User talk:Barwick

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   02:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Acroterion   (talk)   02:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Oath Keepers for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not much inclined to talk to you on this topic to be honest. I've tried to discuss the facts here, and you've claimed I'm "treating this like a forum".  No, I'm pointing out that the article is blatantly biased, and nobody seems to care because "reputable sources don't bother to address the claim that others have said about Oath Keepers".  Imagine this... someone writes an article in a major news outlet saying "XYZ said that Oath Keepers is an anti-government, far-right organization.  That is not true".  Nobody does that.  It's stupid.  They just ignore the stupid that other organizations make. Barwick (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, those major news outlets simply just say as fact that "Oath Keepers is an anti-government, far-right organization." It's in the cited sources. That you disagree with those sources, or with the entire concept of judicial review for that matter, is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We present the world as mainstream reliable sources present it. Your apparent belief that those sources are all wrong about the Oath Keepers is of zero consequence to the encyclopedia. Your dispute is with the sources, and we can't help you "fix" them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the discrtionary sanctions above apply to talk pages as well as articles. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you really just say that the SPLC is to blame for some idiot to get homicidal? (Does that mean, vice versa, that you'd blame Trump for the El Paso shooting?) You are skating on thin ice here--we are well into NOTFORUM territory. Please take the above warnings seriously. If you cannot play by the rules, and these rules include policies and guidelines on what are considered reliable sources, you may find yourself blocked or topic banned. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the statements given by the shooter at the FRC? He explicitly stated that he searched for "anti gay groups", and saw SPLC's blatant lies claiming that FRC was a hate group. https://www.frc.org/newsroom/southern-poverty-law-center-linked-to-frc-shooting-in-chilling-new-interrogation-video
 * I suggest you stop threatening me with wikipedia warnings and all your wikipedia rules. I spend virtually zero of my life dealing with the sea of rules on this website.  So people like you threatening me with random consequences for something I have no clue what in the world those "notices" even mean, really doesn't scare me. Barwick (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Bishonen &#124; talk 20:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

Block
Perhaps you really have quit the site and will never return, but if not, you are now blocked indefinitely. This block is not for your conservative viewpoints. Administrators do not police viewpoints - they police behavior. I don't care what your viewpoints are. I don't care if consensus was consistently in favor of liberal viewpoints. I care that you seem to be incapable of participating in a collegial fashion when consensus is against you, and simultaneously unwilling to restrict yourself to topic areas that do not cause you so much upset. Looking back through your contributions all the way to the beginning, sparse as they are, I see that this is not a new behavior. So no matter what your viewpoint is, your attitude is not welcome here. You may appeal this block by adding, to this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)