User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

General note and advise

When you edit an article and your edit might be even a slightly controversial one (like the latter) you should seek input from an editor who offered you help and assistants: (User:Master of Puppets). You'll be better of by doing so and there is no "shame" at all to have an editor coaching you. As a matter of fact, AFD candidates are often taken a knowledgeable coach to succeed. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't take advice from people who can't spell it, and steer clear of anyone who doesn't practice what they preach. What did you think of the Heisman choice? Do you follow football Grundle? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

hah hah, wherie funie, tchild-off-mitnide.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I like to listen to all sides of an argument, and any advice that can help to keep me from getting even more banned, or blocked, is appreciated. Everyone makes typos. I don't follow football, although as a resident of Pittsburgh, I was glad to hear that Terry Bradshaw, Mel Blount, Mean Joe Greene, Franco Harris, and Lynn Swann won the Superbowl again this year. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've indefinitely blocked you for your behaviour re Diane Francis. This behaviour constitutes an egregious violation of WP:BLP; of WP:SYNTH; and is part of a long-term pattern of disruptive editing. I am posting to ANI for discussion on the appropriate block length for this; in view of your history I think "indefinite" is a prime candidate, but I'm open to discussion. Rd232 ^talk 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block is preposterous. I haven't even touched that article in quite some time. The info that I added is relevant and well sourced - in fact, it's still there. You're just upset at me because, quite some time ago, I added well sourced, relevant info that was critical of Hugo Chavez, which you repeatedly erased. Like all the others who want me blocked, you want to censor any info that is critical of the political left. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that I am unable to edit the ANI section where you discuss my block, so I will comment here instead.

1) You claim that I used synthesis. Actually, I cited this source, this source, and this source, all of which made the accusation of hypocrisy.

2) The consensus in the discussion was that this should never have been brought up at ANI in the first place.

3) The last time that I added any content to the article that was later removed by someone else, was 47 hours ago. It sure doesn't look like I'm "edit warring."

4) Since you refer to my "long-term pattern of disruptive editing," I'd like to point out this link to the discussion of my indefinite topic ban on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. The real reason for these bans and blocks is to censor the articles in question from my additions of well sourced, relevant content that is critical of the subjects. Everyone who favors banning and blocking me is on the political left, and wants to prevent me from adding relevant, well sourced information that is critical of politicians on the political left. That's why none of the people who favor my indefinite topic ban have ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions. This proves that the real reason for my bans and blocks is to censor the articles from relevant, well sourced information that is critical of the political left. That is why none of the people who favor my bans and blocks has ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1) The administrator who blocked me claimed that I used synthesis. Actually, I cited this source, this source, and this source, all of which made the accusation of hypocrisy. 2) The administator also accused me of edit warring. But the last time that I added any content to the article that was later removed by someone else, was 47 hours before I was blocked. It sure doesn't look like I'm "edit warring." 3) Diane Francis, the subject of the article for which I am blocked, chose to put her personal blog on the internet, where she states that she has two children. She also chose to write an opinion column for internet publication, where she states that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. She chose to put both of these things on the internet, because she wanted people to read them. I cited both of these sources in the wikipedia article about her. All I did was add to her article, information which she herself had chosen to put on the internet, because she wanted people to read it. She wanted people to read this information. All of the information that I added to the article was true, and well sourced. I did not violate BLP. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whatever the merits of the edit, you were (a) edit-warring to include (b) contentious matter sourced only to blogs in a BLP that is (c) a current topic in US politics from which you are banned. These three issues together lead me to believe that you need a break from editing until you can convince the community that you will approach the next similar issue in a better way.  Sandstein  00:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

• I strongly endorse this block. This user's tendentious behavior in several sensitive topic areas has led to blocks in the past and this is a proper response. I also concur in it that he brought up the "questions" he had agreed not to bring up as a condition to his prior unblock. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Like all of those who favor blocking and banning me, you don't have the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Precisely. MBisanz ^talk 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Precisely. It proves that the real reason for my bans and blocks is to censor the articles from relevant, well sourced criticism of the subjects. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Diane Francis, the subject of the article for which I am blocked, chose to put her personal blog on the internet, where she states that she has two children. She also chose to write an opinion column for internet publication, where she states that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. She chose to put both of these things on the internet, because she wanted people to read them. I cited both of these sources in the wikipedia article about her. All I did was add to her article, information which she herself had chosen to put on the internet, because she wanted people to read it. She wanted people to read this information. All of the information that I added to the article was true, and well sourced. I did not violate BLP. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The first edit on this issue was this from you on 10 Dec 21:48. This is pure WP:SYNTH. The three sources you claim to have cited in your point 1) immediately below my "blocked" post all post-date this. (This statement 1) of yours is so misleading that most people would call it a lie.) You edited tendentiously for political purposes in an egregiously BLP-violating way (yes, the info was public, but it was not previously put together in the way you did, which = SYNTH). Whether your post was actually picked up on by the sources you mention is hard to tell, but it doesn't matter - you clearly intended political BLP/SYNTH-violating political commentary in your post, at a time when such commentary might well be picked up by blogs if not other media. This is why I blocked you. Rd232 ^talk 20:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason given for refusing my first unblock request was "Whatever the merits of the edit, you were (a) edit-warring to include (b) contentious matter sourced only to blogs in a BLP that is (c) a current topic in US politics from which you are banned. These three issues together lead me to believe that you need a break from editing until you can convince the community that you will approach the next similar issue in a better way." I would like to dispute all 3 of those claims. (a) I was not "edit warring," because I voluntarily stopped making any controversial edits 47 hours before I was blocked. (b) I did not cite "contentious" material, because the only information that I added to the article was information that the subject herself had first chosen to publish on the internet. Wikipedia cannot be found guilty of libel for citing information that the subject herself had first put on the internet. BLP allows us to cite the blog of the subject. Also, blogs were not the "only" sources that I cited. I also cited Financial Post. Also, the "blogs" that I cited at National Review and The American Spectator are reliable sources, and the fact that they say "blog" does not change that. (c) This is not a "topic in US politics." The subject lives in Canada, and the only country that has her suggested policy is China. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You aren't going to get unblocked through this venue. I would suggest emailing ArbCom, or something of that nature. Although it's unlikely that you'll get unblocked then either, as this block was completely justified. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

