User talk:Jerry the Bellybutton Elf

Hello, Jerry the Bellybutton Elf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

– Lionel^(talk) 11:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really an AFC person. I just happen to have permission for the script. And saw your comment on the draft. I can tell you within 24 hours this will be a very, very active article lol. It's important to add sources asap. Every paragraph must have an inline citation. Especially Aftermath and reaction. If you need any additional help ask here. And btw great job! – Lionel^(talk) 11:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approving my article. I think it's a good start but I don't really know what you mean by inline citation....Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it. An inline citation is the little blue number used for a reference^[1]

I think your article is a good candidate for "Did You Know." DYK is the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on to the Main Page and in front of the eyeballs of 17 million people. Learn all about it here: "DYK For Newbies." – Lionel^(talk) 06:19, 16 June 2018 (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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry the Bellybutton Elf! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel^(talk) 06:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jerry the Bellybutton Elf, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Hello! Your submission of Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just a heads up. The article is under consensus required. Judging from the article history it looks like you added a new section, then BullRangifer challenged part of it via revision. It should not be reinserted without consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PackMecEng. My bad. Just a lot of text at the top of the page. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it can be a tricky provision, especially determining when content was originally added. PackMecEng (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Donald Trump for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting forum-like discussion, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've hatted the equally inappropriate comment above yours, please stay on-topic. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you hatted his comment (promoting liberalism) and deleted mine (defending myself from his attack), and left no message warning of him getting "blocked" from editing, even though he was the one who initiated the spat. Interesting choice. I have no problem avoiding forum-like discussion. I asked to take it to a private room twice, and everybody ignored me and kept right on talking about how great and fair the media is. What should I do in the future? Just delete their comments? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was easier to hat the pre-existing comment. No judgment intended. Yes, it's best to ignore, Contrary to occasional appearances, we're writing an encyclopedia, and off-topic opinionating should be studiously ignored. Given the way things can spiral out of hand very quickly in this subject area it's best to address developing ping-pong comment streams expeditiously. Acroterion (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right I get it, sorry. I still don't know why I got singled out and nobody else got a warning about getting blocked for going off topic, like Tataral and a few others did. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you because you were the one I saw, and I was preparing dinner, so I didn't have time to scatter warnings around. Dinner was nice. For what it's worth, there are a couple of IPs I've recently blocked elsewhere who probably feel that I'm an agent of oppression against progressivism and The Truth About The Man. I'll have have a word with Tataral once I've cleaned up in the kitchen. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am responsible for encouraging you to participate in DYK. This should have been a fun & rewarding experience. But I was too focused on using the Trump quote in the hook: which barring a miracle means your DYK will fail. Additionally you were inserted into my ANI case which can be a harrowing experience for any editor, especially a new editor. This was not my intention and I regret this. Wikipedia, and DYK, can be an enjoyable experience, if you fully appreciate the nuances of the community. If I can give you one piece of advice, always keep your cool and remain civil at all times. Civility blocks are far more common than people realize. – Lionel^(talk) 21:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no apology needed. What I saw people trying to do and especially the mods was shameful. It was subtle but I saw how people tried to kill two birds with one stone: shut down the conservatism project so those articles don't get improved, and then start attacking you personally with little supposed "rule violations" thrown in to try to get rid of YOU. I guess having only one political party represented in the mods has predictable results, but still scary. I'll try to keep what you said in mind, since it looks like they tried to do it to me too at the end there. The DYK process left a bad taste in my mouth once the POV people started jumping in but I might try again with a non-political article. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there are two different points here:

1. I don't see any reason to include the results of opinion polls in the lead. "Most trusted" [1] is inherently subjective, and not the type of content I'd want to include in the lead based on surveys [2]. "Highest-rated" is better, but "dominated the competition" [3] certainly isn't encyclopedic.
2. If you're here to build an encyclopedia, I'd strongly encourage you to contribute in areas other than American Politics. If you're simply here to make sure that political articles are "fair and balanced", you can expect the level of arguments you are currently engaged in to continue indefinitely.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFIGHTER is relevant to the second item. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like how they included both liberals and conservatives in the example. Out of curiosity, have either of you ever run into a conservative mod? I've met like 7 or 8 so far and they've all been liberals, or defended liberal editors. I might just create some articles instead of debating stuff because it's obvious nothing ever gets done by doing that. And Power I used that word because Newsweek used the word, which was the source of the addition. But seriously. I tried to add the fact that Fox News has been the highest rated cable network for 196 consecutive months, and someone deleted it like the next day. The notability of facts clearly isn't what gets stuff in the lead, so what's the criteria? Volunteer says it's about how many sources you can find that say it, which seems more than dubious. I wonder if I'd have any problems adding that New York Times thinks of itself as the "paper of record" into its lead? Oh never mind, it's already there. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are conservative admins; most of them avoid Donald Trump. (Almost every admin other than MelanieN avoids that mess.) Regarding Fox News - I don't care what Marek says, there are other concerns than the volume of sources for what should be included in the lead section of a very long article. I don't have a good definition for "what is encyclopedic in nature" beyond the Potter Stewart definition. And Paper of record is a fairly well-defined term, though I'm not sure why "All the News That's Fit to Print" hasn't been moved to the infobox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good admins enforce Wikipedia policies, within the limited discretion allowed them by our system. If that means coming down on the side of liberals far more often than that of conservatives, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are a "liberal admin". Correlation is not causation, and I've found this logical fallacy to be a common thread throughout all claims of Wikipedia liberal bias.
Even if there is a Wikipedia liberal bias, conservatives are not going to change it by making noise about it all the time, things just don't work like that. I advise conservative editors to look to user JFG for a model of how to represent the conservative viewpoint civilly, within the rules, and without regular whinging about how the system is corrupt and the cards are stacked against them. If I were in their place, couldn't bring myself to do what JFG does, and couldn't shake my perception about systemic bias no matter how hard I tried, I would just call Wikipedia a lost cause, say a little Serenity Prayer, and find something else to do with my time. In any case, discussion about Wikipedia liberal bias is certainly out-of-venue on an article talk page, and that never accomplishes anything except perhaps to add fodder for a topic ban proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned from post-1932 American Politics for 1 month

You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and POV pushing

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference, here are a couple of examples of the behavior that led to this:

• [4] lashing out at other editors
• [5] personalizing disputes
• [6] (WP:OR) [7] [8] POV blindspot: NYTimes, Washington Post are "far-left propaganda tools of the Democratic party". (By contrast Fox News is the most trusted network that "dominates" the competition.)

I do recommend that, as you suggested above, you spend some time creating articles instead of endlessly debating politics. ~Awilley (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 15 August 2018 (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).

Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I didn't even get a warning for my topic ban, or a chance to appeal. Now before I get a chance to appeal, I find out that I was blocked without warning? I want to see this evidence that I'm another user. Otherwise, this looks like just another politically-motivated action on the part of the mods. If Wikipedia is making a serious effort to reverse constantly being under fire for anti-conservative and pro-liberal bias, this isn't the way to do it. And for that reason, I'm requesting an unblock as I didn't do anything wrong. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2018 (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.

How do I prove the block is no longer necessary? I didn't damage or disrupt Wikipedia. I created an article, that's not useful? How do I go from a no-warning topic ban to a no-warning block? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you mean, you didn't get a chance to appeal? Information about how to appeal the topic ban is in Awilley's pale yellow box above, posted on 10 August. It's still there, and sat there for 5 days before you were blocked. And you have just appealed the block. Yes, creating an article is useful, but you have certainly been disrupting Wikipedia. See Awilley's examples above (and having checked out your editing myself, I can say they're just a few examples of many.) But you were not blocked for that, only mildly topic banned (one month is a short tban). You were blocked as a sock of a banned user. Are you denying being Hidden Tempo? It doesn't look like you quite are — you just say you want to see the evidence, which sounds a little evasive (and that, if I may say so, sounds like Hidden Tempo). Are you Hidden Tempo? I'm pinging @DoRD: the CheckUser who checked you here, for you. Bishonen | talk 08:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]