User talk:Boba Fett TBH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not scholarly?[edit]

Chomsky's work does not count as scholarly? Are you serious? I mean, I'm sure you do not share this opinion, but I don't understand it. On what possible basis do people raise such objections? Also, I can't use his source, since it's primary. LudicrousTripe (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I use primary sources all the time. Im just saying you should cover all your bases so your work doesn't get deleted by certain users looking for a reason.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Roger that. LudicrousTripe (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. From reviewing your contributions it is clear that this is the latest sockpuppet account of Horhey420 (talk · contribs). I've also spotted several instances of copyright violations in the material you added, as well as sustained POV-pushing (which are why the Horhey420 account was blocked in the first place). 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.  Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What? I received a message about this on your talk page earlier:

Hello Nick-D, I am highly certain, that editor Boba Fett TBH, currently editing on Contras, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, Vietnam war pages and others, is a Sock-puppet of Horhey420. What do think? Regards, Stumink (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stumink, I've been through that editor's contributions and compared them to Horhey's, and I agree that it's clearly him. I have blocked the account, and thank you for raising this. Per the usual procedures all of their edits can and should be reverted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look at his previous edits. Stumink (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, look at that. I wasn't surprised it came from him. Then I just noticed now that you only reverted my edits on political issues and didn't care about anything else. Now you accuse me of POV pushing and copyright...what? No, I don't think so. You're clearly on a crusade. That's why MR POV HIMSELF- Stumink (talk) went to YOU. Judging by your history, "THEY" always go to YOU. It's POV because you don't like what it says. That's why you've blocked me for sockpupettry.

These are your Non POV peoples: CJK (talk), Stumink (talk), 88.104.209.126 (talk)

They are good editors. No problems. So what if they spend all day, every day whitewashing people's solidly sourced work because it's embarrassing for the U.S. government. If the content is embarrassing for the U.S. government it's POV by definition. That's why it's an ok thing to do.

Demonstrate my POV pushing would you please. The most aggressive editors have tried and failed. If they can't do it but you still think you can then you're even more extreme than they are. It's not POV pushing. It's filling in history that has not been included. Now I guess I know why. I put it there because it's not there and it should be. Have a good one.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You said this about the Phoenix program page:

(revert to July version to remove material added by a block evading editor. This material is likely infested with copyright violations, as well as POV pushing)

You're going to get yourself in trouble. I wrote all that. That's all me. Not even 88.104.209.126 (talk) will agree with you that it's POV because the rules wouldn't allow it. You don't even know what the Phoenix Program is if you think that's POV.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people are going to see you as a censor.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D Copyright Violation[edit]

In the process of reverting my work you violated copyright rules even though my edit summary says: "Removed POV/Cut and Paste and replaced it." You're so concerned about imagined copyright violations but you apparently don't care much about the real ones that are almost the size of a news article. How long has that been sitting there? You can't say you didn't notice it. Besides my edit summary pointing it out, users over at the Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt page spotted it and removed it as I did. You insult me, saying all my work is POV, reflexively agreeing with the users listed above but even going further than them.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't violate no fuckin copyright. You lie. I hope you don't act this way in person with people. Fuckin right I'm pissed. Who's gonna ban you now motherfucker?--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Even after I point this out I somehow seriously doubt you will take the time to delete that Copyvio. This has never been about copyvio. You don't like that I can school all you motherfuckers. I'm a threat. I've read too many books. You don't want none of that here. That's what this is. You can't beat me in the talk pages so you beat me with this bullshit. Fuck yourselves.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Another Nick-D Copyright Violation[edit]

Despite my edit summary stating that I was ""Fixing blatant cut and paste", Nick-D (talk) still went ahead and knowingly reverted it back to it's copyright violation form

What was the violation? It's in the Lead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Foreign_Intelligence_Assistance_Program

That's why you're a piece of shit.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Nick-D/Thoughts on Political Extremism (Only on the Left in His Mind Presumably)[edit]

"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."

Someone sure does have an "axe to grind" against people just trying fill in missing history. Not out of hate for a country but for the knowledge and understanding that is essential.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at this..

CJK just had an orgasim[edit]

I have just blocked this editor as they were clearly a sockpuppet account belonging to a blocked editor. Per the usual way of handling such situations, all of their contributions can, and probably should, be reverted. I've found several copyright violations in the material added by the Boba Fett TBH account in various articles, and this was one of the main reasons the parent account was blocked. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D, for vindicating my well-grounded suspicions here. :CJK (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Case in point. Almost seems like they might kiss if they could. You both are full of shit. There you go CJK (talk). Rejoice in your victory as your illusion of the holy state that you so desperately protect lives on. Burn all the poisonous books!--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Stumink got what he wanted[edit]

Stumink (talk) spent all that time trying and failing to remove my work so he used the nuclear option and here we are. Good old Nick D ready get his hands dirty for the whitewashers.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More of Stumink (talk)'s efforts at damage control for the holy state. Check the one with the 600 letters that says "(POV. This is discussed below.)". So what was POV? The Pentagon Papers. Still don't know what he meant when said "This is discussed below." Below where? He was just hoping I wouldn't revert.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Added to this:

Hello Nick-D, I am highly certain, that editor Boba Fett TBH, currently editing on Contras, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, Vietnam war pages and others, is a Sock-puppet of Horhey420. What do think? Regards, Stumink (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stumink, I've been through that editor's contributions and compared them to Horhey's, and I agree that it's clearly him. I have blocked the account, and thank you for raising this. Per the usual procedures all of their edits can and should be reverted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look at his previous edits. Stumink (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dissecting my so called POV and Copyvio[edit]

Here's an example of my POV and copyright violations. Currently over at the Contra talk page, CJK (talk) is accusing me of "Malicious distortions" (breaking the assume good faith rule right in front you Mr Nick D and you say nothing) and I can't respond over there so I'll do it here. I'm sure it'll be seen by him as he drools over me being blocked. Here we go. I wrote this and I'm going to dissect the parts in contention.