All I ever did here at wikipedia was add information that was true and well sourced. No one has questioned the truthfulness or accurary of the information that I added as a reason to block or ban me. And to claim that I violated BLP is false, because the only information that I added to the article was information that the subject herself had first chosen to publicize on the internet. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY for the difficulties involved in using primary sources. From what I can see, you were not blocked because of the truthfulness of your edits, but rather because of your behaviour. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, may I suggest dropping the "7 questions" angle? Should you decide to pursue another unblock request, your argument should take one of two forms, either: 1)Why the initial block was improper and violated policy, or 2)That you've taken to heart the criticisms you've received and will endeavor to edit more appropriately in the future. For what it's worth, even should you decide to pursue 1), a dash of 2) never hurts and might go a long way towards convincing people that you wish to be a productive and cooperative member of the community. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good advice. For the record, the reason I brought up the seven questions is because my accusers brought up my past behavior (which they claim was bad behavior), and I used those seven questions to explain my past behavior. But bringing up those seven questions doesn't seem to be helping me with this current case. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The principal issue the blocking admin mentioned was Grundle's abuse of WP:SYNTH, which is one of the things he's had trouble with all along. It complicates things that the unblocking admin didn't mention this, but the matter needs to be resolved nevertheless. Grundle, you would do well to address this matter in your request. The same old arguments are unlikely to work. And I still think you should have cooled down for a day or so. PhGustaf (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that about synth. A day or two is one thing - but forever is ridiculous. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that forever is ridiculous. I think, though, that you should concede that you did some things wrong to cause this, say what they are, are say what you will do to improve matters. PhGustaf (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, when I later added the info about her kids back to the article, I moved it to the first paragraph, far away from the info about her endorsing the one child policy. That way there's no synth. That's a good way for me to behave. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I repeated my seven questions because Rd232 cited my "long-term pattern of disruptive editing." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is an awful block. Looks like User:Rd232 did this for personal reasons. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WSS, that's a pretty serious charge, and one which I can't see being true, given what I know about Rd232. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a serious charge, it's something that happens quite frequently on wikipedia. I understand that it is difficult to put differences aside in situations like this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Differences? Were you involved in the whole sock ordeal? I can't see any posts from you on my talk page and don't feel like digging through the AN/I archives. Regardless, that's not where I'm coming from. I worked with Rd232 on the Provisional Irish Republican Army article for a couple of months and saw nothing there that would lead me to believe he would block someone for personal reasons. Quite the opposite, in fact. He showed remarkable patience with editors who were probably not deserving of said patience. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So because of your past experience with the user on one page, you are willing to disregard the charge that he might've possibly excessively blocked a user due to the human emotion of anger? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've simply seen what it takes for him to actually block someone, and it's usually a pattern of disruptive edits/vandalism that persists past multiple warnings. I'm not saying he didn't do it, I'm saying it would be entirely out of character from what I know of him. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with MCC above. Take a day off, cool down, and consider ways to resolve the matter. The personal approach suggested by WSS won't work. And once and for all, forget those seven questions. PhGustaf (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the last part above, these 7 questions have caused nothing but trouble for you. Let it go. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Count me in on the "lose the 7 questions angle"--when I saw that you'd dragged that out, I seriously wanted to kick a chipmunk. And it ESPECIALLY does you no good because it brings up something you probably don't want to be reminding ppl of: the whole topic-ban thing. Take those questions and kill them with fire, then bury them in the backyard at midnight. Preferably in an unmarked grave--that's how bad those questions are for your wiki-existence. (I would have endorsed a short block, but an indef, esp for a contributor who's created as much as you have, seems overzealous. If you should have ever been indeffed for anything, it would be for creating the article about Octomom. Because...seriously, can't we make her disappear?) GJC 04:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Appealing this block

Indefinite blocks can ordinarily be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. If you like, you can write an appeal on this talk page, and I will copy it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Andrea105 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This comment was made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have one appeal above (which was denied), and a second appeal after that, which has not been responded to yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that it is unlikely an admin will review your new unblock request so soon after your previous one was declined, it might behoove you to spend the time preparing a set of difs to support your argument. Should the case go before Arbcom, the admins involved will do the same. It greatly reduces Arbcom's workload if they can simply click on links to see the exact edits in question, and reducing Arbcom's workload is never a bad thing. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's getting late. I'll think about possibly doing that tomorrow. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, either request may be denied if administrators believe that you will continue the editing that they regard as having lead to the block. You're walking a fine line between disputing the justification for the block, and convincing administrators/arbcom that the situation won't arise again :) However, valid grounds for appeal include the length of the block imposed -- you might be able to get it reduced to several weeks. Andrea105 (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Negotiating and abiding by terms of probation might help, too. PhGustaf (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could cite this diff, because it's where I added the info about her kids back to the article, but in a place far, far away from where it mentions her favoring the one child policy, so it shows that I understand about not doing synth. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a start, but keep in mind that the belief is that you have a history of said behaviour. It's quite easy to see such an edit as an attempt to skirt the rules and still get your point across, which isn't widely appreciated. In addition to providing the difs, you would be well advised to compose a genuine mea culpa and apologize for previous behaviour that has been identified as problematic, while making a commitment to improve in the future. Basically, blocks are not intended to punish the editor, but rather to protect the project. If you can convince Arbcom that you will alter your behaviour in the future, it would go a long way towards reducing your block. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is my block permanent, instead of for 24 or 48 hours?

