User talk:Disjunction

August 2015
Hello, I'm Barek. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Friendly High School, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Note: a claim of a verbal exchange of information fails the threshold of being a reliable source. Also, the material is not written in an encyclopedic tone, as it is not written from a neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok! :)  I didn't know what was happening with the paragraph that I put in.  I thought it was an internet malfunction or some kind of program virus.  I'll have to dig up the sources then.  The way the current article in Wikipedia is written, Friendly seems like a real loser of a school.  And the implicit message is that anyone with a child would be crazy to have him or her go to school there. It wasn't the case in the 1970s.  Friendly just went down the toilet in the 1990s. I just wanted to put a different perspective that Friendly wasn't always a loser of a school, and  that it was actually once a very respectable high school.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Friendly High School, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Note: please don't restore the content until a reliable source can be found. Personal correspondence is not a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm....it's going to be difficult trying to get the old assistant dean from Harvard Med School to write down what he said and then get him to publish it. ...

Barek, would you look the other way for two big ones? ;)

September 2016
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 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, you may be blocked from editing. Dr.  K.  03:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The section in wikipedia that I re-wrote is fair, balanced, journalistic writing. The prose you're defending is grammatically awkward, murky, deceptive, and filled with jargon. What makes you such an "expert" and know-it-all? I'm 99.9% certain you're one of those fake doctors who loves to pretend and call themselves doctor. Where did you get your medical degree? Well?


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopædia not a newspaper. So it should be written like an encyclopædia not some kind of sensationalist tabloid or blog. Edits like this have no place in an encyclopædia. I hope you can understand that much. As far as my degree, that's none of your business. I hope you can understand that too and look at WP:CIV and WP:NPA while you are at it. Dr.   K.  14:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You're practicing censorship. Who are you to judge? BTW, since you're publicly proclaiming yourself a doctor; then it becomes the public's business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.65.132 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No it does not. I am not proclaiming anything under my account name which can be considered related to my degree. I am here as a regular editor. To be an editor requires no degree. My degree is irrelevant to your edit and my disapproval of it so stop referring to it. It is useless to continue arguing about it and it is not your business. Your edit was removed because it was blatantly POV. In any case, this is a community project. If you don't believe me, go to the neutral point of view noticeboard and ask them if your edit was good and neutral. If they say yes, I will revert myself and let your edit stand. How about that? Here is the link: WP:NPOVN. Good luck. Dr.   K.  18:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, now you're sounding fair. Let the other people decide.

William Barr
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. Such edits are considered vandalism and quickly undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

Reply: It's not nonsense. You're using the informal logical fallacy called Abusive Ad Hominem attacks. You can't refute your argument with any facts. But I can support what I had written with cold, hard facts and references. Watch the Hannity show that was released 5/1/19. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB19OcvQei8) The Barr article by Wikipedia as it is written is biased, prejudiced, one-sided, and sounds like communist propaganda and misinformation. Are you a Kim Jong un stooge?
 * What you added appeared to be vandalism. "Mueller was pissed" is not appropriate prose for Wikipedia, written sources are preferable to commentary by talk show hosts, and the citation was not properly formatted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP vio and other rubbish
If you continue adding content such as this (which is a BLP vio by falsely claiming in Wiki voice that Harris was in an illicit affair and sourcing it to a far-right conspiracy theorist) and this, you'll very likely get banned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You're a communist/socialist who wants to ban those who disagree with your communist/socialist ideals, and who wants to promote a biased agenda. You're closed minded. I'll stop donating money to Wikipedia, and I'll tell all my friends NOT to donate any money either if Wikipedia continues to have bozos like you!

BTW,it's a well known fact Harris had an illicit affair w/ Willie Brown who was and is her Sugar Daddy: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/27/willie-brown-kamala-harris-san-francisco-chronicle-letter/2695143002/

Invalid contributions
Please stop adding your fringe point of view. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a fringe point of view. The CIA does control all the major media in the U.S. Carl Bernstein himself acknowledged this fact in the 1970s. You're engaging in disinformation, misinformation. Watch what happens when it's finally revealed that Joseph Mifsud is a CIA agent who had ties to the Clinton Foundation, Obama Foundation, John O. Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rob Mueller. Anyone who is reading this, take note! It is now Saturday, May 4, 2019.

May 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to William Barr, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. valereee (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)