User talk:Nickboy000

Page for Alt-right[edit]

The page for Alt right is extremely biased. You make it seem like the majority of the movement is racist. Nickboy000 (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's your opinion that it's racist but that isn't backed up by any facts or most academics.Nickboy000 (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Richard B. Spencer[edit]

You are being disruptive. You're not "winning" anything--this is not a pissing contest. I'm an administrator, and in my opinion this is not a worthwhile usage of our time; we are not a forum for your opinions to be discussed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

OK, stop it already. You are being disruptive on that talk page, and DRV is not for such silly things. Now, I'll tell you what some of your options are, and the likely outcome. You can continue dropping notes on that talk page about how you're winning or whatever, and I or another administrator will block you for disruption. You can do similar things on other pages, and I or some other administrator will block you for disruption OR for violating guidelines established for this topic area. You can call for administrators' assistance, of course, and challenge my close of your forum post (did you look at WP:NOTFORUM?), and you can do that at WP:ANI, and chances are you will be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Or you can play by the rules, drop that stick, and go and try to improve an article, since that's what we are supposed to be doing here. Your choice. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did my application to become an admin go through

No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so hostile.

Your request for adminship[edit]

Hello Nickboy000!

Thank you for your interest in becoming an administrator. Unfortunately, you are not quite ready yet to take on that task. Becoming an admin is hard and take a lot of work to show that you have the community's trust. Keep at it though. Improve some articles, find your way around the place, and perhaps you will make a great admin someday. For more information on adminship please take a moment and read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates.

And if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to let me know. Or you can leave a message at the Teahouse or the help desk and someone will be around to assist you. Happy editing! --Majora (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Richard B. Spencer, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Mr X 23:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to express your political opinions, wherever they happen to lie on the spectrum. We are an encyclopedia, and all information in the encyclopedia is required to be supported by reliable sources. Please do not again add anything to an article that you do not support with a citation from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about it on the talk page. I have a source But I am unsure of how to add it. Facts don't care about your feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not talking about it anymore, since you've been told by an administrator on this page that your comments there have crossed the line into disruptive editing. In any case I was referring to other edits you have made which appear to be your opinion and are unsourced.
BTW, please "sign" your comments by add 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) to the end of the comment. The system will automatically append your name and a time.date stamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I source? Nickboy000 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? How do you find a source, or how do you present a source in the article? For the latter, go to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity how many "Nazis are left wingers" does the Nazism page get? lolNickboy000 (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than its share, since there are a lot of profoundly ignorant people in the world who want other people to accept their opinions as fact, and Wikipedia is one of the best ways to try to do that. Fortunately for the accuracy of the encyclopedia, it's extremely hard to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you view the edit I made on Richard Spencer's page? I cited my source. I'm so proud of myself.Nickboy000 (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Richard B. Spencer. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC) I'm not doing that through.... Nickboy000 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained quite clearly on the article talk page that you are using opinion columns in an inappropriate way that violates policy. Saying you are not when you clearly are is an unpersuasive argument. Please stop now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained how according to the rules I am using them correctly.Nickboy000 (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation is as faulty as your understanding of policy. You have been warned. Do not add this content without gaining clear-cut, unambiguous consensus on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need consensus for every edit? You may want to read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable_Sources Nickboy000 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More: Continuous POV-pushing, in the face of unanimous opposition on the article talk page. Latest edit, which you already knew was opposed by everyone, was the straw that broke the camel's back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2017 (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).

Nickboy000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasnn't pov pushing, I had valid sources for all my edits Nickboy000 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly, clearly, clearly you do not understand why you were blocked. Until you do, you can not help but repeat the mistakes and recreate the conditions that will lead to another block. I think you need to consider the foregoing messages and adjust your editing in accordance therewith. Apparently, you have over estimated the quality of your sourcing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2017 (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.

The daily wire was used as a source before me, so was vox. It seems that anything that goes against the narrative they want isn't a "reliable source"Nickboy000 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2017 (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).

Nickboy000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The sources I used except maybe the Washington Examiner has been used there before. For instance the daily wire was used as a source before my edits, so was vox. It seems that anything that goes against the narrative they want isn't a "reliable source" Nickboy000 (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You might want to read above about "you are using opinion columns in an inappropriate way that violates policy". The source overall might be reliable, but the opinion page can fail the BLP requirements for being used as a source very easily. I'll caution you about making further unblock requests without understanding why you were blocked and how you were violating policy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 10 November 2017 (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.

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).

Nickboy000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I already explained how I was using the Opinion columns correctly. If you guys require further explanation in order to to understand please come to me on an individual basis. In the meantime I suggest you guys read up on the rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable_Sources Nickboy000 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is now your third unblock request that shows no awareness of the reason for your block. Since you seem convinced that you are in the right, and since that opinion doesn't appear likely to change, I am removing your talkpage access to save you wasting administrators' time. You may still appeal via UTRS, though I would caution you to read and take onboard the comments below (and elsewhere on this page) first. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:05, 13 November 2017 (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.

Note that I'm an uninvolved editor you've never met, who randomly happened to come across your talk page while browsing. If you don't mind some friendly advice, you might want to cancel this unblock request, and then perhaps make another one. And read my comment in its entirety (without taking offense), and then think about how to proceed. As it stands now, this unblock request doesn't address any of the reasons for which you were blocked (behaviour on talk pages, incivility toward other editors, repeatedly making changes against overwhelming consensus, and using opinion pieces as statements of fact in a BLP).

Leaving aside some of the aspects of your behaviour on talk pages (which seems to be the major reason for your being blocked), think about the way you're phrasing this unblock request... Claiming that you have a better grasp of a fundamental Wikipedia policy than several administrators and some of the most experienced editors on this site isn't just a silly way to go about an unblock request, it's pretty ridiculous, period. You've been told that you're citing material incorrectly by at least a half dozen or more people. Opinion pieces can only be used to demonstrate the opinion of the writer, and no one else; they don't even represent the opinion of the paper or magazine in which they're published. Oftentimes, they're even contrary to the opinion of the publisher, the mainstream, or even common sense. Sometimes an op-ed exists just to demonstrate that such an opinion exists, or to demonstrate that a publication is willing to publish such an opinion.

Therefore you have to use the source in a way like: "In an opinion piece for [publisher], [x] claimed so-and-so about [the subject of the article]." Even then, an op-ed is often only noteworthy if it represents a significant minority opinion, or if the author of the piece is notable (either notable themselves as public figures, or that they're notable specifically for their opinions).

If you do get unblocked at some point, my suggestion is that you stay away from BLPs and controversial subjects until you have a better grasp of editing policies and practises, and have learned how to gain consensus for your suggested changes (as in having good sourcing, and being civil)... And more than anything else, to walk away when you don't have consensus, so that you're not edit-warring. Feel free to remove this comment, and keep in mind I'm not trying to insult you, or bait you. I only wrote this as a courtesy. And if you're not unblocked, don't use another account to edit. That'll just ensure you can never edit Wikipedia ever again. Indefinite blocks aren't "infinite", and if you address why you were blocked (and how you'll avoid that behaviour in the future), you will be unblocked. In fact, promising to stay away from BLPs and controversial subject areas is probably your best bet, if you're sincere when you say it. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Nickboy000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19928 was submitted on Dec 04, 2017 02:53:46. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Nickboy000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20284 was submitted on Jan 10, 2018 04:53:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Nickboy000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20291 was submitted on Jan 11, 2018 03:08:34. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]