"Evil so foul, a Wikipedian almost noticed."

..dave souza, talk 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Intelligent Design. Please always observe our core policies. GSlicer (t • c) 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that sections of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy that apply directly to intelligent design related articles are:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
• NPOV: Undue weight
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

Hope you find that helpful, .. dave souza, talk 07:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to political positions of Barack Obama. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. · jersyko talk 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jihad. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I submitted regarding Jihad was factual, relevant, and well sourced. It is outrageous that you do not consider the Umdat al-Salik to be an authoritative source on Islamic jurisprudence. Even the Wikipedia entries for the Umdat al-Salik and for Shafi`i, which pages have both been fairly stable and non-controversial entries for several years, put this source in a most high position. Please explain why this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for citation.Jwbaumann (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no response has been offered in 3 months time, I will consider this criticism to be unfounded and retracted. I will continue to provide relevant, factual, and well sourced edits in the future. Jwbaumann (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see from this page you have already been warned several times to avoid putting personal commentary into articles. I see it has not stopped you. This is your final warning - if you do it again, you will be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My addition indicated that the big bang, speciation, and dinosaur behavior were neither observable nor repeatable. Is this factually incorrect? Is it irrelevant to a discussion of the nature of science? Or does it not fit comfortably with the POV that evolution theory is truth? I fail to see how a relevant, factual statement is a violation of the TOS. Please explain.Jwbaumann (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of any response tells me that this criticism was meritless. I will continue to offer relevant, factual edits as opportunities arise.Jwbaumann (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Barack Obama. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DKqwerty (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What in the hell are you talking about? The point of my edit was that there ARE no official references to Obama's birth location. Note that the above criticism is both unfounded and unsigned. Jwbaumann (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) And boom, now the above is signed.Jwbaumann (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here is the link to the "unreferenced controversial biographical content" to which DKqwerty refers: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=301961906&oldid=301936565 Jwbaumann (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocking you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. You are welcome to appeal the block, which is your chance to see if another admin thinks it is fair. A whole series of editors and admins have given you warning above about adding obvious personal opinion into articles but you persist [1]. I have gone through several pages of your edits and you come close to qualifying for an indefinite block as a Vandal only account. Please consider the objections people make and listen. You will become a better editor when you do so. --BozMo talk 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. The "disruptive edit" you refer to is possibly the most perfect example of the obvious and I believe deliberate bias in Wikipedia. Please don't remove the link, so that it may stand as a clear example of how useless Wikipedia is. I do not believe any rational or honest person could consider the edit you reference to be disruptive. I personally find it to be excellent, even reviewing it now 6 weeks later. So thank you for so clearly demonstrating that Wikipedia is a dishonest, agenda driven load of horse manure. It's really embarrassing for Wikipedia to hold on to such thoroughly discredited, antiquated, silly ideas like global warming to the point where you won't even admit there is an alternative viewpoint, even as record cold strikes the northern hemisphere. You're just a bunch of scared, whiny intellectual fascists, and I stand by every edit I have made. Jwbaumann (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 09:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Islam. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such a bold statement requires some very reliable sources which directly makes the claim you are trying to make. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it if you don't like the sources. Jwbaumann (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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; 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.

Please note that claims dealt with in this article are considered fringe theories per the current consensus regarding the reliable sources as documented on this article's talk page, as well as on the Barack Obama FAQ page. Additionally, this article is subject to article probation, and editors are being held to a higher standard here than might be the case elsewhere on Wikipedia. — Richwales 04:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not reliable. They are merely an echo chamber of cover up. I question the entire validity of what you have just posted, and the entire premise of this article as a fringe theory. Questions about Barack Obama's origins are now mainstream, whether you choose to recognize that or not, and whether the echo chamber mainstream media chooses to recognize that or not. It is actually quite embarrassing that when hard evidence is presented that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, that the immediate response is that the information was in error - for 16 years??? That simply does not pass the laugh test. No professional could survive with that sort of thinking process, whether that professional be an accountant, a physician or an engineer.

Besides that, I did not do any reverts on that article - I was reverted three times myself, for posting neutral, balanced, referenced information, so you are posting to the wrong user.