As it says on my userpage, I am against the death penalty. A permanent block is like the wiki version if the death penalty. Sigh. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because of the above and the 7 questions you repeated and almost everything else when it comes to your Wiki-history? But in response to the latter you wrote, here is the good news: You're still eligible for parole as you were only given a life-time sentence and not the death penalty which was outlawed at the very beginning when Wikipedia was created. But if you intend to keep trying to defend yourself in such non professional way and presenting yourself as nothing more than a layman w/o an attorney (called a mentor here on Wiki) you're probably doomed and eternity is awaiting you. Nothing more for me to say here. If you'd like some helpful input from my side you have to e-mail me. I'll do my best to help you by explaining what was explained to you before although it might take some time. And if I misspelled a word or disgraced any grammar, be it British or American, please let Childofmidnight's death squad know and let them do what is their purpose. Stella, Stella,.......... [curtain]. Audience: "Bravo, bravissimo..."

Sincerely, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle like you I oppose the death penalty, but I think your analogy here is not very apt. A better analogy would be to a hypothetical person who shows up to parties at a friend's home and regular creates disturbances. Certain measures are taken (no more whiskey for you!) but the problems continue. Finally this hypothetical person's friend says, "You know what? You're not welcome in my home anymore," and most of their mutual friends agree that that is the right decision, if admittedly regrettable. Later if the hypothetical person shows that they understand how and why they caused problems and that they are now on the straight and narrow, maybe their friend thinks about inviting them to the next party.

Your response to your current situation (put in these terms) has been to proclaim loudly and ad nauseam that it was unfair to take the whiskey away from you in the first place and that no one was willing to explain why that happened (even though many people did), a point which you brought up at basically every ensuing party. Then upon being banned from your friend's home you launched into an attack against him or her and argued that they have always been out to get you, probably because they would not know a good party if it bit them on the behind and want to prevent you from making the party as awesome as it could possibly be. All you're trying to do is make the parties more fun but for some reason no one else understands that and that's not your fault!

Whether it's willful or not, you're not showing any understanding at all (and haven't for months) of the concerns a large swath of editors have been bringing to your attention, and partially for that reason your indefinite ban is not likely to be rescinded anytime soon. I genuinely regret that it's come to this (I really thought if you stayed away from political articles you'd be okay), but in my view you've left us little choice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What does any of this storytelling have to do with Grundle being blocked indefinitely days after the dispute over his noting in the Diane Francis article that she advocates for China's one child policy to be adopted worldwide while she herself has two children? Bigtimepeace you and others need to stop chasing down and working to eliminate those you disagree with while providing comfort and aid to pernicious POV pushers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it has to do with similar edits made in the past? Maybe some felt that "good faith" is exhausted? He sure wouldn't have been blocked for his edits he made at Diane Francis's page w/o the context of his history. Honestly, show some good selfless faith by giving Grundle some good advise [sic] either here or by e-mail.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and advice everyone. The whiskey analogy does seem more accurate than my death penalty analogy. I do think Child of Midnight also has a good point, as the info that I added was true, accurate, and sourced. I can't be the only one with an interest in noticing such kinds of hypocrisy. But since wikipedia policy is against that, I did eventually move the two things to separate parts of the article. I am willing to acknowledge that such a policy exists and that it must must be followed, but I also admit that I don't like it. I hope that's enough to get my block reversed.

I might be able to understand a total ban on all political articles, regardless of what country they are in. But a total block which includes articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture, is not in the best interest of the project.

I see that our good friend Mr. Connolley has made his presence known, but without actually signing the page. Hi there! We both have a bachelor's in math, by the way. Interesting that yours is a B.A. and mine is a B.S. I suppose one could say that math is an art, but I prefer to think of it as a science.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard the joke about a B.S. being bullshit, an M.S. more shit, and a Phd. a pile higher and deeper? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's funny! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this Piled Higher and Deeper looks interesting. I'm less sure about the significance of [1]. Don't sweat the small stuff Grundle. Take care, enjoy yourself, and thanks for your impressive collegiality and patience. You are an inspiration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent, new comment) I haven't been following everything completely but I hope this works out for you Wikipedia-wise and that you can come back soon to edit the articles that interest you. Your goodwill in the face of those (like me) who often disagree with things is an inspiration. If not, there are good things beyond Wikipedia too, and if we meet some day in real life, perhaps without knowing of our shared history here, I'll look forward to it! - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Wikipedia:Blocking policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment."

