User talk:SCIENCE MEANS REALITY

July 2014

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Dinesh D'Souza have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. We do not use Google search results as a source. As it stands, none of the sources for the article use the term money laundering. Posting this link in the infobox is improper. As this is a biography of a living person the greatest care must be exercised to do the article in accordance with WP policy. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Welcome![reply]

Hello, SCIENCE MEANS REALITY, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to America (2014 film) does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dinesh D'Souza. Thank you.Meters (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're new here, it seems...

Vandalism has a formal definition around here, and it's not what you seem to think it is. Threatening to report someone for vandalism when they did not vandalize is considered uncivil, and in some cases is a personal attack. Also, recognize that sometimes biographies and self published sources don't go together well the panda ₯’ 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I suggest you go to the WP:HELPDESK and ask if I am wrong. Say something like "please look at Talk:Vani Hari#Self Published Sources. I think it is proper to add certain material, but S. Rich says no." – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Vani Hari. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling another editor a pedantic fraud and saying he is lying are personal attacks. He's suggested an approach to use to resolve your different interpretations of policy. Try it. Meters (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks against another editor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’ 08:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

It's quite obvious this block is retaliatory in nature, in violation of policy, to prevent me from reporting the vandalism of another user or posting to WP:HELPDESK or WP:DR. As such the block should be lifted and I should be apologized to immediately for the abuse of admin authority and ridiculously long length of the abusive block.

Decline reason:

It's not obvious to me at all. What I see is a sensible and fully justified block imposed to prevent you from continuing to insult another editor of the site. Since the edits you're referring to are not vandalism (I suggest you read that link before you use the term again), any vandalism reports you might file would be a waste of everyone's time, so arguing that you should be unblocked to allow you to do this is futile. If anything, your appeal suggests to me that Dangerous Panda has been rather lenient in only blocking you for 48 hours: you should either moderate your approach to dealing with other editors or expect the next block to be substantially longer. Yunshui ^雲 _水 2:01 pm, Today (UTC+1)

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.

Whilst you are perfectly entitled to raise another unblock request, and to have it reviewed by a different administrator, please do not remove declined unblock templates from your userpage. Doing so is a violation of the user page policy. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove your nonsensical reply, I was editing my own request to show the portion of policy that was violated and hit save. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further it's obvious to me that you didn't even bother looking at the situation where a user has engaged in widespread content-blanking (which IS covered under the definition of vandalism, "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"). They suggested I take it to the "helpdesk", but I was given no chance to see or respond to that message until, HOURS LATER, the admin blocked in an entirely retaliatory, punitive, against-policy manner. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" is definitely vandalism. Since Srich was in fact trying to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, his removals were not vandalism.

You are allowed to disagree with him. What you're not allowed to do is accusing him of lying, being a fraud, not acting in good faith and vandalising Wikipedia. I'm not sure accusations of pedantry count as insults here - "pedantic" is probably a compliment to most Wikipedians. Until you can demonstrate a commitment to editing collegiately alongside other editors, without flying off the handle and throwing baseless accusations and insults, you are unlikley to find a sympathetic ear to hear your unblock appeal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

It's quite obvious this block is retaliatory in nature, in violation of policy, to prevent me from reporting the vandalism of another user or posting to WP:HELPDESK or WP:DR. Further, the block was placed long hours after any discussions or responses had occurred, while I was in fact ASLEEP; this also shows that the block was intended not to be within the scope of policy but simply as a retaliatory, vindictive attack: "Blocks should not be used:

in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; as punishment against users; or where there is no current conduct issue of concern."

. As such the block should be lifted and I should be apologized to immediately for the abuse of admin authority and ridiculously long length of the abusive block.

Decline reason:

Nope, the block is obviously not retaliatory or vindictive; since you insist on attacking other editors even in your unblock request, the block is justified to prevent you from continuing these attacks: the current conduct issue of concern remains of concern. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Against Corrupt Blocks

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).

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

Request reason:

"since you insist on attacking other editors even in your unblock request" - Since when is showing that people have violated policy "attacking other editors"? I see the lies continue. The block is retaliatory, vindictive, and completely outside of policy. It is not designed to address any ongoing concern but instead to interfere with my pursuance of dispute resolution regarding an editor misrepresenting policies and engaging in content-blanking vandalism.

Decline reason:

I concur with the comments of the previous two admins. This is a wholly justified block, and you are very lucky that it was not made longer. If you are unable to modify your attitude then the next block, should one be deserved on the basis of your future behavior, will be significantly longer. I did consider taking your comment about "corrupt" blocks as a personal attack, but will on this occasion not do so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Vindictive"? I know not who you are. I do not believe we have edited the same articles, nor have we interacted - how can this block be "vindictive" or "harassment"? Personally, that's just an accusation that also borders on a personal attack the panda ₯’ 19:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Please take these 2 days to study how Wikipedia and its community of editors work. The best place for you is the policy page section titled WP:BATTLEFIELD. At the bottom of the page are two navigation boxes that will give you links to other important policies and guidelines. In the See also section, you will see links to various essays. I hope you will benefit from reading this material. – S. Rich (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were really interested in good-faith editing you wouldn't have gone running to get an illegitimate block placed on me as a form of harassment, @Srich32977. It's clear to me that your goal is not to follow policy or edit in good faith, just to harass people who object to your content blankings. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you digging the hole for yourself even deeper. Consider that several editors and administrators have tried to get you to change your attitude. Are all of these people wrong? If so, then you will not be happy because each comment about lack of good faith, illegitimate blocks, corrupt blocks, harassment, etc. will result in longer blocks and ultimately an indefinite block. – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The beatings will continue until morale improves" - thanks for just confirming you're not here for good faith with your threats. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Srich32977's comment as a threat. It's more of a warning of what you can probably expect if you keep on this way. We've been polite, fair, and as helpful as possible. It's not a particularly long block. I suggest that at this point you should chalk it up to experience and just put up with it. Meters (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you indefinitely for your unrepentant comments, violations of the WP:BLP policy, abuse of the unblock template, and repeated unwarranted attacks against others. Dreadstar ☥ 07:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again...

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).

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

Request reason:

The block is completely outside of policy. I have done NOTHING BUT ADVOCATE THAT WIKIPEDIA POLICY BE FOLLOWED AND THAT BLANKING VANDALISM NOT BE ALLOWED.

Decline reason:

I'm declining your unblock, because you seem to have an overly confrontational approach. For example, WRITING WORDS IN CAPITAL LETTERS makes it look like you're shouting. Also, accusing admins of being 'corrupt' really isn't helping your case. In my opinion, before you can be unblocked, you need to acknowledge that it would be possible, and indeed preferable, to present your views in a more diplomatic manner. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It is beyond ridiculous to watch the level of corrupt abuse shown by administrators to this page when people are called on misrepresentations of policy.

In the case of Vani Hari, there is a user who has been blanking content from the article wholesale. They claim it is a "BLP Violation" to link to articles written by Vani Hari as proof of the specific pseudoscientific theories Hari advocates for. They also claim it is a "BLP Violation" to link to the articles written by actual experts in the field of food and medicine who write articles specifically addressing Ms. Hari and her claims.

This is patently ridiculous and in NO WAY supported by policy, and yet I have been subjected to a continued campaign of harassment on the hands of corrupt users and administrators for trying to stop blanking vandalism on wikipedia. They should be ashamed of themselves.SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PER WP:SPS WP:ABOUTSELF

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; Showing that Ms. Hari has advocated directly for pseudoscientific theories such as Masaru Emoto's "water crystal" theory and junk science attacks on microwave oven technology is not exceptional.

it does not involve claims about third parties; As Ms. Hari claims to be an expert about food and an 'investigator', and she is making claims about nutrition, she is not making claims about third parties but about herself and her beliefs

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; It is a self-published source from Ms. Hari, who is an "advocate" by her own words; it is directly related to her line of work as an "advocate"

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; There is none

the article is not based primarily on such sources. The article is not.

The sources and information were 100% in line with WP:ABOUTSELF policy despite others trying to misrepresent policy and say otherwise. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to make a determination here, having done so once already. But please be advised, again, that it is your definition of vandalism - at variance with the accepted definition here - which is causing much of your difficulty. Until you can accept this I see little prospect of an unblock.

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." - per WP:VANDALISM. Content blanking to compromise the integrity of wikipedia, removing well-written information that is wholly within policy, is vandalism. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have to err on the side of caution with WP:BLP's, therefore blanking something that appears unacceptable is not vandalism. The first time it was removed, you were REQUIRED to follow WP:BRD, not undo the removal. Your personal interpretation of the rules is incorrect, but even if it WAS correct, [[WP:BRD] still needs to be followed ... so you're wrong either way the panda ₯’ 20:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After four unsuccessful unblock requests it's probably time to read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Meters (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears, despite your attempts to block people from contributing to the article and WP:OWN it, at least one person's taken notice of the content blanking and understands the policies better than you do. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the inappropriate and unjustified use of WP:BLP policy in this matter has also been a problem. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_%22BLP!%22

"Egregiousness must exceed involvement for involved administrator action.

It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter, even if you've recently edited that same article. It's not OK to block someone for citing the Washington Post in a matter with which you disagree."

Dreadstar's actions clearly violate this premise; he inappropriately used his powers in order to shut down even debate on perfectly valid WP:V sources from a talk page. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to Dreadstar's inappropriate misrepresentations of the content he deleted from the history of Talk:Vani_Hari, which included my analysis of WP:ABOUTSELF applicability similar to my re-creation of it above. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I still object strongly to the way I have been treated. I feel that the actions taken against me are a gross violation of policy and have been in violation of WP:BLOCK per "Blocks should not be punitive", "Blocks should not be used: in retaliation against users;", "Blocks should not be used:as punishment against users;", and "When blocking may not be used: Cool-down blocks". I also have strong feelings about misrepresentations of policy that have occurred in this case that resulted in the weakening, not strengthening, of wikipedia articles. HOWEVER. I will accept that I should have chosen my words more carefully and will try to do so in the future.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock and turning it into a LTA CU Block due to Checkuser evidence. Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.