User talk:Gnagyusa

Gnagyusa, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gnagyusa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Alex Jones, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. 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. Thank you! Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I added citations, including a link to official court documents. Gnagyusa (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 09:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. RetroCosmos (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I stated facts and supported them by official court documents. I would love to see you and others who kept removing the paragraph publicly explain why you are defending convicted child sex traffickers Epstein and Maxwell by trying to hide the information. You try to make Alex Jones look like a crazy "conspiracy theorist" when several of his predictions turned out to be true. I know, it's inconvenient to Wiki's strongly left-leaning narrative. Gnagyusa (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's start with your statement about a pedophile ring conspiracy. You didn't source that which makes it a violation of our WP:BLP policy. You also didn't attempt to discuss this on the talk page. Don't bother to do that unless you have reliable secondary sources about this alleged conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• But you didn't support your statements. The most important part of your edit was your claim that Jones has long been a proponent of the theory that many political and industry "elites" are clients of a high-end pedophile ring. This was considered another "conspiracy theory" until Jeffrey Epstein's private flights to his island were unveiled. You need a source making that connection; as I said on talk, I don't think those sources exist, because I don't think that statement is true. Coverage of Jones' statements on Epstein largely focused on the way he defended Trump and on bizarre connections he made to Sandy Hook; we could include those in the article if you want, but if you want to imply that Jones made a prediction here that turned out to be true, you need a reliable source making that connection. Even the statement that Jones focused on conspiracy theories about pedophile rings pre-Epstein isn't sourced (and I'm not sure it's true; my understanding is that that fixation emerged after Epstein as part of the promotion of Pizzagate, which was certainly a baseless conspiracy theory and which he later apologized for.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  No problem. Thanks for the feedback. Jones has been saying this for decades. There are entire video collections of him mentioning it. https://freeworldnews.tv/watch?id=61adaeafaf8419060cddfaac

  For example, he spells it out at 1:05:(from June 16 2010) "Pedophile rings are one of the biggest cults or guilds running Washington". And so on. Here's an updated section with the citation. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.

  Jones has long been a proponent of the idea that many political and industry "elites" are clients of a high-end pedophile ring.

  This was considered another "conspiracy theory" until Jeffrey Epstein's private flights to his island were unveiled. In January 2024, the names of several Epstein clients were revealed in unsealed court records, implicating several political leaders and celebrities. Epstein died under suspicious circumstances in his prison cell with none of the cameras functioning. Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell is still serving her 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking. Gnagyusa (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, that still doesn't work, for two reasons. First, freeworldnews.tv almost certainly isn't a WP:RS. We could in theory cite Jones directly (via WP:ABOUTSELF, since he also isn't a RS) but ABOUTSELF can't be used for things that are unduly self-serving, which this certainly is. And this leads to more serious problems. The assertion that Jones' was noteworthy as a proponent of those conspiracy theories requires a RS, but on top of this, the next sentence of your addition asserts that Epstein's arrest was vindication of those conspiracy theories, which you still don't have any source for at all. Even if you had a valid source for your first point, combining it with the other sources to make the argument that Jones was proven to be correct is WP:SYNTHESIS, which isn't allowed. And if that seems unfair, look at it like this - by your logic, anyone who ever accused anyone in Hollywood or Washington of being a a pedophile, at any time, could claim vindication, especially if it was an accusation against someone who appeared on Epstein's visitor logs. Even Jones himself doesn't seem to agree with that chain of logic (as I pointed out on talk, most of the coverage of him related to Epstein is about his defenses of Trump.) You can't construct chains of logic like that yourself on Wikipedia; you need to find sources doing it. I'm simply not seeing any reliable sources that treated Epstein's arrest as some sort of vindication for Jones. That's why I said that the key point is the connection. --Aquillion (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

WTF? "Noteworthy"? What a weasely term.

You: add citations that Jones actually said that

Me: here are actual videos of him saying it. Much stronger evidence that words that could be written by anyone...

You: Uhm, yeah. He said it, but he's not "noteworthy".

How do you sleep at night protecting convicted child sex traffickers with such bullshit excuses.

Let's have a public debate somewhere. I would love to see you use those BS excuses in front of a cringing audience. Gnagyusa (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Accuse anyone else again of protecting child sex traffickers and your block will be indefinite. And citing freeworldnewstv shows you've got no idea what a reliable source is in Wikipedia. We are a mainstream encyclopedia, not some batshit crazy website with headlines about NATO planting false flags to cause WWIII or screaming about a New World Order. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 13:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. — Newslinger talk 05:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the article Alex Jones is also covered under the "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" and "COVID-19, broadly construed" contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 05:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)