User talk:WilliamNOtis

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 20:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Frank Gaffney seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gaffney[edit]

Would you please move your post to the article talk page as the discussion should be available to other editors.. Thanks . Doug Weller talk 12:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remember to edit the template next time to suggest that. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 14:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using talk pages to attack a religion you don't like[edit]

Article talk pages are not forums. If you want to attack a religion, go to someplace like Stormfront, but don't use our talk pages as forums. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Doug, I didn't think I attacked a religion. I did post some factual information re. some comments made on Brigitte Gabriel. Is that what you are referring to?

I am a writer (though I don't have a blog - mostly I post on forums), a copy writer (advertising), Web Designer, and a few other things. I'm very technically oriented and detail oriented. I love learning, studying, and I love history and knowledge. I do research. I have been doing considerable research over the last year or so on Islam, and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Brigitte Gabriel is of interest to me because of the work she does in that area, along with others.

I had noticed some disparaging comments on Brigitte's talk page, and it was in that context that I posted some comments of my own. I do not consider my comments to be an "attack" on someone's religion, as what I posted is information that is easily researched and available to anyone willing to discover it.WilliamNOtis (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This link was not about the subject of the article but about Islam and was a use of a talk page as a forum. You need to read some more history, eg Moors#Moors of Iberia about what happened after the Reconquista, and Al-Andalus and Umayyad conquest of Hispania. Bad things happened on all sides, but there was also a lot of religious tolerance. No need to reply, as I'm not here to argue history, just to suggest your portrayal is inaccurate and IMHO an attack. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WilliamNOtis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do understand why I was blocked, and I'm very sorry; I did not mean any harm to Wickipedia or any of it's content or to any members. It was my ignorance and inexperience here. I should have taken the time to learn more about it before attempting any edits. I seriously doubt I will be doing much editing, but I am interested in balance and unbiased content. I apparently chose the wrong place and method to express my concerns. Thank you for your kind consideration. Best regards to all, William OtisWilliamNOtis (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you have asserted you are not interested in writing articles, there is no reason to unblock you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You say that you understand why you were blocked. Can you explain it to me? Can you convince me that you understand? Can you explain me how you thing you should have acted? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I acted unprofessionally and was not in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. I've reviewed the "five pillars" since (should have looked at them before). I am a newcomer, and not used to this format. I understand there is a lot that goes into these articles, and much depends on consensus, not just one persons input. I'm interested in helping if I can. I have no intention of starting any "edit wars" or doing any damage to any content here. I'm only interested in what the content actually says, and that it is balanced and neutral, which is what Wikipedia claims as it's goal. A reader ought to be able to form their own opinion about a person, not be told what a person is, wouldn't you agree?

I have spent many years in sales and marketing, am a writer, Web designer, and copy writer. I know how to write well, and am very articulate. I feel I have something to offer, though I do not anticipate being heavily involved in this project. But in researching, I did notice some things that I would consider strong biases.

In the future I will try to act and express my concerns in a more scholarly and professional manner. I respectfully ask that you have the powers that be unblock me, so I may continue to participate. Thank you very much. Best regards, WilliamNOtis (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I unblock you, I would like you to list a few articles you would like to write or improve on Wikipedia, and briefly summarise what and how you would like to work on them. It is good to have a clear idea of what positive actions you intend to undertake. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I'd also suggest that as a condition of being unblocked a topic ban from all pages involving Islam, broadly construed (this would mean talk pages, etc as well as articles). Doug Weller talk 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I spent an hour or more writing a reply this morning, and it seems to have disappeared. I don't know what I did. It's gone.

I'll try to be brief and recall what I said.

I had not yet considered creating articles. Perhaps at some later time. What I was interested in was what I saw on Frank Gaffney's page. I had been doing research and reading and listening to a lot of Frank's work, as well as work by others who are conservative thinkers and interested in national security etc. I was shocked by what I saw in the article on Frank. "Known for: Conspiracy theories" in the right sidebar. I know of not one "conspiracy theory" promoted by Frank Gaffney. I read his page, which was anything but complimentary.

Not everyone thinks Frank Gaffney is a "conspiracy theorist." This is a very subjective term, and is a pejorative term. It is anything but neutral. I think an article should be as unbiased as possible, stating facts, and a reader should make up his own mind about the person, wouldn't you agree? A reader shouldn't be told what a person is but I see terms like "Islamophobe" being used also to describe both Frank and Brigitte Gabriel. This seems to violate Wikipedia's stated claim of "neutrality" in articles.

Perhaps it would be better to say, "Frank is considered by some to be conspiracy theorist ..." and state why.

It is no surprise that an organization like the Southern Poverty Law Center, a "thought police" organization (and I wouldn't use that term in an article either) funded by George Soros, would call Gaffney an "Islamophobe." They are proponents of open borders (as is George Soros) and an extreme left-wing group. Yet they are cited as a credible source of information about Frank Gaffney?

It's also mentioned that some conservatives speak negatively about Frank Gaffney. Well, everybody has their political enemies, and it doesn't surprise me that Grover Norquist is one of Frank's. Norquist had Frank banned from CPAC because he didn't like his views. Frank has since been restored.

So, where do I come in? I first stated to Doug Weller that I thought Franks page needed to be cleaned up. It is anything but neutral. I would say the same for Brigitte Gabriel. Terms like "islamophobe" etc., have no place in an encyclopedic reference work, wouldn't you agree?

I hope you will restore my editing privileges, so that I might take part, even if for now I have no plans for new articles. My interest at this point is limited to balance and fairness.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards, Bill Otis WilliamNOtis (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is a highly regarded source for exactly that kind of judgment, but there are plenty of other sources that describe Gaffney as a conspiracist. See [1] for example, or [2], or [3], or [4] - I could go on. Point is, you need to show how you'd pursue this in a way consistent with Wikipedia policy, and demonstrate that if the consensus is against you, then you'll respect it and move on. I'm afraid that closing with your interest being in "balance and fairness" is not going to persuade anyone. You're not helped by "Fair And Balanced" being the slogan of the least balanced, least fair broadcaster outside Russia, basically. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wasn't making a reference to any broadcasters slogan. You made that connection. This Website's guidelines stress the importance of neutrality. I haven't seen neutral here yet, and your comments above support my assertion.

The fact you think SPLC is a credible source tells me who you are. You are not interested in neutrality at all. You promote left-wing, liberal propaganda. Nothing more.

You may delete my account. Rest assured I will pass this experience to everyone in my own sphere of influence (as if they didn't already know this).

Have a nice life in your fantasy world with the rest of the haters.

8:10 PM So, now I find that Wikipedia is funded (at least in part) by George Soros!!! LOL No wonder you are so biased! What a joke this site is! There is no neutrality at all!WilliamNOtis (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion personally on whether SPLC is in league with the devil or not, all I said was that it is a highly regarded source - which it is. Large numbers of newspapers and other sources cite SPLC. You might not like that, but that's just how it is. I am not even American, I have no dog in this fight. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller and all: Boys, when you take money from the devil (George Soros) you do his bidding. That's all. WilliamNOtis (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not using this talk page to discuss unblocking, I have disabled access. I don't know who George Soros is and don't really want to know at the moment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]