Then they should ban me from all political articles from all countries, instead of blocking me, so I can still edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia:Blocking policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." Then they should ban me from all political articles from all countries, instead of blocking me, so I can still edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your prior attempts to game the system and argue your way around sanctions before, I find that allowing an unblock at this point would not be a good idea. This block is clearly to prevent disruption, and your willingness in the past to poke around at the boundaries of your sanctions shows that you are simply going to do the same thing again. You knew what sorts of behavior would attract attention, and yet it took until now to decide to avoid it? I find that unlikely, given the ample opportunities you have been given to reform. I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so. Jayron32 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Comment Such a ban should include all BLPs. Enigma^msg 22:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

All politics related BLPs, yes, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman. But not all BLPs in general. There's no justification for the ban to apply to Stephen Hawking, Bill Watterson, or Phoebe Cates. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

ChildofMidnight, thanks for this:

"The truth will not set you free on Wikipedia"

"Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that 'although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment.'"

"That's it. That's the edit he made. A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized. It's since been modified and there was no outstanding issue when he was blocked indefinitely days later. But apparently it's okay to indefinitely block those whose perspectives and editing interests we disagree with, and don't anyone dare point out that this is being pushed by some of the most pernicious and persistent POV pushers on Wikipedia. Drag anyone who doesn't share our viewpoints to ANI repeatedly, label them as disruptive, dredge up abstract accusations about their "history", and hound them off the site."

"The complete and utter bullshit arguments that this is over concern about sourcing and BLP is completely disproven by the consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC by the very same editors calling for this indefinite block on Grundle. These individuals hold our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt, and use this website for propaganda purposes. The Francis article is a perfect example. It's full of fluff sourced to her own biography and her own writings. But heaven forbid Grundle makes an imperfectly sourced edit noting a discrepancy between her her policy statements and personal choices (something that's been reported widely on if not in the mainstream media)."

"Grundle must be banned forever by the very Tarcs, William Connolleys, Bigtimepeaces, rd232s and Magnicifcentcleankeepers who have abused this site to push their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree. I've been subject to their harassment and biased enforcement and so have others."

"These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing. Yet when it's those they agree with they have no hesitation in assuming bad faith making accusations and going after them with full force and fury. Make no mistake, Grundle is not a perfect editor, but this disgusting hypocrisy and censorship is outrageous. The entire Francis article is full of nonsense and the bits added by Grundle are probably the most notable and well sourced, even if those parts too had problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you so much for that.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ChildofMidnight is correct - the Diane Francis article is indeed full of unsourced claims. And even though that violates BLP, no one cared, and no one got criticized or punished. Only the person who added sourced material got punished.

The whole reason I kept asking my seven questions is because the refusal of those who favor blocking and banning me to answer them is proof that the real purpose of blocking and banning me is to prevent me from adding true, well sourced information that is critical of the political left. (Tarc claimed that my questions were answered. But when I asked him to the quote the answers, he did not quote them, because no one ever answered them).

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I feel the need to say this, since you will just pretend like it was never said. The reason why the sourced claims you added were problematic was that you made a novel synthesis using two different sources. Source A says "Diane Francis has two children". Source B says "Diane Francis supports the 1-child policy". When you place those two facts in close proximity in the way you did, what you are saying is "The reader needs to understand the connection between these two facts." The deal is, you invented the connection, which is original and novel synthesis. It isn't that you added two random facts. Its that you added two random facts, and used them to advance a personal opinion about the subject and to use the existance of the two facts in such a way as to generate a third idea, which was unsupported by either source. It was not as innocent as you made it out to be. You can continue convincing yourself that you added two random unconnected facts. It does not make it so. --Jayron32 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do get it. Before I was blocked, I fixed that problem myself by moving the two statements far away from each other. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I also fixed that problem by adding two sources that pointed out her hypocrisy. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Those two edits that I made are proof that I understand the problem. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You fixed it eventually; apparently too late. Anyway, have you ever read Nelson Algren? He said something like, "Never gamble with a man named Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. And never take advice about blocks from anyone with a worse block log than your own." Consider that advice when you apply next, and good luck. PhGustaf (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, PhG. I got it, and I laughed. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't read that book by him. Who could possibly have a worse block log than me? And how did they get it revoked so they could post again? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Joke that missed. But I missed something in a ec - you talked about pointing out a hypocrisy. That's not what wikipedia is for. If that's what you want to do, you're in the wrong place. PhGustaf (talk)

