User talk:TweedVest

Hillary Clinton
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:BLP. SPECIFICO talk  16:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Specifico, are you acting in an admin capacity giving this warning, or a "neutral" editor? TweedVest (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello, I'm MrX. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Talk:Hillary Clinton, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please don't add speculation to article talk pages. If you are proposing an edit, please say what the edit is and provide links to sources that support the material. Wikipedia is NOTAFORUM.- MrX 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)'' - MrX 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just added three sources. Please block anyone who deletes or archives my suggestion without discussing it in good faith.  Thank you. TweedVest (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an official warning: Your repeated attempts to add this unproven negative material to a biographical article are in violation of Wikipedia's rules at WP:BLP. That is why all of your discussions have been promptly shut down and quick-archived, as I assume the current one soon will be as well. (BTW your three "sources" are not reliable sources, as pointed out in the current discussion.) That article is under a form of restriction known as WP:Discretionary sanctions, which place strict limits on edits to the actual article. You have not attempted to add this material to the article, so you have not technically violated the discretionary sanctions. But it is still necessary to treat DS articles with care. If you bring this subject up again at the talk page, administrators might find it necessary to block you from editing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, unless you are an admin, this is not an "official warning." Are you willing to put your edits to the neutrality test? TweedVest (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone can warn of discretionary sanctions but as it happens, is an admin (so am I). --Neil N  talk to me 04:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Two questions: (1) is MelanieN an uninvolved admin with regards to that article/topic and (2) are you giving me a formal warning not to introduce reliable sources about allegations about Clinton's health issues on the article's talk page? TweedVest (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am involved at that article. So I do not take admin actions at that page, except to issue warnings when they are called for. The warning I gave you was to advise you not to reintroduce the topic a fourth time if the third one gets closed and archived. It has not been closed and archived, so you are commenting on the third thread that still exists. I will note, though, that even after being warned by NeilN (who is an uninvolved admin) about the need to be careful on that kind of page, you proceeded to put an unsourced comment on the page that was so totally outrageous it had to be redacted. You have been warned. I will not be taking action. But other admins may. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're involved, why did NeilN imply above that he considered your opinion to be valid as an administrative warning? That seems to be saying that you admins are gaming the rules wherein an admin pretends to be "uninvolved" by not giving content opinions, but then backs up admins who do while trying to give the appearance of not doing so.  How is WP supposed to have any credibility if you WP admins are editing so dirty?  TweedVest (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I told you. Anyone can give out warnings - uninvolved admins, involved admins, regular editors... --Neil N  talk to me 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If an editor is giving content opinions on the talk page, then gives a "formal" warning, then how can you, as an "uninvolved" admin support them and claim to be "uninvolved"? Wikipedia appears to have some serious governance issues. TweedVest (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And you have some issues adhering to WP:BLP as MelanieN correctly noted. Editors can have opinions on content and still warn editors who are violating policies and guidelines. --Neil N  talk to me 06:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You implied in your statement above that Melanie was acting as an admin, and even if she wasn't, you supported her warning. Shortly thereafter, another editor implied that Dr Drew was seeking publicity in his statements to the media, widely reported in RS as I have noted, that he has serious concerns about HRC's health.  Did you block that editor for that BLP violation and did Melanie formally warn him?  If not, why the double standard? TweedVest (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only an editor purposefully misreading the comment would think it merited a block. --Neil N  talk to me 06:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You said above that you supported Melanie's "formal" warning as an admin. Now you say that it doesn't matter.  That's communism/fascism.  Two sides of the same coin.  This is why WP is failing. TweedVest (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm coming here after seeing your harassment comment here. I am getting the impression from my perusal of your contribution history that you are not so much interested in improving the encyclopedia as you are in engaging in arguments with other editors and perhaps pursuing a politically-charged agenda. Since you are an experienced editor you know that this will lead to a quick block from editing if it continues. ~Awilley (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Awilley, that editor followed me to another article just to object to my edit suggestion, and you're accusing me of being combative? Did you issue a warning to that editor for stalking and harassment?  Somehow, I kind of doubt it, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.  I've heard from friends that the reason no one edits Wikipedia anymore is because administrators now openly play favorites.  TweedVest (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note
--<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - MrX 20:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. ''I really mean it. The next time you troll an article talk page with poorly-sourced WP:BLP violating posts, or add such material to any article, I will seek to have you indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE. '' - MrX 19:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillbullies in Wikipedia? Good thing Trump won, or we would probably be facing concentration camps from the DNC anti-Sanders fascists.  Feel the Bern! TweedVest (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:NOTHERE block needed for an editor who will not stop trolling. Thank you. - MrX 01:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * Hillbullies control Wikipedia and trying to censor my talk page (Drmies, are you a sympathizer of Mussolini?). Correct the Record declared that Wikipedia was in their crosshairs, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to care.  Why?  Anyway, the election of 2016 is over and the forces of fascism and net censorship lost.  We will not be starting a nuclear war with Russia, and the rigging the election against Bernie Sanders has been rectified.  Wikileaks, which I thought Wikipedia's open source culture would support, exposed the DNC's rigging what was supposed to be a fair primary against Bernie Sanders.  You would think Wikipedia would celebrate that, but apparently they would have preferred warfare and tyranny under a warmonger.  Wikipedia administrators want a nuclear war with Russia and death to Sanders supporters.  Go figure. TweedVest (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you all block me, I will spread the word for the rest of my life that Wikipedia was in cahoots with the Clinton machine to help deny the democratic process to Bernie Sanders and start a war with Russia. Wikileaks and Assange prove me right. TweedVest (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm a Sanders supporter, and I can tell by this point that you're trolling. Even if you were somehow serious, you just violated the topic ban.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
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 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:. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)