User talk:Tongueincheeky

Jeremy Bash
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've reverted your edit to Jeremy Bash, since I found that it did not comply with our policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, and the biographies of living persons. Please make sure that future edits comply with these policies, and please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you ever have any questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Once more, and I'll block you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist,

Is there something about the truth that you fear?Tongueincheeky (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
You are all DAFT. You pretend to helping, and all you are really doing is denying the reading public access to the truth. I would think that with all the time on your hands, you might take the information offered up in the version preferred by this writer and work to source it yourselves. But, instead, you protect the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tongueincheeky (talk • contribs) Feb 20, 2009

Per my warning, I've blocked you for 48 hours. After that time, you can feel free to make additional contributions to Wikipedia provided they comply with our policies, especially the three I drew your attention to above. If you would like to appeal this block, you can add to your talk page (i.e. this one). Note to any reviewing admin: please see the ANI thread here before unblocking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You all need to get a life. Blocking, appealing, and affirming one's block, because you don't like the commentary seems less than free and very tyrannical. Before you block someone, why don't you do some real research rather than just conclude that frank discussion of one's background is automatically negative.Tongueincheeky (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the content you had might be includable if it were sourced and not original research and written neutrally. While you are blocked maybe spend a few minutes to see how much of the content you can source to newspapers and the like. For example, if Bash was selected to run against his opponent because the opponent made anti-semitic comments then it should be easily sourceable. (Some of the material in the article on Jim Moran might be of help). You also might want to look over a few Wikipedia articles about other congressman to have more of an idea what we expect an article to look like. (To mention just one additional example, we don't capitalize names when we mention them like you do). JoshuaZ (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This time you're blocked for two weeks. JoshuaZ gives you excellent advice above.  I strongly suggest that you take it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view, biographies and related issues.
Hi. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view (this was linked to above). That means that content should be neutral. So for example, if you think someone is evil we don't say "X is evil" in a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, this means that we don't add large editorial comments like this. We thus don't say something is "unfortunate" or "with some concern." We also try to have everything reliably sourced with no original research. That means for example that unless some reliable source like a newspaper or a news network has noticed something or commented on it we can't include it. Thus for example, the connection between the individual in question and his wife's work is original research. If you have any further questions or concerns feel free to place them here. I'll watch this page. Or alternatively, you can enable your Wikipedia email in preferences and send me an email. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where in the revisions does it say anything about Jeremy Bash being evil? Nowhere. Rather, the edits made reflected the truth of his professional career. That you think the truth is a mark on his character is not the fault of this editor, but instead is a reflection on his career. The comment that Bash is such a high profile person is belied by the original warning that the notoriety of this individual is in question. Furthermore, just because a newspaper or news network has not commented on the linkage pointed out in the revisions that have been erased and blocked, doesn't make them any less true and accurate. This is a person belonging to the media classes and Democratic hierarchy in the US, there will be no notice of this linkage or his lack of expertise for the position he is about to undertake in US government. Such failure on the part of the chattering classes doesn't make him any less accomplished or capable. Wikipedia is nothing more than an organ for a particular point of view, and this game of "policy" and appeals is useful subterfuge. Keep wasting your life and helping to create the illusion of freedom of speech, when what you are really doing is denying people the right to know the truth.Tongueincheeky (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good news!
You're indefinitely blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)