If wikipedia is not for pointing out hypocrisy, then why does Larry Craig scandal exist? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To report what reliable sources say about a notable event. Not to give people who dislike Craig a chance to take a swat at him. But you know that already. Cheers. PhGustaf (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find with Larry Craig scandal Grundle. What a ridiculous thing to have a whole article about. I'm sure the BLP patrol will soon be on top of cleaning up and merging that one as per the same guidelines and policies they are strictly enforcing on you... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you'd like to clarify your issues with that article on the talk page, you can use WP:BLPN for assistance if necessary. It looks like excessive detail to me; a typical example of the way current events editing leads to detail bloat, which can only be fixed at a later date, when the issue has died down. Typically an article is created in this situation during current-events-editing to avoid completely overbalancing the main article. It could probably be merged back into Larry Craig, if sufficiently trimmed of excessive detail. This type of thing is a perennial concern of mine, but it doesn't seem like there's any viable structural solution to prevent this (any ideas?) and firefighting and post hoc cleanup is inevitably patchy. A new tag might help, actually - say {{BLP old news cleanup}}. PS Funnily enough, I used to hang out at BLPN, since BLP has been one of my concerns since the Daniel Brandt affair. I say funnily enough because my involvement with the Irfan Yusuf article, where I put lots of effort into dealing with BLP issues, seems to be one of the things you hold against me, because you think I didn't do quite enough, in some way that isn't clear to me. PPS Do you have some secret dislike of Grundle? You're certainly doing a good job of helping him avoid facing the actual issue and taking responsibility for his actions. Rd232 ^talk 10:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And lest it still isn't clear, that action was the seemingly deliberate attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for embarrassing a BLP subject by linking her family with one of her political positions, despite the fact that the two clearly have nothing to do with each other (pre-1981 personal decisions, 2009 climate change policy). If this link had been made by an external source, it would still be problematic to include it, but if the issue became enough of a matter of public debate, it would end up being included. It seems that Grundle was deliberately attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to ignite such a debate, which would then ultimately justify its inclusion. This is the ultimate BLP no-no. The fact that Grundle subsequently only cited linking sources post-dating his post, along with a celebration of the fact that his attempt to use Wikipedia in this way appeared to have been successful, is why I felt the incident was egregious enough to merit a block. I reached for indef because of the prior history, but was open to the community wanting to give him another chance. It seems not initially, and he hasn't done himself any favours with his responses. Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That whole article is improperly sourced and has been edited by the subject herself, apparently, so it's being used for promotion. If noting that she has two children while she's advocating for a one child policy is embarassing that's hardly Grundle's fault. The only thing egregious about the incident is the way you and other editors used to hound a fellow editor. And for the record it's a conservative commentator, so accusing Grundle of bias when he tries to balance the fluffy bullshit propaganda pushed by those stalking him hardly seems cause for outrage. There are innaccuracies all over this encyclopedia and all kinds of grotesque distortions. You should try to help Grundle in getting them addressed instead of hammering him for being the nail that's sticking up while pointing out the problems. If you had worked with him on fixing that article (as was done already to some extent well before you blocked him, the issue was resolved) we could have had a good outcome instead of all this disruption and time wastage. It's just like your ANI thread going after me because I disagreed with you. Don't be a bully. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, thanks. For the record, I am glad that the article Larry Craig scandal exists. I am an inclusionist. I never erase well sourced material that people add to articles, and I never vote to delete articles. And those editors who advoctate banning and blocking me? I would never advocate banning or blocking them. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I have made, and been denied, three unblock requests in just a few days means that I need to think more about how to go about this, and wait some time before I make another request. I am willing to have a ban against all political articles from all countries, if it means I can go back to editing other articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure you could work out something like that but then again, I'm not certain that it is what you really want. I still see at least a small chance for you to get to edit political articles again if you you just could leave the past be gone and acknowledge "some technical mistakes" you did then. You could "plead for probation" by acknowledging your past "technical" mistakes by heart and not only try to do better but committing to take on a mentor, of your choice of course. One editor already offered to do so a while ago, offering some of his/her time to assist you. But anyways, at the end it is your own choice which way you want to go. That's my best advise [sic] [just a little teaser for CoM as I'm sure he just loves it  :) ] I have for you; And yes, keep thinking; Think about which and what way you want it to be. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Yes, I could definitely use some time to think about this. Of course I'm referring to days or weeks, not decades or centuries! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

Polar bear states, "The global polar bear population, estimated to be 22,000-25,000 bears, is relatively stable.[104] However, in 2006, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) upgraded the polar bear from a species of Least Concern to a vulnerable species.[105]"

Please note that the second sentence starts out with the word "however," and is used to connect two different sources to each other. That's synthesis.

I'm the person who added the first sentence, and the source that I cited is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska. That's a legitimate source, and the link works.

I don't know who added the second sentence, but it wasn't me. The word "however" is synthesis. Also, the link in the second source to World Conservation Union no longer works.

I am not saying that the person who added the word "however" should be punished. On the contrary, I am certain they made a good faith effort to improve the article. My point is that using a conjunctive word to connect two statements from two separate sources is a common thing in everyday life, so I would expect to see it a lot at wikipedia. It does not mean that anyone should be punished.

Someone should add a tag to that second source saying the link no longer works.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know polar bears don't fall under the BLP policy. Still, if there is something "wrong" it can and will be at some point corrected. But what exactly has this to with your other edits? I'm not even have to bother to check this article out since othercrapexist doesn't make any difference to your case. You should now this and a whole lot more by now. Don't you think that pointing out other potential mistakes is only weaken your case? You really should stop doing this and address your own case which is the only way for you to get out of this "mess". Right now you're just digging your own hole deeper as we speak.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are saying that the policy against synthesis only applies to BLP articles. I was not aware of that. Thanks for telling me. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Facepalm No, that's not what's being said, and it's a stretch to claim that. BLPs are more strict on SYN than other articles, and the entire discussion of your behavior has been about BLP concerns. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line

