User talk:Jpodesta1

Welcome
Hello. And thanks for being one of only a few to thank me for my contributions! Unfortunately I believe ALL of them have been censored, most inappropriately, and all have been removed, and I’ve gotten nothing but threats from more powerful editors but I’m trying to ride this out...

Other than that- just wondering- why did I get this message from you? Because you agree with or appreciate most of my edits or attempted edits? Jpodesta1 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. I think that if you continue editing as you have been, you'll soon be blocked again. If you want to become a contributing editor here, please follow the links in the blue box above, and do your best to read and understand the policies and guidelines therein – those are the "rules" that all Wikipedia editors operate under. Good luck – I'm afraid you are going to need it. Mojoworker (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just helping to see if and why how and when the demand for my truthipedia website will be and how well it may flourish. So all of this experience, while not at all why I originally became a now “well known” maybe even popular editor in such short time, helps me and hopefully many others, to see how and why the other half, really like 90% I’d guess or so of the world, is treated on here and why there’s a need to move onward and upward from the Wikipedia, perhaps of recent years of today and it’s future. Thanks for your contributions. Jpodesta1 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Andrew McCabe, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Hb1290 (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I am new, and did not realize that content was considered defamatory about the particular individual. Thanks however for letting me know and also that perhaps the policy is stricter on living persons. Appreciate it thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Andrew McCabe. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 00:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I don’t feel a need for any reference for certain revisions if they’re clearly truth- or editing other words which in fact would require reference or aren’t actually referenced. But like I said new to this so I’m learning and thanks for your feedback. Thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You keep sending similar messages to me. With different descriptions of what I’m editing. I’m new. Others are thanking me. I don’t understand either. Nobody has explained WHY they are either praising me or threatening to block I’d ban me. No specifics not one. What did I do which makes you think it’s disruptive or untrue? And what needed a source? I should source to someone’s tweet or a blog?

Edits are mine not someone else’s. All are sky is blue edits. Not personally or politically charged. Please explain WHAT you’re referring to for at least one or two of the edits you personally disliked so much. Otherwise I’ve got no reason to know why you’re saying what you’re saying or why people are thanking me either for the truthful obvious edits I feel I’ve made- If Wikipedia has become a like political person non fact based opinionated only circus show- then fine- people ought to know and I shouldn’t waste my time on here because facts become fiction and vice versa... thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, state WHAT you’re referencing? Nothing I’ve done is “disturbing” other than to you personally. Ever edit is simply widely known and sourced publicly available info. The fact you can’t even state one disagreement you have and just threaten means you’re the liar- not me. I don’t get what you are saying at all, you shouldn’t treat newcomers this way! Jpodesta1 (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Aceritioin whatever said somewhere he thinks my username is trolling. I’m responding to that. Plus I haven’t even been on here for days how are these people seemingly ALWAYS on here? Is this all they do? Fine, assume my name is trolling, but also realize my name is a very very common name, last name, plenty of other pedestals out there of Italian genesis, no relation to the ones you’re referencing. It’s almost as common a name as “Smith”. Jpodesta1 (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I did NOT vandalize the page “Savage Love”. Not only was the content true and widely known. It was a TEST. IT WORKED. if you read the actual page, just a few sentences down, I was writing exactly what was already written about the famous author. See for yourself. I passed the test. And you, the powerful editor FAILED. I just put the same exact truthful phrase of how he is still addressed in his articles a few sentences earlier where it belonged. I was hoping I’d get some inappropriate threat and edit to see and prove that even if you rewrite exactly what’s already there you’ll still get threats to be banned and called a “vandal” in my opine, this misconduct also demonstrates not just an absurd bias but a level of moronic extremism which dominates this politically dominated website. I encourage ALL readers and editors to take and see this brilliant example and response from the same editors sharing the same exact one brain- they ALL may as well be the same one person they think and behave as one- to EXEMPLIFY what exactly this site has become and why there’s a huge need and demand for a “truthipedisl long live the future truthipedia! Jpodesta1 (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition I’d Like to request that this editor, Mogadishu or whatever, is banned or disabled from contacting me, and in particular, disallowed from making any edits to my work.. how can I do that? Jpodesta1 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And how can I take action to properly ban his account or place a 31 hour hold on his account? I feel this user is not here to be productive and may be unable to contribute to the Wikipedia community. Other clearly feel the same. But I don’t see any option for doing any of this on this user or his or her page? How can we editors take si,liar justified actions against users such as this one? Thanks for any guidance on this matter or if you see the chains of misconduct this user has taken against me and other editors, please block him and place at minimum a 31 hour block on his account for me, as I am formally requesting g. Thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Not here
This editor is obviously not here to constructively improve the encyclopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Which editor? It probably was fact not opinion either way... Jpodesta1 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You. You should be blocked for what you've been doing. Your edits have mostly been vandalism. If you want to be a constructive editor, you need to state it clearly and stop messing around. This is not a playground. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t get what either of your messages are referring to? What do you mean? Can YOU cite a source to what you’re trying to say? Can you at least cite an example? One example with some reason for these comments? And this is not a playground? What is it? A way to make a living or live life for you? Sorry- I don’t get your messages and am starting to feel as if they’re personal attacks. This isn’t a playground so please cease. Thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's start all over. I'm going to WP:AGF that you don't know how this place works. We've all been there. Also, editors here are unpaid, including the administrators.
 * All content must be based on RS, and the content must use those sources as inline citations. The only exception is "the sky is blue" types of facts, IOW facts that are totally uncontroversial and accepted by all people. Assume that the content in our articles is good and is being watched by many other editors who have the article on their watchlists. Very obvious vandalism can be fixed by anyone, but it should be obvious, not something you disagree with.
 * Now, to be able to help you best, I'll wait for you to ask about anything you need help with. Okay? I'll be happy to aid you as you start editing here. I'd rather not see you blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Then let’s start over. We must start then with my apologies for my end of any misunderstandings for what I posted about you- I think on your profile page under discussions because I hadn’t seen this message when I posted it.

But why are people like you spending all this time - on here- and responding to new people like me- if you’re not being paid for it or making a living off of it?

And I didn’t understand what some of what you just wrote meant bc I don’t know what some of the abbreviations meant. But still- I’m wondering- esp. w. Future edits I make and you tracking me or them- what was it I edited that wasn’t clearly false or true or the sky is blue obvious? I mean I’ve just started and some people already sent me thanks for the same edits you didn’t like so it’d help if I could get some specifics on the edits or why you thought they were so awful that I needed to be banned? Thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To function here, you need a watchlist. Do you have one so you can see what has happened to the articles you edit and the edits you have made? All your edits have been reverted. Several would be considered vandalism, and others the adding of personal opinion to articles. We aren't allowed to do that.
 * Use the history tab a lot.
 * Use accurate edit summaries. Some of yours have not been accurate.
 * Those are a few things to keep in mind.
 * Editing here is a hobby for many people. We want to share knowledge and make the world a better place. Accurate information is valuable. I'm retired, so I have lots of time. I've been here since 2003.
 * Some of the articles you edited are on my watchlist, which currently has nearly 2,000 articles on it. At one time I had over 10,000 articles on my watchlist, but that was a bit too much, to say the least!
 * I can follow your edits by watching your contributions. Everything here is open and nothing is secret. No editor here has a right to privacy or to be left completely alone, because we edit collaboratively here. That means we have to learn to work together in a civil manner.
 * I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I don’t think I plan on devoting nearly that time to this- for me- at least I hope not! Sounds like it becomes a habit.

So I don’t think or know if I can do all you’re suggesting but I appreciate the explanations. I have some questions for you. I thought I could see everything that happens to anything that I do or edit or add or change whatever by clicking on the bell slogan. You said that everything- even changes that I just got thanks for- have already been removed?

I saw that one was so I re edited it. If that’s getting removed- and I can’t even see it- then what’s the point of me or anyone new coming on here at all? Seeing all this the inner workings in just a couple hours has really made me- and these vandalism protected pages too- where people are still editing them but the edits aren’t accurate I mean it’s negatively shaped my whole opinion of Wikipedia. I’m feeling now that it’s unreliable and just controlled esp. articles about popular people- by a small group of persons who’ve been on here for years consumed with it.

So also not you or anyone else- one person I saw removed something- and you said all my works just been removed and was a waste of my time- and apparently I can’t do not can anyone do anything about it- so not you after repeated requests or anyone else - told me WHY anything I did was just removed for good- or even a hint as to why- or like why you wrote to me what you wrote? It’s seeming to me this is controlled by only people who are very political leaning and not neutral arbiters of truth which I believe I am- so can you help me with the why? I mean if it’s like this all seems- then just tell me- if parts of Wikipedia are really just for political leaning people on one side or another- then people like me have got no place here if we just want to post as you said “sky is blue” type of information? If it’s like that now then nothing I’d edit or post will ever get published and I’d rather just know that now about today’s Wikipedia so I won’t waste more time. Thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also you said no editors here have a right to privacy? But by signing up like I did- nobody can keep your IP address or personally track you down right? How doesn’t anyone here have a right to privacy?thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to throw a lot of information at you in a mix to partially answer some of your questions and to inform you. By "privacy" I meant privacy at Wikipedia. All your actions here are recorded and often watched by other editors. Dishonest editors get blocked fairly quickly. As for the IP behind your account, we do have checkusers who can track that down too, if necessary. They can see which PC and system you use. Don't worry about them spying on you. They aren't the Dutch intelligence, who filmed and recorded the keystrokes of the Russian GRU agents who hacked the DNC and John Podesta to interfere in the elections to help Trump. They only use those powers for work here.
 * Sock puppetry like this account User:Sarahskscnt is not allowed. Now both of your accounts are blocked.
 * None of what you've done here can be considered honest or constructive. Your edit summaries are deceptive. You claim you were thanked for your edits, when in fact they were all reverted because they were bad edits. The bell is for notifications, not your contributions. There is a "contributions" tab. It is likely at the top right of the page. There is also another "contributions" link at the left. It is specific to the page you are on. On this page it applies to you. On another editor's page it applies to their contribution history.
 * Pages that are often vandalized are protected so that driveby vandals and new editors without experience can't edit them. Once an editor has gotten a bit of experience, they are able to edit those articles. In spite of that, you were able to do damage to several articles, but the damage was undone quite quickly.
 * You have come here and treated Wikipedia as if it was your private playground, where anything is allowed. No, it's not. We have policies and guidelines to ensure that articles and their content remain trustworthy. Wikipedia is now the most trusted source of information. There are those who don't like that, because they get their ideas from untrustworthy sources of information, like Judicial Watch. It's not a RS, but a notable source of misinformation. As for the deceptive content from Judicial Watch you added about Huber? Read this. He was investigating Trump administration conspiracy theories against Hillary, Comey, and others and found nothing wrong with their actions. Trump's conspiracy theories are bunk.
 * In short, unless you are willing to follow our policies, use RS, and be honest, you won't be allowed to edit here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have come here and treated Wikipedia as if it was your private playground, where anything is allowed. No, it's not. We have policies and guidelines to ensure that articles and their content remain trustworthy. Wikipedia is now the most trusted source of information. There are those who don't like that, because they get their ideas from untrustworthy sources of information, like Judicial Watch. It's not a RS, but a notable source of misinformation. As for the deceptive content from Judicial Watch you added about Huber? Read this. He was investigating Trump administration conspiracy theories against Hillary, Comey, and others and found nothing wrong with their actions. Trump's conspiracy theories are bunk.
 * In short, unless you are willing to follow our policies, use RS, and be honest, you won't be allowed to edit here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I’ve already been blocked for 31 hours. Nobody gave one example of why. I added info. And sourced right to the source website- and it was all publicly available info. Some right from the governments website. Unfortunately if info. Added gets you blocked when sky is blue truth and certainly not sky is blue false, and sourced right to what is a reliable mainstream source, and everything every single thing I edited was removed by someone without even one explanation as to why- my conclusions about Wikipedia have drastically changed I think people need more awareness that Wikipedia used to be like a cool open minded somewhat reliable source for info. But that it just no longer is- I mean this whole experience seems nuts, crazy- esp. if those in control of it think you’re editing anything about anyone- even u.s. govt. officials who aren’t political or politicians these editors think they are and yet the info. That remains is only inaccurate political info. Wikipedia just can’t be relied upon eventually if not already even for scientific information!

How hard do you really think it would be to just start another website that does the exact same thing but is called truthipedia or whatever name- which reflects honesty and accuracy but which people can prove truly has no political or personal bias on any side? Makes me think about starting a new business I mean how hard could that be? Since you’ve been here since 2003 and what’s happened to me alone is a reason to start a competitor and is info. I guess I could share- couldn’t there be a market worldwide for a similar website but one which does what folks like me thought Wikipedia was doing back in 2003? Interested to know and thanks for your help! Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also- not sure what you meant about another account. I’m still just on this one even though I think it’s still blocked. But kudos to you- you’re the first one to give me, while very vague, specific information. I don’t know I got it- but at least you’re telling me judicial watch itself isn’t considered a valid source at all for Wikipedia I believe?

That means anyone who uses them as a source will get the same treatment as me? As a Judge myself, while they may have like cheesy videos which they post or articles etc. which maybe I agree those aren’t valid sources, most of the millions of pages of actual info. On that site is through FOIA responses I was sourcing to those vice vi judicialwatch because aside from them, the FBI/s own self published “Vault” website is the largest direct source of Government direct FOIA information I’m aware of.

But if I sourced the same info. Direct to the fbis own website- would I be edited and banned too? BTW I’m not related to the podesta you mentioned it’s just a common last name unless we’re distant cousins or s9methung like that. But if me linking to the largest or 2nd or 3rd largest source of endless pages of FOIA production documents backing up MOST of what I edited and then sourced to Judicial Watch- I mean if they are banned as any source then sounds like more reasons for me, and perhaps someone like you? Who’s got the inside scoop of Wikipedia today versus 2003 many years ago- to just tell this story there’s gotta be thousands and thousands of other Similar stories- to start a similar website built off of editable info. From this website and just make it neutral and not a political site so any side- or people like me who are politically naive and not really on either or any side- can go and make these types of edits without the clear constraints which at some point, I guess within the past 3 or 4 years, Wikipedia has become. I thought most of what I posted was easily proven true but it’d be hard for people like me to find the exact same FOIA info. From other sites even though I can source it and read it via the vault and or judicial watch- I don’t watch their videos- just read the actual government FOIA productions... thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can start your own website or blog. You can also download the wiki software we use here and then start your own wiki. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ya.. I figured one could. And with a couple of the right people, a co,Peter programmer, and so,done like you who’s been editing here for a long time, and someone like me who’s seeing a market for it why hasn’t someone else just done that yet? Not a wiki for conservatives or for Democrats or atheists and so on but just a free and fair type Wikipedia? Which is just built off this one? Seems to me someone’s gonna make millions off the idea... Jpodesta1 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're just trolling us, or if you truly are clueless about Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I've left you a welcome message at the top of the page with a number of links to help you understand how this place works. I suggest you follow and read those links before editing further. If you intend to stay around here, take that stuff to heart, or your stay will be brief and you'll end up blocked for far longer than 31 hours. Mojoworker (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not trolling. I am very very naive but learning how this works. It’s pretty complicated in fact, maybe too complicated. As a newcomer I looked back at all my edits and yes I admit SOME were perhaps not the right way to do it, and could look like a troll but they got better and sourced better but still banning sources and entire websites themselves on here which are mainstream outlets or the ONLY place one can find for example the full video yesterday of Biden’s speech, is beyond censorship it’s ridiculous.

Nevertheless I’m learning. The links you said you sent I did not see. But since this experience I’m thinking what used to be cool and so,what more reliable in a site which always was half a joke to rely on itself, has become one sided, not a side with any truth or much to it, and apparently anyone’s free to use it to start a new website which could be operated much differently and in a neutral truly neutral manner with less programmer like requirements and more liberal in allowing people to post and perhaps keep their posts with alternate posts or arguments and not just ban sites which directly link only to large foia results like www.judicialwatch.org, not their articles, but their indexed sources of FOIA info. A shame Wikipedia at some point turned into what clearly a lot of folks, people on here, see as one sided and very political, but from today’s Wikipedia could spawn the right people and programmers to create almost what Wikipedia first was, what it had going for it, and a new successful, website which allows freedoms of speech with minimal censorship and not banning so many people and sources! There’s gotta be a huge market for that because I don’t feel I can’t trust this site yet even for articles about mathematics and science let alone public personas. Editors in control here seem to think readers want to only read what part a small part of the worlds population find to support their versions opinions and political views on almost everything with only negativity posted about some but positivity only allowed over others and real facts just aren’t allowed here. Most people are probably more like me, don’t really follow politics very heavily, don’t watch tv, only read about news from multiple sources and just want to post whether it’s negative or positive about others if it’s truth not fiction. But I’m learning... thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are the links, in the blue box at the top of the page in the "Welcome" section. Mojoworker (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Andrew McCabe. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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:. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Again- I’m new. Im still on the same account which already had a 31 hour ban, and more threats to ban. I could have easily started over with a new account then another and so on. But I haven’t I’ve weathered this storm to date.

Every bam and threat, as your above, lacks ANY credibility or specificity to it. You editors just ban people or threaten to, state some policy reason over something you personally dislike like the above, but fail at all times to EVER state what in the heck you’re talking about?

What personal attack? To whom? Starting a fact or even opinion is a personal attack? You’re saying my account threatened someone? Or what did I say as a “personal attack” to anyone? Is wrongfully banning someone who’s powerless to do anything about it or wrongfully threatening to CEnsor, remove someone’s time and work, and ban someone a personal attack?

Sounds like the worst or about the worst form of personally attacking someone on here, esp. newcomers who don’t understand the complexities of actually adding facts and relevant posts and links to sources, is to threaten, harass, intimidate, remove all their work, and then ban or threaten to “ban” them just wasting all their time on here. Feels like I’m the one constantly under personal attack, threats, removals, censorship, retaliation, harassment and unwanted censorship by just a few of the same accounts who’ve got all the power to do as they please, and that I’m the one who can never rise to that power because I won’t be on here long enough, and with no real or adequate remedy.. YOU are threatening and doing exactly what you’re saying I am doing, not the other way around. And at least I’ve TRIED to add some relevant and truthful info. And threatened nobody, especially since I have NO POWER to even threaten anyone I can’t ban change or modify a scintilla of information on this site to date, but see a real opportunity and market for a new website to ultimately replace Wikipedia or compete with it, with all due respect, with little to none of what I’ve experienced here. And unlike any editor in control here, ever, I’ve stated specific reasons for my disagreements even as clearly a lowly new editor with no powers. Thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, acreterion j have no idea whom you are I’ve never communicated with you and thus you shouldn’t be able to threaten me or block or ban me, I couldn’t have said anything about YOU, and if someone feels as you claim to, then only THEY should be able to even contact let alone threaten me on this site, not whoever you are, you could state your opinion which even that you’ve failed to do, other than a vague threat with no reason for it, but you’ve got no right to threaten me over what you claim so,done else thinks about themselves you should not have that power you are threatening me with, sounds like Wikipedia ought to examine how accounts like yours and what you wrote to me, are accounts wHich truly have no place anywhere in anything resembling an encyclopedia, and consider giving you 31 hours to cool off... Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the personal attack mentioned above – casting baseless aspersions of abusing power and being a "very political person a one sided person and an advocate". Can you provide any evidence to back your accusations? Looks more like sour grapes to me, after you were correctly blocked after ignoring the warnings you were given. Mojoworker (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You were blocked for extensive breaches of three policies: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:RS. Wikipedia isn't a noticeboard for your own personal point of view or for partisan rhetoric intermittently referenced to partisan or fringe sources. I warned you for a personal attack against the administrator who blocked you. Please learn from this - it was a relatively short block. If this behavior recurs, you will be blocked again, for a longer or indefinite term, or will be topic-banned.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And it seems to me that your username represents an attempt at trolling.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Savage Love, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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:. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)