User talk:JohnPaos

May 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Ferien. Your recent edit to Ken Penders appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. --Ferien (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information came from his twitter and it’s all right there in black white and it’s not incorrect JohnPaos (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Ken Penders. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MerelyPumpkin (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was featured in the article JohnPaos (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still, external links should not be added to articles. --Ferien (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JohnPaos, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi JohnPaos! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like TheAafi (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello 👋 Leemanycatrusk (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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-1992 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.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JohnPaos, I'm going to urge you to be very, very careful in your edits, because I saw what you did with this account, and before you made the account--I hope you understand what I'm saying. If I had run into this I would have blocked you on the spot. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Ok[reply]

Reliable Sources and NPOV[edit]

Hello, while I appreciate you are trying to build encyclopedic content, we rely on having reliable secondary sources to back up what we write in an article. Additionally, as much as it is possible, articles must be written in an neutral point of view. Some what you are writing on the Palmer report is crossing the line into editorialized content. Please be careful around issues like that. Sasquatch t|c 02:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JohnPaos (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JohnPaos, Yea Sasquatch is right. Some of your edits weren't ideal. You gotta be especially be careful when you're writing about Bill Palmer himself (per WP:BLP). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But considering he tried to fix me and deleted a tweet involving said dox attempt it was distributing but all of the information is accurate JohnPaos (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Palmer[edit]

Bill palmer is planning to doxx you on twitter. Just a fellow editor looking out for you The dude is unstable.Truth Teller1222 (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you got that tweet image captured JohnPaos (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the tweet image captured becuase I immiedatly reported it to twitter. But lucky for us one of his subordinates copied it word for word. https://twitter.com/frafacarlos/status/1411166852160577538?s=20

Just post a image of the report image JohnPaos (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another important notice[edit]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also notice that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including on article and user talk pages. Continuing to speculate on an identifiable person's mental health, such as by saying they are "not well", can and will result in blocks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will tone it back a bit with that my apologies JohnPaos (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer Report[edit]

Not sure how well you'll take this, but I think you should take a break from the Palmer Report talk page. For starters, it's going to be especially viscous for you now that protection has ended. Secondly, I don't know how helpful you have been in lowering the temperature of the situation over there. You might like to try editing in some other topic area for a while until at least after tensions have died down. That's just my thought, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok JohnPaos (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)JohnPaos[reply]

July 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly failed to heed the advice you were given yesterday, and resorted to blanking comments you did not like. That's really not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend you follow MJL's advice once this block expires, and find topics to edit that are not in any way related to the Palmer Report. You do not appear to be able to follow our policies on reliable sourcing, original research, or not making attacks against BLPs on the talk page, and it is likely you will be blocked from editing that page (or the entire site) if this continues. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Palmer Report. Chetsford (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi JohnPaos - would you consider voluntarily agreeing to a temporary, five day ban from Palmer Report? Protection on this article will soon expire and, due to off-Wiki canvassing, it's probable there will be a large influx of new editors who may be unfamiliar with how WP works. The general tone of your comments on the Talk page, for example your most recent (thank you ... for having my back [1]), could wrongly communicate the impression that WP is a conflict of sides battling each other to achieve primacy of their POV, rather than measured and neutral, process-based content building. Thanks for your consideration. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a break from itJohnPaos (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you will. I'm somewhat astounded that your first edit after your block expired was to do exactly the same thing that led to you being blocked. That, combined with your repeated breaking of previous commitments to back off have prompted me to indefinitely block you from both the article and it's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After my five day break will you undo that ban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPaos (talk • contribs)

Hi JohnPaos - Beeblebrox applied a WP:PBLOCK which is a technical restriction of your ability to edit a page. A WP:BAN is a separate thing and can generally only be applied by the community. My suggestion for you to voluntarily accept a five-day ban would mean you would not object to the community imposing this determination, however, as your block is indefinite there's no real point in pursuing it further, in my opinion.
I think Beeblebrox was correct to block you. To be honest, the only reason I did not do so myself was because I once made an edit to the article in question which made me WP:INVOLVED under my reading of our policy. You are free to request to be WP:UNBLOCKed, however, from viewing your edit history I think the likelihood such a request would succeed in the near future is slim to none. If you were to spend the next six months or so making productive edits to other areas of Wikipedia I think your chances might improve a little. Also, since you're unable to conduct the most basic functions of contributing, such as signing your name to comments or indenting, you may want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure which provides a good introduction to WP for new editors and will help get you up to speed. There are more than 6.3 MM other articles to which you can contribute. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 05:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are sourced and told what happened and they are the truth. News guard certified. I’m adding more information on what happened JohnPaos (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of editing articles about people you clearly don't like, and of BLP violations. I am considering an indefinite block, based on your history of BLP violations and socking. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about no since those articles I’m adding in to Keith’s page are what happened and the incidents from before are different time. JohnPaos (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not disruptive FYI. JohnPaos (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles I put on olbermann’s page are legit and discuss what happen and the controversies that involve with him. It’s not a edit war but it’s the truth of the matter. JohnPaos (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you can’t get rid of few sources but keep the rest JohnPaos (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the sources but get rid of the ones you don’t like. That’s a fine comparison am I right? JohnPaos (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Dumuzid. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. General Ization ^Talk 00:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t give a flying fuck of shit any more! JohnPaos (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet block me indefinitely! JohnPaos (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Acroterion (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of my sources on mr Olbermann are accurate as they can be. JohnPaos (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ban me DO IT JohnPaos (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good I don’t care JohnPaos (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]