User talk:Allama123

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; 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 12:01, 23 February 2020 (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-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 12:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm JavaHurricane. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Vanessa Marquez (actress), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Java Hurricane 06:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert[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-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.

--Jorm (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[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 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 ~~~~}}. v/r - T P 04:04, 1 July 2020 (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).

Allama123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The guy who tried to get me banned is obviously lying, you should read what I did for yourself before making assumptions. This is my original account, it was created by me years ago from this same location. You can check my IP logs. -Tucker Carlson is not a white supremacist, he has never identified as one or claimed that "white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them". The only "evidence" for those was a bunch of opinion pieces. Several were written by people who are clearly activists. Vox is an analysis site which contains no original reporting, and is run by activists who write editorials on news stories and make individual activist pieces. The particular reporter who wrote the blatant opinion piece on him (which was worded so harshly that it's obviously nothing more than an extremely biased opinion piece) was an acitivst, who had done no original reporting. Media Matters is undeniably an activist organization. I've seen the same strategy used on countless political figures, some activist publishes a baseless smear piece, it gets cited on wikipedia, then it destroys their reputation and in some cases is used as justification to physically attack them or harass them in person like Tucker was in 2018. That's why I edited his article. -I added a video which both backed up the Washington Post article said and showed the entirety of what actually happened, in addition to what was already there (a sentence from a lawyer), including the fact that Harris was not an innocent bystander. I never claimed that he deserved it, that the alt-right did the right thing, or anything of that nature. -I re-worded cernovich's article to contain direct quotes with references to the original tweets, rather than a very vague description which only cited opinion pieces. There are several entirely different theories he puts forward, referring to several distinct theories listed in White genocide conspiracy theory. I removed several off-topic articles which mentioned those three tweets in passing. I left the huffpo article in, since it included several other tweets which were never archived. Information was only added in the process, not removed. -I removed a single source from Gemma Doherty's page, since it provided absolutely no explanation of what she believed and was purely an opinion piece mentioning "conspiracy" in passing. I never removed "conspiracy" from her topics, that's an outright lie. -Adding a reference to an Italian lynching is not "normalizing lynching", that's absurd and further shows you that these accusations aren't based in reality. -The nationalfile article was not "batshit crazy", it offered a link to the video and a short description of what happened. It does include some opinion, just like every other wikipedia article covering living persons does, but that's obviously not the focus of the article. -I added a quote in Cullors' own words describing herself as a marxist. I then added progressively more context until it was "enough", even though it did nothing to change the meaning. I also added more information on her background until "trained marxist" was sufficiently explained, only using completely appropriate quotes from interviews, never articles or opinion pieces written by others. If she identifies as a marxist and was mentored by a marxist while working at a marxist organization, she's almost definitely a marxist. That's not a smear, and it definitely doesn't violate Reliable Source guidelines. This is a much higher burden of proof than any other biography of living persons, most of which throw around labels based on the opinions of others. Every accusation against me has shown that I add primary sources, rather than opinion pieces. I don't smear people, I don't post false information, and I don't remove true information. I was banned so quickly that TParis obviously had no time to review the actual things I did and took the other guy at his word for everything. I am here to build an encyclopedia based on actual objective sources, Binksternet is here to impose impossible double standards based on his own political positions and get people who disagree with him banned by telling lies. I am not a "white supremacist" or whatever baseless accusations this guy wants to make against me, assuming my intentions in obvious bad faith.

Decline reason:

The diffs provided by Binksternet at ANI tell the story. Attacking opponents won't get you unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 1 July 2020 (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.

Just to note (I'm not going to answer your unblock appeal as you appear to think that my knowledge of the Gemma O'Doherty makes me non-neutral) is that my edit was in reply to PackMecEng, and not a comment on your editing (although, as I've now said at ANI, I believe removing that section was not valid). Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response makes complete sense in context Black Kite, and you're correct about Gemma. My point was to show how the false framing from Binksternet would lead a reasonable person to believe that I had claimed that she wasn't a conspiracy theorist, making PackMecEng's comment of "The Gemma O'Doherty edit is probably correct actually, no idea why you reverted that one" look like a defense of her or her theories. Whether or not that particular article was a valid source to use in that context is another topic. Allama123 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | tålk 05:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]