User talk:ICEERO

April 2021
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at 2019 Nevada killing spree. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 05:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Facts are neither defamatory, or complementary. They simply are facts.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2019 Nevada killing spree. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 05:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop threatening me. I posted factual information.

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at 2019 Nevada killing spree, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Save your threats. Factual information provided and more detail is just that - FACT.


 * ICEERO, good day. The messages above are no threats but to inform you that you need to have source to support your claim. If you not adhere to the guidlines then you might be blocked from editing. Pls use Template:Cite Web to provide inline citation if your source is from the web.  Cassiopeia(talk) 05:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sources are already cited in the materials posted, along with things like the publicly available laws (8 USC, the Immigration and Nationality Act etc). Nothing has been posted from myself that is not 100% factual. Thanks for the concern - but you were not there or involved.


 * It is incumbent on you to provide an actual written reference to a reliable source about his family's immigration status, and to make a persuasive argument that this information is WP:DUE for inclusion in this article. Adding contentious unreferenced information about living people is a policy violation. Present your case on the article talk page. Which specific reliable source now in the article verifies the content you wish to add? Verifiability is a core content policy, as is the Neutral point of view. Adhering to core content policies is mandatory. Persistent editing against consensus and edit warring are blockable offenses. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you not read the articles already included which mention the having to travel to El Salvador to interview the family after their removal from the US? Review documents before you insert your opinion. Good lord.


 * Hi ICEERO, Pls be polite when communicate with other editor as this is the Wikipedia guidelines. If the source is included in the article, then you need to state that in the edit summary, so editors may check. see next edit on how to input edit summary. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''In addition to all the other warnings/reports. You are FAR beyond acceptable edit-warring. STOP NOW.'' User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 05:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I specifically addressed the reason for the ridiculous block. People with no knowledge inserting their opinion should NEVER override FACT and DEFENITIONS. These are simple things. I was blocked - for stating and providing truth. You backing this sort of thing up further shows how Wikipedia is a tool of the uneducated. ICEERO (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:ES
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision diffs
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Cassiopeia(talk) 05:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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:.
 * You are also violating the policy against edit warring. The relevant policies have been explained to you. You will not be permitted to violate them. Comply when your block expires. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Cullen - you are a California resident, with zero knowledge on this topic. Citing CNN and their incorrect language is not a source - that is called an opinion piece. It is reprehensible that you silence facts and replace them with your opinion. Read 8 United States Code and the Immigration and Nationality Act for CORRECT legal language.
 * My state of residence is irrelevant and I would take the same action as an administrator if I lived in New Zealand or Tanzania. You will not be permitted to edit war. You will not be permitted to add contentious material without consensus and without a specific inline reference to a reliable source. As for CNN, it is widely accepted as a reliable source, and if you want to change that consensus, discuss the matter at WP:RSN. You cannot unilaterally impose your own personal preference. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

CNN is NOT EVER reliable, particularly on matters of the law. I have already shown you the definition of Illegal Alien. This subject was arrested by ICE Deportation Officers, and an ICE detainer was placed upon his transfer to local custody. Bottom line - illegal alien is the proper legal definition. If you have an issue with this - please legislate the issue. As of now the issue was already legislated through congress as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and codified in 8 United States code. I note that you don't seem to care about anyone else "edit waring" but someone that you disagree with on a PC made up term. Let's be truthful and honest here - you know, instead of actually imposing your own personal preference (which you and the others did over and over). Thanks
 * If you wish to contest the reliability of CNN, then there is a place to do it, and that place is Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Until the Wikipedia community agrees that CNN is not a reliable source, then you must accept the fact that it is reliable for use on Wikipedia despite your dislike of it. As for edit warring, which other editors have been violating that policy on this article other than you? State their account names and I will warn or block as appropriate. As for the content about the family members of the accused also being illegal immigrants, please point to the specific reference in the article that verifies this content. It is a grave and severe policy violation to add contentious material about any living person without providing an inline reference verifying the assertion. If you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia, then you must comply with the policies and guidelines. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Cullen - once again FACTS are not contentious, they merely are facts. Calling fact contentious is reprehensible. As part of the investigation into Martinez-Guzman, his family was researched by ICE. Shortly after Martinez-Guzman was taken into custody his mother was taken into custody by ICE also in Carson City. She was allowed to remain free (not detained) due to care for a minor child (Wilber's sister) who also had an immigration record. Further Martinez-Guzman's father is actually an ICE fugitive who was at large within the US at the time of this case. Facts are not contentious, ever. And CNN REGULARLY lies and makes up stories, let alone uses bs terms like "undocumented immigrant" which is nothing but pc nonsense. You can see the endless edits and undo's to what I wrote (some of which come from yourself). So let's dispense with acting like you don't see those. Again - FACTS are all that matter on this. No opinions, not that you don't like a word - FACTS.
 * You are a new editor and clearly unfamiliar with policies and guidelines. One of our most important policies is Verifiability. In short, if you assert that anything is a fact, then you are obligated to provide an inline reference to a reliable source that verifies that information. That is mandatory. Millions of people have committed crimes and the vast majority are not mentioned on Wikipedia because their crimes are relatively trivial or run-of-the-mill. But if anyone writes "Joe Blow is a burglar" on Wikipedia, then they MUST provide a reference to a reliable source stating that Blow was convicted of burglary. You seem to be making assertions about this case based on your own personal knowledge, which you assert are the facts. Please be aware that is contrary to another core content policy, No original research. Things you know to be factual can only be added to Wikipedia if you can find and cite a published reliable source. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

unless sealed, court records are viable by anyone in the public - ie: verifiable facts. Save your condescension for your Sunday morning coffee while you scoff at anyone who disagrees with you. Facts are FACTS. Period. Unlike your opinion.
 * Here are a few facts for your consideration: I have been a Wikipedia editor for about twelve years and have written about 100 articles and have expanded many hundreds more. No article I've written has been deleted. I have been an administrator for about four years and to date, have blocked 3865 accounts for policy violations. I have never been blocked myself and my administrative work here has been praised by many experienced editors. You, on the other hand, have been here for a few days, have already been blocked twice, and are likely to be blocked indefinitely if you keep violating policies. So, the choice is yours. Follow the rules or get blocked. If you want help understanding the policies and guidelines, I will assist. But if you insist on violating policies, you will be blocked. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup - thank you for proving my point. Let me know when you chose to be an adult and discuss. Until then, you have zero valid point. ;) Your intent is clear though, you will ban, silence and censor all who chose to speak factually if you don't like the facts. Again - facts are always king. Prove me wrong. Or you can go back to your intention, to silence me. Which will you chose?
 * In this particular case, silencing you seems the best idea. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> 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:. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC) That is incorrect - you are clearly a tyrant.

It is not a rant. Though funny, I could swear personal attacks aren't allowed and yet ........ defenition of irony.
 * I apologize for getting the number of your blocks wrong. At that time, I was also interacting with another editor who had been blocked twice and I made a mistake. Nobody objects to facts. We just require that facts be cited to reliable published sources, so that the information can be verified by our readers. That is not tyranny. It is a common sense standard that has led to Wikipedia being one of the world's most popular websites. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * it would appear that this editor has decided to continue their crusade at another account. See Sockpuppet investigations/ICEERO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)