The bottom line is that the synthesized edit you made was problematic. Clearly there are all sorts of edits made like that all the time and whole articles pushing POVs, but you're a high profile editor whose viewpoints aren't popular here and you have numerous stalkers. So even though the edit was fixed and you were open to compromise and revisions, your history was sufficient for RD232 to get away with justifying an indefinite block. I agree that the double standards, the hypocrisy, the bullying, the incivility, and the censorship here are problematic, but you're not going to get away with even minor envelope pushing or point making. I think raising your issues at Wikipedia Review or other venues where they can be discussed collegially without the hounding and harassment might be interesting and useful. For whatever reason, there's not a good venue for that kind of discussion here. The automatons hide behind acronyms and "otherstuffexists" excuses when bias and other corrupting abuses are highlighted. Anyone who points out the corrosion is attacked by the POV pushers who favor the status quo. Whatever course you choose I wish you good luck and much happiness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, and thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tool use among cephalopods? [2]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the link to that article. I see that tool use redirects to tool use by animals, which is a great place to cite that. I also think cephalopod intelligence would be another great place. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find on the cephalopod intelligence article. I actually didn't see that and missed the whole Octopus intelligence section on my first pass! Isn't it fun what collegial collaboration and cooperation reveal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone beat us to it and already added it to the Octopus article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad they added it. Of course something like that could be cited in multiple articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I added it a couple places including the cephalopod IQ article you noted here. It looks a bit stagey to me actually. Why were the coconut shells split open? And I don't know if that's really tool use. But I like the video of it "running". And it is an interesting thing to consider the amazing abilities of creatures with much different nervous systems, smaller brains, and so completely different anatomical set-ups. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job. The coconuts were opened by humans for food, and then the empty shells were tossed overboard. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore exaggerates the earth's interior temperature by three orders of magnitude.

National Review and Newsbusters report that when Al Gore was on NBC's "The Tonight Show" last month, he said that the center of the earth is "several million degrees." And they have it on video to prove it.

Given that Gore's work on global warming has won a Nobel Prize, an Oscar, a Grammy, and an Emmy, this is quite an error for him to make.

Someone should add this error to Al Gore#Alleged_scientific_errors.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Does it serve any encyclopedic purpose to list every single utterance he makes that is wrong? A sampling of some of the wrong things he has said may be useful to show his lack of scientific understanding, but at some point it becomes unimportant to list everything of this nature. --Jayron32 21:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Given all those awards that he won for his work on global warming, this particular error is highly notable. It shows how ignorant he is when it comes to science and the earth's temperature. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I've enquired at WP:ANI as to the possibility of revoking Grundle's talkpage access. Crafty (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I feel sorry for you for having such a desire. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Grundle, it's a pain that never ends. But be of good cheer! Wehwalt told me to stick my suggestion up my runter. :) Crafty (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to post on my talk page whenever you like. I do not hold any hatred toward you over what you tried to do to me. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you didn't resort to sources such as "NewsBusters" (an offshoot of Media Research Center, or "The Epicenter of Right-wing Bias") for your references, you wouldn't have got into this sort of trouble in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I do wish there was a better source that pointed this out - I did look for one. However, media bias is very real. For example, according to Fox News, Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to fact check Sarah Palin's book, but never assigned anyone to fact check either of Obama's books. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides, like I said, you can watch the video of him saying it. He really did say it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

At least if you were locked off your talk page, you'd be prevented from digging your hole any deeper. But it's your hole and your choice. PhGustaf (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Gore's alrticle already has a section for his scientific errors. Given all the awards he won for his work on global warming, why should this particular error not be included in that section? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above. There are already some mistakes he has made. In accordance with keeping the article well written, what mistake do you propose to remove to place this one in its stead? Why is this mistake more important than ones that are already listed there. --Jayron32 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

His error about the ice caps could be removed, because at least he cited another scientist as his source for that false claim. He didn't cite any source for his false claim about the temperature of the earth's core - he just made that information up out of thin air. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, by that standard I'm popular among thousands of Wikipedians! By the way, I invented Wikipedia.. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

F.U.. I invented WP, the internet and everything else used by everybody in their daily life! And you never paid me a dime.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you name anyone who is considered to be a more popular and more award winning person on the subject of global warming, than Al Gore? Or were you referring to something else? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"According to Fox News" - Same problem as NewsBusters. Also, the ENTIRE RIGHT-WING UNIVERSE fact-checked every character of Obama's books in the hope they could find something to discredit him. Sarah Palin's garbage poured out of her book pamphlet like a waterfall. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Fox News is considered to be a reliable source here at wikipedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is more nuanced than that. Fox News is only reliable for something Fox News says. You are deluded if you think that anything Fox News says is "reliable". They cannot even add up to 100! (see recent "polls") -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more than that, it depends on the specific piece, who wrote it, and what is being said. If Fox News reports that the temperature in Miami broke the old heat record, I think we can all trust that. Let's not forget that as political as it is, 90% of what Fox News reports is just straight news, not even about politics. An opinion contained in an editorial piece is unreliable, whether in Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or University of Virginia student newspaper. The dispute over sourcing Fox News is in the one specific area, where Fox commentators and news reporters seem to be injecting their own opinions and bias in things that are presented as straight reporting. Anyway, if you come back after a break as I hope you will, G2600, I hope you can begin to see sources and reliability that way, each one is a separate case. The rules are just that, rules, not a cookbook where you have to do everything the exact same way each time. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, this is the brazillionth time someone has explained something like this to you and you've responded "Thanks". Most all the time, you've ignored the explanation and pressed on regardless within a day. It's just not worth it rehashing everything tabula rasa with you every time. No response needed. PhGustaf (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Grundle, contuining to post things such as this in no way assures anyone that your behaviour will improve upon being unblocked, and reinforces the belief that your indef block was justified in the first place. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your absolutely right. But we can make a WP funpage out of this so whenever someone has nothing to say but crap we can refer him/her to here. Sorry Grundle, but I gave up on you.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Given that Gore won a Nobel Prize, an Oscar, a Grammy, and an Emmy for his work on global warming, how is this error on his part not notable? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the section on Gore's scientific errors has been removed from his article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem either incapable of "getting it", or at the very least seem loathe to do so. I don't think anyone explaining it again is going to do much. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that Gore won a Nobel Prize, an Oscar, a Grammy, and an Emmy for his work on global warming, how is this error on his part not notable? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even when I do cite sources such as Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., many of you have always managed to find some other excuse to erase the stuff that I add to articles - but only when it's critical of the political left. I haven't made many entries that were praiseful of Obama, but of those that I did, none of you ever erased any of them, or ever had any problem with any of them, such as this one and this one. I added those things a long time ago, and none of you erased them or had any problems with them. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough of fun. Don't think you wanna be that.