"Evil so foul, a Wikipedian almost noticed." Jwbaumann (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC) My bad. I forgot that high quality close up uncut audio with sound of the actual event was not verifiable. Something meets Wikipedia standards only when the echo chamber of the mainstream media states it, even if they just plain make it up. I'll drop the antiquated notions of proof, truth and evidence and try to do better next time.Jwbaumann (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was not personal analysis. That was the plain meaning of their large sign. Can you not read?Jwbaumann (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the meaning is "plain," you should be able to cite a reliable source (I assume the sources you added before were a joke, because you can't possibly think they're appropriate) that has figured it out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding me. A photograph with the official policies views of the SFMTA is not reliable? These were not a joke. Wikipedia is. But what should I expect from an organization that thinks Obama's long form birth certificate is legitimate.Jwbaumann (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jwbaumann. I see you've been around for a while and that others have templated you before with regard to basic content policies, so I won't template you now. This edit was a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, and the final sentence was wildly inappropriate for article space. Please avoid making such edits. Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Ah, but it was factual, which was my point. Wikipedia is opposed to truth as such. Knowledge must first pass through a tyrannical, smothering, third party PC filter before it can be displayed. The purpose of Wikipedia is nothing more than highly polished propaganda. No one has ever been able to make the case that anything I have posted is inaccurate, only that it doesn't meet Wikipedia' standards, because the standard is not truth, but secular humanist homogenization.Jwbaumann (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that no one has made the case to your satisfaction, but it would be easy enough to make the case. I won't bother to do so now, since it's clear from your reply that your mind is already made up. In any event, Wikipedia deals in verifiable fact, not "truth", the latter being subjective except within certain like-thinking groups of individuals. Likely enough, that frustrates you to no end—it occasionally frustrates me too—but it's something we each of us must deal with: when editing articles, WP:NPOV requires us all to check our points of view at the door. Fwiw, I've heard that various other wikis, including Conservapedia, have no such requirement. Rivertorch (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Prolog. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Martin Bashir, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. Prolog (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Wikipedians are continuing to pursue their goal of choking off truth in favor of politically correct consensus under the false banner of "verifiability by reliable sources."

I came today to edit the entry for Scott Walker only to find I have been blocked, because Kww believes that pointing out that Muslims kill people somehow means I am not here to "build the encyclopedia." Except that Muslims really do kill people and everyone knows it. Everyone.

In the Scott Walker entry (at least right now - it will change, but never because of facts or truth), the section entitled "Investigation of alleged illegal fundraising" ends with a grossly misleading statement "The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reviewing the case." It is true that the "reliable source" (The Huffington Post - are you kidding me?) ended with the statement "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is reviewing the case and is responsible for the release of the documents." HOWEVER, a reading of the opinion of that court (note - not a final opinion) makes clear that 1) the original investigation against Scott Walker and his political allies had no basis in law or fact, 2) the original investigation was thrown out several times by different judges, and 3) the "review" is at the behest of the victims of the investigation who are in essence countersuing, stating that their first amendment rights were violated by the investigators.

Quoting from the judge's opinion (note - this is a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling):

"the defendants' [note: "defendants" in this specific context are those who pursued what is now known to have been a witch hunt against Scott Walker and his political allies] legal theory cannot pass constitutional muster. The plaintiffs [the victims, political allies of Scott Walker] have been shut out of the political process merely by association with conservative politicians. This cannot square with the First Amendment and what it was meant to protect.

" . . . The Defendants must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. Plaintiffs and others are hereby relieved of any and every duty under Wisconsin law to cooperate further with Defendants' investigation. Any attempt to obtain compliance by any Defendant [note: in this specific context "Defendent" refers to the victims of the improper investigation] or John Doe Judge Gregory Peterson (sic) is grounds for a contempt finding by this Court. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 6th day of May, 2014."

This is a slap down in the extreme. The investigation is clearly shown to have had no valid basis in law or fact, and those who investigated Scott Walker were dead wrong AND THE JUDGE HAS SAID AS MUCH in legal terms.

Read the source documents yourself, right here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/230471840/Scott-Walker-Investigation-Documents

The above analysis is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is forbidden by Wikipedia. Only if a liberal, politically correct publication regurgitates some information can it then be considered "verifiable by a reliable source." And no source that meets Wikipedia's approval as a "reliable source" will ever report what I have reported above, because it does not fit the liberal narrative Wikipedia supports (NPOV be damned).

So don't look to Wikipedia for truth. Don't waste your time at all. The is no honesty here, only an amoral tasteless liberal echo chamber run by tiny tyrants.

It is true, I am not here to build the encyclopedia. I am here for truth. Those are incompatible missions.

I choose truth.

So long Wikipedia. You suck. Jwbaumann (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the admin who blocked me permanently has himself been booted from Wikipedia for abusing his sysop powers. Tiny tyrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww_and_The_Rambling_Man/Proposed_decision#Kww_has_previously_used_admin_tools_while_involved Jwbaumann (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]