User talk:TJ&TheAmericanWay

Discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros#Malia Obama and Plan B
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros. Thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Proof of the liberal left wing bias in Wikipedia. Ant attempt to remove "conservative" labels on political groups is blocked, as is any attempt to add "liberal" labels to groups.  Any bias there?  You got it.TJ&#38;TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You miss the point of such alerts. Please read it again and take it literally. If you can't accept our policies and guidelines then there's not much point in your being here. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
Please avoid tendentious editing, which I see you doing on several articles. Your edits to Family Research Council are positively promotional, under misleading edit summaries such as "adding clarity and accuracy". You remove well-sourced criticism and add the organization's own mission statement into the lead (in Wikipedia's "voice", as if it were a neutral description, which makes it worse). Organizations must typically be described from what reliable secondary sources have said about them and not from their own mission statement. Compare also Avoid mission statements. Please help make Wikipedia articles more, not less, neutral. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Funny ... my edits removed politically biased comments so yes, we will all make Wikipedia more neutral by issuing these kinds of threats that block neutrality. Usual liberal left wing Wikipedia nonsenseTJ&#38;TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I picked a particular example where I thought you might benefit from my commentary — or at least might address it — without going into the usual generalities about "liberal left wing Wikipedia bias". But apparently not. Please try to answer more responsively and particularly. Do you understand what I said about how putting an organization's mission statement into the article lead, in Wikipedia's voice, is a no-no? Or not? Or are you only here to mouth political slogans while waiting to be blocked? Bishonen &#124; talk 18:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Blocking, I was waiting for that, LOL. In the meantime, I'm busy reading the Washington Post article about Tim Kaine's son being arrested. I'm pretty sure that should be noted in Wikipedia.TJ&#38;TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, since you have continued disrupting articles and haven't even attempted to engage with attempts to advise you above, you haven't had to wait long. If the block below has no deterrent effect on your style of editing, the next step will be a topic ban from American politics. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Great. You do realize that you're proving my points don't you?TJ&#38;TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm appealing my block to who? You?TJ&#38;TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, certainly not. If you use the template in the way the yellow box indicates, the code it contains will call a previously uninvolved admin to this page to review the block and your unblock request. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Though I suppose it's simpler to evade your block by editing logged out? If you do it again, I'll increase your block to a month. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
 * "Though I suppose it's simpler to evade your block by editing logged out? If you do it again, I'll increase your block to a month." ??? What on Earth are you talking about?TJ&#38;TheAmericanWay (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * About this, coming right after this. Are you saying that wasn't you? Bishonen &#124; talk 00:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
 * I had to explain this to another user yesterday. You, the person who set up this account, are blocked. Attempting to edit through an IP or another account is block evasion and will probably lead to a longer block and/or a topic ban. Sometimes we can detect such attempts simply by them being obvious, at other times we have to use WP:CheckUser Sso it's a bad idea and something you should avoid. Doug Weller  talk 11:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unequivocally, not me. Absolutely not.  I've never made an IP edit. BTW, you do realize that Kaine's son is in all the papers don't you?TJ&#38;TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * So now I've been blocked for six months after I made perfectly legitimate edits on an article. If other editors didn't like it they could have simply removed the comments and referred me to the talk page.  I thought that was how Wikipedia worked, but apparently not.TJ&#38;TheAmericanWay (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look more carefully at the sanction notice, you'll see it says "You are topic banned for six months from post-1932 American politics. Please read WP:TBAN to make sure you understand what a topic ban entails". I don't know how to put it any more clearly. You have not been blocked, you have been topic banned. Please read WP:TBAN to see what that means. WP:TBAN is only ten lines. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC).

I'll rewrite the example given there. a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "post-1932 American politics", they are not only forbidden to edit the article post-1932 American politics, but also everything else that has to do with post-1932 American politics, such as: Please note the word 'broadly'. Don't try to find wriggle room. I hope this helps you make sure you don't violate your topic ban. As you've been told, you aren't blocked. You will of course be blocked if you violate your ban. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * post-1932 American politics-related articles and lists, and their talk pages. This includes articles such as Family Research Council and Truth (2015 film). For biographies of living people it means you cannot edit the article or talk page of politicians, political staff, political commentators, etc. You may not edit any sections or add material to other biographies that touch on post-1932 American politics.
 * post-1932 American politics-related categories;
 * post-1932 American politics-related project pages, such as WikiProject Politics/American politics ;
 * post-1932 American politics-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with post-1932 American politics: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
 * discussions or suggestions about post-1932 American politics-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion, a discussion on sourcing a relevant article, etc, also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).