From the outset, the Sandinistas had begun transitioning to a "mixed economy" that they said was based on development being governed by the "logic of the majority".[1] In the early 1980s, the World Bank privately noted that their projects were "extraordinarily successful in some sectors, better than anywhere else in the world".[2] The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) similarly observed in 1983 that Nicaragua was "laying a solid foundation for long-term socio-economic development". As a result, Nicaragua's social reforms were deemed as a "threat of a good example" by the United States. The phrase was coined as the title of a report on Nicaragua by the charitable development agency Oxfam, which observed that "from Oxfam's experience of working in seventy-six developing countries, Nicaragua was to prove exceptional in the strength of that Government's commitment...to improving the condition of the people and encouraging their active participation in the development process".[3] This noted progress was the basis for Washington to regard the Nicaraguan model as a destabilizing influence for the entire region. Secretary of State George Shultz warned, in March 1986, that if the Sandinistas "succeed in consolidating their power," then "all the countries in Latin America, who all face serious internal economic problems, will see radical forces emboldened to exploit these problems".[4] "Nicaragua is the cancer, and we must cut it out," he said.[5] Shultz described the cancer as an "alien ideology".[6]

Ok, this is what the BBC News source says:

The Sandinistas had begun redistributing property and made notable progress in the sphere of education. But the US regarded them with suspicion, fearing their policies were hostile to American interests. Former Secretary of State George Schultz is reported to have warned, in March 1986, that if the Sandinistas "succeed in consolidating their power," then "all the countries in Latin America, who all face serious internal economic problems, will see radical forces emboldened to exploit these problems".

Hence, the domino theory.

Ok, from the AP News source:

Shultz said democracy is on the rise in Central America, and he cited El Salvador, Honduras and Guatelama. "Nicaragua is the odd man out. Nicaragua is the cancer, and we must cut it out," he said.

Ok, next part:

General John Galvin, leader of U.S. Southern Command, said the threat from Nicaragua was "ideological subversion", which would spread throughout Central America and beyond.[7]

From the Los Angeles Times source:

The Sandinistas would attack with ideological "subversion" rather than conventional warfare, and "You cannot contain that by putting military forces on their border."

And it's the domino theory again. Ok, next part:

There was also concern that Nicaragua could cause political instability for it's neighbors by training radical union and peasant leaders.[8] From 1983-1987, the U.S. military tried to deter social reform in Nicaragua by conducting routine "shows of force" maneuvers in neighboring Honduras and the Caribbean.[9]

From the The New York Times source:

As with other shows of force in the last four years, the maneuver in May is intended to deter the Sandinista Government in Managua from exporting its leftist ideology by maintaining what American officers have called a continuing presence in Honduras and the Caribbean.

Once more we have the domino theory. How do you export ideology? By example. Next:

In 1987, the Honduran president's chief of staff complained there wasn't a wall that could stop the "virus" from encouraging left-wing populism across borders. But "things could be worse", observed Wall Street Journal correspondent, Clifford Krauss. "Fortunately for the neighbors", the political left in Central America were on the decline since the early 1980's.[10][11]

From the Wall Street Journal source:

"We don't have a wall to stop Sandinista ideology or subversives," complains William Hall Rivera, the Honduran president's chief of staff. "It won't be a fight over land, but over minds." He adds: "We'll need a Marshall Plan." Things could be worse. Left wing movements in Central America have lost strength over the past few years, and revolution doesn't seem to be brewing in the region.

Ok, so there's the domino again, but left wing movements had been weakening since the early 80's, so don't anybody panic just yet. Next:

By 1985, the death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador had wiped out the trade unions and "popular" organizations that emerged in the late 1970's and early 80's.[12]

If anybody seriously doubted this then I don't what to say. From the London Spectator source:

The death squads did exactly what they were supposed to do: they decapitated the trade unions and mass organisations that seemed in danger of setting off an urban insurrection at the beginning of the decade. The army learnt its tricks at American counter-insurgency schools in Panama and the United States. "We learnt from you", a death squad member once told an American reporter, "we learnt from you the methods, like blowtorches in the armpits, shots in the balls." And political prisoners often insist they were tortured by foreigners, some Argentine, others maybe American.

Ok, next:

To that end, the United States became content with trying to stop the "cancer" from spreading by forcing the Sandinistas to divert scarce resources to the military and away from social programs.[13][14][15]

As was shown above, Shultz described Nicaragua as a "cancer" that would spread to "all the countries in Latin America, who all face serious internal economic problems" and would embolden "radical forces to exploit these problems." ie the left. Now it's called "radical populism". Look it up. From the Philadelphia Inquirer source:

The revised goal is not to topple the Sandinistas by force but to push them into increased domestic repression and to spend scarce currency on the military rather than social programs.

The Boston Globe source:

Administration officials said they are content to see the contras debilitate the Sandinistas by forcing them to divert scarce resources toward the war and away from social programs.

From the The Los Angeles Times source:

"Those 2,000 hard-core guys could keep some pressure on the Nicaraguan government, force them to use their economic resources for the military and prevent them from solving their economic problems--and that's a plus," [the Defense Department official] said. "Anything that puts pressure on the Sandinista regime, calls attention to the lack of democracy and prevents the Sandinistas from solving their economic problems is a plus."

Apparently, CJK (talk) would tolerate nothing less than word for word cut and paste and that still wouldn't be acceptable because he simply just wants to bury it all.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).