Careful, Grundle. Your talkpage might become the main page of this series. Just make "them" stop and get more serious if you want to survive.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what I think? I think that people who post stuff on the internet like to debate about politics, and that's why so many people are posting here right now. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But not all like to debate politics here on WP because it doesn't belong here. Although ok on talkpages, this is getting out of hand. Maybe not the wrong time but certainly the wrong place.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm posting here right now because I like rubbernecking. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on Scjessey. No need to rub it in his face.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• On the other hand: Do you want to survive here or do you prefer some non-existent fame somewhere else? That question I sincerely asking myself while reading all your responses. So which one is it? The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I want to survive here. My comment about being "famous" was sarcastic, because the blog I cited was one that I had never heard of before, and had found with either google or google news. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to survive here, you have to work at it. Try 1) reviewing the discussions around your various blocks and bans, concentrating on what you may have done wrong rather than who may have wronged you, and 2) studying WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and the other policies you've stumbled over. Forget Gore, politics, and coconuts for the duration. PhGustaf (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you people will like this edit I made to the Sarah Palin article.

Heh heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You made plenty of stupid edits (besides your good ones) so why should anyone care about this stupit one?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, and it criticizes the political right instead of the political left. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Left/right... who cares? Your edit didn't stand thus you could've learned from but you didn't.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you keep on going defending yourself...

...why don't you keep stating your opinion at freerepublic.com and similar as your last comments today just showed me that WP is just not the right place for you (and even freerepublic had to restrain you at some point) but neithertheless you get your opinion out there even so just to an one-sided audience. But hey, better than nothing and maybe you do get your 15 minutes of fame over there. Good luck, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But I still want to edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture. Let me come back with a ban on political articles from all countries. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to me but if you're willing to settle with this self-imposed restriction maybe you should do so by appealing your block again and laying out this proposal of yours. If you do so you should without doubt explaining that you will do so w/o any exceptions and accept any additional probation an admin might pose on you. It might be hard at the beginning but if you do "well" [no, your not a convict, lol] you might get some restrictions lifted little by little as long as you don't expect to much. That's just my thought on it but I guess it's a good one. To accomplish that is up to you and only up to you so listen to when an admin seems willing to change your block and just ignore editors who seem to give you advise but at the same time complain and bitch about things. Good luck and see you tomorrow, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it might work too. But I'd like to wait a while before making the request, because I've already made three such requests and had them declined in just a few days. I'll take a cooling off period, get some wikirest, and hopefully come back in a way that won't get me disciplined again. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak (from my talk page)

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout (duplicate section)

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wiki Dramaout

Thanks JCbot, your timing is impeccable.

The above comment, which is hilarious, was made by Throwaway85, who made the honest mistake of forgetting to sign it. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm back from my talk page wikibreak!

And I sure feel refreshed!

Yeah - the message and timing from that "no drama" bot are hilarious!

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 has contradcited his own rules.

I see that Rd232, the administraotr who indefinitely blocked me, is now trying to block ChildofMidnight (the editor who most opposed my block) from participating in ANI discussions that don't concern him. That's very wrong - the whole purpose of ANI is to let people participate in discussions that don't concern them.

I also see that at the time Rd232 blocked me, he was claiming to be on a wikibreak that was going to last at least until January 1, 2010. And he even set up wikibreak enforcer to enforce his break.

I also see that when Rd232 made this edit to Cuban Five, he commented, "rv deletion of sourced and relevant material. If you don't like it, try rewriting it."

I agree with Rd232's comment 100%.

However, Rd232's comment completely contradicts edits that he (and his legitimate sock, Disembrangler, which he uses on public computers) made where he deleted sourced and relevant material at Economy of Venezuela, such as in this edit, where he erased all of the following well sourced content:

"A January 22, 2008 Associated Press article reported that Chavez had ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela, and that Chavez had also threatened to seize the property of farmers who sold food at prices that exceeded the government's price controls. "

"A June 20, 2009 article in the Washington Post reported on Chávez's policy of redistributing farmland. Chávez has seized many large farms from their owners. Although Chávez allows small farmers to work the land, he did not give them title to the land, and they are often required to work as part of a collective. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state." Because of this collectivization, the income that a farmer receives does not correspond to the amount of work that he does. Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under collective ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. Nearly five years after the start of the land redistribution program, the country is now more dependent on food imports than ever before. Production of primary foods such as beef, rice, sugar cane, and milk have fallen. Carlos Machado, an agriculture expert at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies in Caracas, stated, "If there is a word to describe all this, it is 'stagnant'... The government policy to increase the crop production in the country is a complete failure." Felicia Escobar, a lawyer and consultant on land issues who used to work for the Agriculture Ministry, said of this farm collectivization, "That is socialism... It did not work before, and it does not work now." One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture.""

