User talk:MiltonDooby

July 2020

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Goth subculture, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So,tell me....How the fuck old are you? My source is, "because I was there!" I'm 57, and began attending all-ages shows, mostly in DC, when I was 12(1978)!...and began buying CREEM magazine at 10(late-1976), initially to read about KISS, Alice Cooper, and Bowie...and it was the ONLY

U.S.-based periodical that gave, both, the New York & London Punk Scenes SERIOUS column inches...plus GREAT "grungy" high-gloss photos.

So, funny how "respected music critics," refer to acts such as, "The Pixies," "Bad Religion," "Avril Levigne," "Arcade Fire," "Iggy Pop," and "blink-182," as"punk,"....and THE JAM, who began playing THE PRIMARY clubs and gigs(The 100; The Roxy; Electric Circus; Roundhouse; Marquee; Pinkpop Festival)associated with the initial 1976-77 London Punk Scene, and they were doing so IN 1976 AND 1977!...mostly ON THE SAME BILLS as other much less interesting "REAL PUNK"(think: The Slits; Eater) bands.

Listen to, "In The City," and you tell ME that it does NOT qualify as "punk!"

I will say this, 1977-87, the young listeners, the type who habitually attended all-ages club gigs of the time, were IN NO WAY SO limited by THE HUNDREDS of rigidly tight-defined micro music sub-genres of sub-genres ...as they have been for some time, here in "Social Media World." MiltonDooby (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce jokes into articles, as you did at Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Elizium23 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Osama bin Laden appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mlkj (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Osama bin Laden. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Mlkj (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Neo-fascism. — Czello ^(music) 10:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]