User talk:75.175.65.141

July 2016

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:Sro23, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

NeilN, you sound confused. Are you using boilerplate comments, that don't actually apply to the situation at hand? 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not confused. Just so you're clear: Do not add back your allegation without providing rock solid mainstream sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "New Yorker" magazine a "rock solid mainsteam source"? Or is what you want a "rock solid mainstream source that doesn't show that Obama used an American terrorist as a ghost-writer and has been lying about it for years" 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a talk page section regarding specific things that New Yorker article says and discuss possibly including them in the article. You're not welcome to extend the New Yorker article into "Ayers, confirmed terrorist, has admitted to authoring this book and Obama is a confirmed liar", since that's blatantly not what the article reports. Stop edit warring to reintroduce BLP violations onto the talk page. You've already been blocked once in connection to this dispute, and it's likely that you'll be blocked again if you continue without any change to your behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I am apparently NOT "welcome" to use the Talk page for this, or any other purpose. Stop lying. Clearly, people like you think they OWN these articles, and they are carefully avoiding allowing anything it that would embarrass corrupt politicans and terrorists. And you'll have to show how what I've written amounts to a "BLP violation", especially within a Talk page! That, you won't do, because then you'd need FACTS, which you don't have. And BTW, when I was blocked, it was ostensibly solely because I was claimed to be in violation of the 3RR. Funny thing was, I first did two reverts of VANDALISM, restoring text that had itself been reverted by a "burner" account that only began to be used 11 minutes after I initially added the material. The 3RR rule clearly states that reverts of VANDALISM are not supposed to be counted against the 3RR. The problem is, when the vandals are those who think they "own" an article, it's easy for them to collude to harass an editor who has a different and conflicting point of view. Are you one of those vandals, or are you trying to assist them? 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please block

This user is showing no sign of letting up on harassment[1] and tinfoil hat BLP violations[2] after being repeatedly warned, and blocked several days ago for this under a different IP address.[3] This disrupts efforts around here, and I don't see any reasonable likelihood of them adding constructively to the project unless / until they cool down and possibly find some other subject to edit. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This user, Wikidemon, is showing no sign of stopping threatening this user for his failure to cow to the various editors and Administrators who continue to harass him. These various editors and Administrators don't use the Talk page of the various relevant articles, they revert intelligent conversations (or, at least, ATTEMPTS at conversations) in order to help conceal the improper actions of the subjects of these articles. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

Regarding Breitbart's reliability, please see the archives of WP:RSN, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182#Breitbart again. clpo13_(talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I read it. So? what is your point? An arguably biased source (at least compared to the lefties) being misrepresented as being somehow more unreliable than MSNBC? 75.175.65.141 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You asked why it was considered unreliable and I answered. clpo13_(talk) 22:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you answered with material that show that SOME PEOPLE claim it is "unreliable". Evidently, the main reason SOME PEOPLE think that is because they have a different POV 75.175.65.141 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not my fault if you don't like the answer. Anyways, like I said elsewhere, if the FBI really did make that claim, it should be trivial to find another source. clpo13_(talk) 22:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:BU Rob13. CrashUnderride 22:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)