"Because of Chavez's criticsm and legal attacks against the productive members of his country, the country has been experienceing a substantial brain drain. Between 2000 and 2007, Venezuelan immigration to the U.S. has gone up more than 5,000%. Doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, business owners, software developers, advertising account executives, scientists, classical musicians, and lawyers have been fleeing the country and heading to the U.S. Of this brain drain, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily declared, "Our gain is Venezuela's loss. These newcomers represent the human capital of Venezuela, something that Chavez, grounded in Marxist materialism, can't understand. He views these talented people as political pawns — traitors... Chavez talks a lot about Venezuela being a rich country, and extols its vast oil wealth. But the human capital he is throwing out is far more valuable... He's throwing away his country's biggest treasure.""

(I see that two of those three links no longer work right now - but that wasn't why Rd232 deleted them. At the time I added them and he deleted them, all three links worked.)

So, Rd232 says that you're not supposed to delete relevant, well sourced material, which is a statement that I agree with. But when I added relevant, well sourced material that was critical of Hugo Chavez, he deleted it.

Either a person is against deleting relevant, well sourced material, or they're not. By deleting that relevant, well sourced material about Hugo Chavez, Rd232 is contradicting his own claim that relevant, well sourced material should not be deleted.

I am against blocking or banning Rd232.

However, I do think that Rd232 needs to start following his own rules.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite get it. You said "But I still want to edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture. Let me come back with a ban on political articles from all countries." Is this a real proposal, or wiki-kabuki? If it's real, why would you ever start this section? Hipocrite (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He's the admin who blocked me, and I think he abused his power, in order to prevent the addition of material that is critical of Chavez. And now he wants to block the person who most defended me too. And he contradicted his own rules. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While he removed much of the info about the government harassment of farmers, the same article now blames the food shortages on "drought." In every country where the government harasses farmers, the resulting food shortages are always blamed on "drought" or "bad weather," whether it be in North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, Ethiopia, or East Germany. Funny how South Korea (a country where the government does not harass farmers) never has the "bad weather" that afflicts North Korea. It's also funny how Israel, a country with frequent drought, never has a food shortage, because the government there does not harass farmers. Blaming food shortages on "drought" is nothing other than an attempt to hide the real cause of the food shortages. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits is never an abusive of authority, as no authority is required. Composing diatribes against the admin who blocked you is quite counter-productive, as your previous diatribes have only solidified consensus that the block was necessary. I already outlined the way for you to compose a successful Arbcom request. Edits such as this indicate that you are more interested in disruption than in contributing to the project in a meaningful and approppriate manner. Continued attempts to sow discord on your talk page are likely to result in your talk page being protected. Tread softly. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments are not disruptive. Either it's OK for editors to remove relevant, well sourced material, or it's not. I think that one reason Rd232 blocked me was to prevent me from adding that info back into the article. Why else would he delete it, but tell someone else that they shouldn't delete relevant, well sourced material? That's totally contradictory. I also have a right to complain about Rd232 trying to ban ChildofMidnight (the person who argued the strongest against my block) from ANI. In both of these cases, it seems that Rd232 wants to apply the rules differently to different editors. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Such simplistic, tendentious arguments do nothing to enhance the general perception of your value to the project. And by the by, in my opinion CoM's involvement in this episode has been a net detriment to your interests. The reasons for the proposed temporary ANI ban for CoM (which explicitly excluded current threads) were made clear there. Rd232 ^talk 21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to censor opinions that you disagree with. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

These content issues were discussed at excessive length first at Talk:Hugo Chavez, where you sought to make very similar changes; and that discussion included an RFC. In June I referred you to Agriculture in Venezuela, which I created, as a better place to go into detail. The fact that you haven't edited Economy of Venezuela or its talk page since June, and never edited Agriculture in Venezuela, says everything we need to know about the present relevance of this content issue. Rd232 ^talk 21:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's OK for editors to delete relevant, well sourced content from articles, or not? Why are you trying to ban ChildofMidnight (the person who argued the strongest against my block) from ANI? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe I'm coming back here again, but Grundle, are you under the notion that people are wishing to block CoM because of his support for you? I can assure you that that isn't the case; many feel that his presence in policy discussions is simply atrocious and extremely detrimental to any process in which he becomes involved in. It has nothing to do with you. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that people have other objections to his actions besides that. Thank you for this comment where you said, "Disagree with #4, as it sounds like the "user X shall not interact with user Y" type of restriction that ArbCom loves to hand down. This sort of wiki-restraining order is just ridiculous..." Grundle2600 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep this up and you won't be back. Viridae^Talk 21:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that administrators like to block people who ask legitimate questions? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but people whose sole aim appears to be to disrupt and annoy don't get much sympathy. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not my aim. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My aim is to write great articles at wikipedia. Here is a very long list of articles that I started. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If your aim is to write articles, rather than disrupt, you're gonna need to completely change your methods. Right now, you sound like one of those political pundits who "just ask questions..." but the questions are so badly slanted & loaded with charged words, it's like you're looking for a "gotcha!" answer. You need to drop that approach if you want to regain good will of other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's been pretty clearly spelled out to Grundle many times now. It's up to him to prove that he wants to be a productive editor. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Most Earth-Like Extrasolar Planet Found Right Next Door" but I'm blocked and can't create the article!

GJ 1214b is red as I type this, but I can't create the article because I am blocked. Wired magazine: "Most Earth-Like Extrasolar Planet Found Right Next Door" Grundle2600 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Too late, the article was created about an hour ago. GJ 1214 b (it has a space before the b). - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I'm glad someone else had already created it before I found out about it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15