not a surprise. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Paul, many thanks for bullying. Much helpful for truth to come out about....you know what. May I please ask you for one more threat? Regards Alainlambert (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * May I suggest you also read Civility and Assume good faith?  General Ization Talk  05:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I raised six beautiful and good children and i have five awesome good grandchildren raised on the principle of good faith. They are also raised on the principle that good faith is to be assumed until proven wrong. I am NOT saying you have bad faith. I am saying, please provide current sources to support your position. Otherwise, you are just unjustifiably pushing me around. Best Alainlambert (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have repeatedly explained to you that that is not how things work here. If you choose to change the content of an article, you must provide sources that support your change.  If you fail to do so, and another editor disagrees with your change, they are free to revert your change without providing sources "to support their position"; by doing so they are not engaged in an "edit war".  I have directed you now to several times to WP:BURDEN, which you apparently refuse to read.   General Ization  Talk  05:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyhow, it's great you falsely accuse me of certain things. At the end of the day, I truly don't care that much if you believe certain CNN talk show hosts are what they are, or what you'd like them to be. I'd rather live in RealWorld than WikiWorld. Alainlambert (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If you would like to continue to have any role at all in "WikiWorld", I'd suggest that you stop asserting, without sources, your own opinions as fact, and then accusing other editors of "bullying" you or edit warring when they object or revert you. Your Talk page history makes it clear that I am not the only editor who thinks you would benefit from this advice.   General Ization  Talk  05:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Gen, thank you for helping me illustrate the bullying point. Thank you for being part of an important study I am conducting on Wikipedia. . Regards. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is further edit-warring after you were notified. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTLAB
Hi Alainlambert. Re: : Could you please review WP:NOTLAB, make the necessary disclosures, and start a discussion at WP:VPR? In the meantime, I think it would be best that you ceased whatever it is you're doing with your "study". --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear Ronz, many thanks for the reference to NOTLAB. Very clear and on point. I'm still happy to talk privately. Best regards Alain Alainlambert (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you going to follow NOTLAB or not? --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Can an admin please just block this user? The user is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia: see his claim that he's doing a study. It's a complete waste of time to have to check this editor's atrociously bad edits and revert them. Not to mention incredibly disrespectful towards other editors' time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Awilley, MelanieN, Neutrality: can you take this issue to the appropriate forum or contact an admin who is willing to deal with this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, re:, and , the editor is engaging in precisely the opposite of good faith in their interactions with other editors here, and this should be mentioned in any discussion of their editing behavior. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 19:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At minimum, I think a block is in order until the study stops and there is clear consensus for any study by Alainlambert. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
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:. ~Awilley (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Alainlambert, I have blocked your account because it looks like improving this encyclopedia is not your primary goal here, and because from what I've seen of your edits, you have been a net-negative so far (more disruptive than helpful). ~Awilley (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Accusing other editors of having "personal agendas" because they insist that you follow Wikipedia's policies concerning the citation of reliable sources and neutral point of view is not a good approach to appealing your block. Good luck with that. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, this account was established in September 2008. I think your ability to describe yourself as a "newcomer" expired some time ago. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear General, first, i did not refer to other editors, but rather mentioned "some editors" i.e. absolutely not a generalization. Secondly, I have never in any way shape or form, hinted at not following wikipedia rules, including those you mention i.e reliable sources and neutral point of view. best regards, happy to clarify. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your Talk page, and my personal interactions with you, tell a different story. Luckily for you, it is not my decision as to whether your appeal should be successful. I trust that the admin who makes that decision will take into account your editing history and attitude as documented here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 04:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear General, many thanks for you POV and your ability to read my mind. Best regards. Alain