User talk:S0mewhat Damaged05
United States and state-sponsored terrorism
[edit]The material you added is more appropriate to the United States and state terrorism. You can copy the material from here and re-add it there. Regards. Rupert loup (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I moved the material to Talk:United States and state terrorism#El Salvador, please join the discussion. Or you can become an autoconfirmed user WP:AUTOCONFIRM and add the content by yourself. Regards. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)}}
S0mewhat Damaged05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wrong person. S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I even displayed most of it line by line and this person calls it "POV pushing".
See:
--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
From Nick-D (talk)'s talk page:
- Horhey
I'm pretty sure the the editor named S0mewhat Damaged05 on United States and state terrorism is a sock-puppet of Horhey. The type of info he has added about El Salvador and Phoenix program is virtually identical to what Horhey and his sock-puppets added. Stumink (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's pretty clearly them. I've blocked the account, and thanks for notifying me. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Stumink (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Even ignoring the possible block evasion your content largely wasn't based on the given references, at times not even on the references explicitly cited for a specific statement, or the references were not relevant to the topic at hand. See WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. And yes, creating your own tale out of sources that don't support it can indeed be POV pushing. Huon (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2015 (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.
S0mewhat Damaged05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can I get a CU please?--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've done nothing to address the reason why you are blocked. I'm removing your lengthy screen from below, as soapboxing is an inappropriate use of your talk page while blocked. If you continue to soapbox, I'll remove your talk page access as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:10, 1 July 2015 (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.
S0mewhat Damaged05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Nick-D is biased against my materials. That is not a legitimate reason for a permanent block for which I am confident he intends to enforce.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That's hardly a persuasive reason to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2015 (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.
This is probably why a lot of people sock puppet
[edit]As I suspected. It is clear that it is next to impossible to get unblocked even though the rule says "indefinitely does not mean forever". Actually it does if a biased administrator says so and none of his counterparts are willing to overturn his block, and even come up with excuses not to. Nick-D is biased against my materials, more so than any user. Exhibit A:
- Horhey
- I'm pretty sure the the editor named S0mewhat Damaged05 on United States and state terrorism is a sock-puppet of Horhey. The type of info he has added about El Salvador and Phoenix program is virtually identical to what Horhey and his sock-puppets added. Stumink (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's pretty clearly them. I've blocked the account, and thanks for notifying me. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Stumink (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Not because he's right wing. Attention: Huon (talk), Vanamonde93 (talk), C.J. Griffin (talk), Valenciano (talk), Rupert loup (talk). I say again, "In Nick-D's effort to be objective, he makes charges of "POV pushing" very loosely. He seems to think that when the words "terror", "domino", "imperialism", "repression" and the like are connected to the U.S. government, it is automatically POV pushing, regardless of what the source says. He does this to discourage others from using the sources because he knows that technically, it is not POV pushing according to Wikipedia rules, only according to himself, so he can't stop them from doing it. Exhibit B:
Wikipedia is really bad at dealing with clever POV-pushers. Editors with an axe to grind and a bunch of cherry-picked sources tend to get away with it unless they use outright bad sources or are grossly uncivil. This means that political extremists are often allowed to edit almost unimpeded despite clear problems with the material they're adding. Similarly, aggressive disruptive editors often get away with their behavior as they're considered too much trouble too block.
In other words, Wikipedia rules don't go far enough to satisfy his POINT OF VIEW on what POV pushing is! Thus he imposes his own personal definition of POV pushing when he can get away with it, which is hypocrisy on his part because doing so is POV pushing in of itself.
The materials that I added - all of them - are banned, meaning that if any new member tries to use them, the same will happen to them, sock or not. This also means that this history is banned because if no current members have done it yet than it will likely never be done at all. And that's the idea. I really believe that. -Defense rests.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Grinding my axe with another one of Nick-D's "cherry picked sources", i.e. sources he doesn't like
[edit]If you are an administrator and you feel nothing but contempt for this sort of research then maybe you shouldn't have the power to decide what comes in and out. A sample of my "cherry picked sources".
Vanamonde93 (talk), C.J. Griffin (talk), Valenciano (talk), Rupert loup (talk)
Just in case some of you didn't read this before you passed judgement. I could or should have just relied on this to tell the story of the death squad strategy of eliminating the popular "front organizations":
So plainly POV pushing by default, and therefore intolerable. A clear sign of "political extremism." You're supposed to keep these things to yourself.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I somewhat understated the case. After absorbing all this could any of you have written it differently? I know Nick-D's answer is "I just wouldn't have written it all so I wouldn't appear to have an axe to grind." He did essentially tell me to censor myself before. Quote:
"You also appear to be POV pushing: your edits have consistently been to add material critical of US foreign policy, often from what appear to be cherry picked sources (I'm no fan of US foreign policy myself, but it's quite possible to write about it neutrally, and there are lots of excellent references available)."
"Cherry picked sources" are sources that he doesn't like and hence it is POV pushing. The "excellent references" are sources that he does like, which of course is not POV pushing because he says so. He is wrong and he is BIASED. Period.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Using a quote box is not permission to copy-paste at will. A link to the source will do. Please do not re-add that copyright violation. Huon (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)