User talk:Guitarguy2323

Welcome!

Hello, Guitarguy2323! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! O3000 (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.

O3000 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Sorry you don't like the truth.03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Guitarguy2323 (talk)

Yeah! Everyone knows reality has a well-documented anti-Trump bias. Local Milk Person (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah just lefties :)Guitarguy2323 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W. Bush

Hello! Please do not remove George W Bush from the Republicans who oppose Trump without a reliable source that denounces the New York Times article. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spokespeople are not considered reliable sources. At most, we would note that a spokesman disputed the Times report. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL So if the New York Times said everyone should Jump off a cliff you would dispute that. So I guess the office of a president is no longer a reliable source :DGuitarguy2323 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this was not the office of the president. This was the Texas tribune reporting what a spokesman said. If you have a source citing a website of the president or something like that, then please bring it up. Your analogy is humorous but definitely is not what this argument is about. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this clarifies it. I did not mean to discourage you from editing, but your continual deletion was not based on a reliable source. Feel free to continue to make constructive edits. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have resumed the same pattern of attacks that brought the block noted above. You will be blocked for longer if you keep that up. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare Thanks for proving me correct :) you have unverified bs about Trump published as facts. Have a political hit job on FNC page but anything that is proven true is not allowed. Judging by your talk page it has also proven me correct.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That response shows you aren't learning anything, so a topic ban is probably the only way to protect the encyclopedia from you. -- Valjean (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it shows that you guys need to be unbiased. Period.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot to learn about our policies. No one is unbiased, and anyone who claims to be unbiased is fooling themselves. WP:NPOV is clear that neither sources, content, or editors have to be unbiased. It is our editing that must be unbiased, so that means we leave our biased personal opinions aside when editing, not when commenting and discussing. Talk pages are for free discussion that is aimed at developing content, explaining policies, and explaining the state of the subject as far as we know it from RS. Improved understanding benefits everyone. During that process, we are free to express our personal POV, as long as they are based on RS. Hey, it's a discussion, not article content.

From NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Search that policy for "editorial bias". Also read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean So then why do you use political hit jobs on Fox News when CNN and MSNBC are equally as such?The fox news page is a hit job by the progressive group media matters. Yet MSNBC is OPENLY PROGRESSIVE but nothing is motioned on the article. You say in your own profile you hate conservatives etc. Your arguments are poor. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased but yet people like you and other admins despise any conservative argument even when its true. You are not fooling anyone.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've repeated the warned disruptive behavior, only toning it down a little, you're blocked. If this recurs, the next block is likely to be indefinite. I've noted at ANI that a topic ban or longer arbitration enforcement blocks may be considered by consensus or by individual administrators. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]