Misplaced Pages

User talk:Grundle2600: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:45, 13 December 2009 editTracyMcClark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,852 edits →No one who favors blocking or banning me has ever had the decency to answer my questions: Grundle, please...← Previous edit Revision as of 20:18, 13 December 2009 edit undoRd232 (talk | contribs)54,863 edits →Blocked: rNext edit →
Line 57: Line 57:
], the subject of the article for which I am blocked, chose to put on the internet, where she states that she has two children. She also chose to write 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. ] (]) 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC) ], the subject of the article for which I am blocked, chose to put on the internet, where she states that she has two children. She also chose to write 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. ] (]) 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


:The first edit on this issue was from you on 10 Dec 21:48. This is pure ]. 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


===No one who favors blocking or banning me has ever had the decency to answer my questions=== ===No one who favors blocking or banning me has ever had the decency to answer my questions===

Revision as of 20:18, 13 December 2009

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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 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 is asking that his block be reviewed:

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)

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=1) The administrator who blocked me claimed that I used synthesis. Actually, I cited , , and , 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) ], the subject of the article for which I am blocked, chose to put on the internet, where she states that she has two children. She also chose to write 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. ] (]) 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=1) The administrator who blocked me claimed that I used synthesis. Actually, I cited , , and , 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) ], the subject of the article for which I am blocked, chose to put on the internet, where she states that she has two children. She also chose to write 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. ] (]) 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=1) The administrator who blocked me claimed that I used synthesis. Actually, I cited , , and , 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) ], the subject of the article for which I am blocked, chose to put on the internet, where she states that she has two children. She also chose to write 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. ] (]) 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
  • 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 18:31, 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 20:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No one who favors blocking or banning me has ever had the decency to answer my questions

Since you people keep referring to my past behavior and my "long-term pattern of disruptive editing," I'd like repost these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. All of these questions are about Presidency of Barack Obama. 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 have ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions.

Here are my 7 questions, all of which are about Presidency of Barack Obama:

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Repeating this yet again won't help you at all but rather make the block final. You really should get over this! Leave it alone, look forward and only respond to the latest issue that emerged and got yourself blocked again. You're still would like to have a future here on WP since you made this clear on more than one occasion. Relax and acknowledge the rules. And yes, just for the edit in question you usually wouldn't have been blocked, although you just repeated the "icing of the cake" from your past mistakes.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Category: