User talk:Unicorn76: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:12, 11 October 2010

Gaza "Holocaust" controversy

hey, what do you think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_17 your input is appreciated

I've been traveling, have put my post up.Unicorn76 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Your recent POV and disruptive edits to Democracy Now! and Domestic policy of Evo Morales were both marked as minor edits. This was inappropriate, since you were inserting biased/POV language that would obviously cause disagreement with other editors. Please see WP:MINOR for when it is appropriate to mark edits as minor. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting without discussion, you are are the one doing Disruptive.--Unicorn76 (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of disruption are unnecessary and unhelpful all round. Please acknowledge that you erroneously marked two edits as minor [1] [2], and use the talk page more to propose changes, with sources. If you get WP:consensus in advance for your edits, then you can complain about reversion. Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should be talking to JR, if there was no one replying after a reasonable legnth of time that correction is acceptible.Unicorn76 (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Also, it is reasonable to make a proposed edit if no-one objects, but it is unreasonable to keep reverting it without discussion when multiple people undo it subsequently. This is called edit warring. Rd232 ^talk 12:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UGAdawgs2010 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 01:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Unicorn76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I read the complaint because I defend Fox News, several people are doing the same. So I don't see why I am being singled out. I have to wonder if it is more my contest the Evo Morales page. i checked UGA Dawgs page different contributions and the grammer is different not to mention I don't use profanity

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 06:21, 1 September 2010 (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.

{{Unblock|there is no corelation to the sock puppet and me. I checked the user I am accused of being of accused of: UGA Dwags there is no similarities in any area. I check editing history no similarities. I have never replied to this Summer}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

There are enough similarities to raise concerns, however, at this point the CU status shows you as being likely unrelated. Beware of WP:UNDUE - especially when it comes to Fox. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be congenial, and not a battleground

Request handled by: (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank youUnicorn76 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I have asked an admin to officially notify you about the discretionary sanctions that cover issues related to the Israel-Palestine conflict so that you are aware of them. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an explanation Roland R started an altercation with me. i put on the talk page saying why I though George Galloway should have the description of anti Israeli with a link so what is the problem? thanksUnicorn76 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland R did not start an altercation with you. The problem was you adding the personal opinion "seems to support violence and excuse terrorism " about a living person on a Wikipedia talk page. It's a BLP violation and it was quickly removed. Being aware of the discretionary sanctions and complying with them increases your chances of being able to continue to edit Wikipedia. It's a good thing and in your interests. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one if you check Fox News sight you will see Slate as one of the footnotes which I used on Michael moore. Also if you go the talk pages you will see plenty of POV, are any of those users blocked?Unicorn76 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel enforcement decision notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Chaser (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying not to be dense but is the situation anything article that has a reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can t be posted on? Because I posted on George Galloway.Unicorn76 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. the fact that you've received this notice doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. It just means there are special rules about editing topics that have to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict, and since you've posted to a talk page in regard to that, you're being informed of the rules. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven is right. You have not done anything wrong, but a strong POV in favor of either "camp" raises concerns. The message is to adhere closely to neutral point of view and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines on these articles. Problems tend to flare up at articles related to Palestine and Israel and so we have to exert more control to maintain a harmonious editing environment.--Chaser (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway

You seem intent on going down this path, I suggest you think again as imo it will end in tears and editing restrictions. Please do not post inflammatory and accusatory claims about subjects on talkpages. Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look I checked with other people, they said my post was not a problem. I am merly adding to the discussion. As I can not access your main pages. What is your authority?Unicorn76 (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be simply attacking and accusing the living person of supporting terrorism, this is an excessive claim. I am asking you and advising you as an experienced editor. I will however bring your edits to the attention of an administrator if you continue along this path, thanks. I see you have again added your soapboxing opinions to the talkpage, well I did ask you and try to point you in the right direction, thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How it is an excessive claim? The Galloway page says he supports Hezbollah attacks against Israel. are we supose to refrain from stating facts in the name of political correctness?Unicorn76 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me the user names of the people you refer to in "I checked with other people, they said my post was not a problem" please ? I would like to know who they are. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page lurker) besides which, I don't see any such claim on the Galloway page. All I can find is "Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation!" Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean if you look at the section above I asked specificly if my earlier post on Galloway was a problem, the impression given was it is not. The first link was a youtube where he supported terrorism against Israel. It was removed.

If you are referring to the section above where you say "I am trying not to be dense", the answer you received did not address BLP violations or the specific comments you made on the talk page of the article. You asked about the discretionary sanction and you got an answer about the discretionary sanctions. It's very important that you read and understand WP:BLP as BLP compliance is a serious matter in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube link [3] in question is sadly typical of your use of sourcing. Despite the video's title, what the video demonstrates is Galloway's unwillingness to declare Hamas a terrorist organisation (seemingly trying to argue that the situation is more complex). It does not show his support for terrorism. Besides which, an unidentified interview on Youtube is hardly a good source. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty obvious looking at your history you will do anything to protect people like Galloway, Chavez and Morales, I suggest you take a NPOV stance or stop wasting my time and cluttering up my page.Unicorn76 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely - I question your poor source and you assume I give a rats' ass about Galloway; says much about your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I'm sorry, once again I seem to have failed to impress on you the nature of this project and the importance for it of using reliable sources, especially for contentious claims. Take care, Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I looked into the relliable sources and feel that using Slate which has been used for Fox News was a reliable source. I also check what administrators are suppose to block. I did not meet the criteria I was pushing a balanced point of view.Unicorn76 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has all been explained below. Use the {{unblock}} templates if you feel you need to be unblocked. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and Reliable Sources

Unicorn76, you asked me before if you'd done anything wrong and my answer was no. I was wrong. Your talk page posts make clear to me that you are here to advance an agenda. That is not what Wikipedia is for. We aim to produce an encyclopedia "from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." If you can do that, then you are welcome here. If you cannot do it, then you are not welcome. As for reliable sources, this has become a problem recently, too. Besides asking you to read the neutral point of view policy and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I have a few specific pointers. Reliable sources are generally mainstream newspapers, magazines, and books. Sources from partisans on either side are less valuable, except for the purpose of sourcing one side's POV, noted alongside the other or several other POVs. Blogs, interest group webpages, and youtube videos are rarely considered reliable. Finally, biographies of living people have higher standards for reliable sourcing because Wikipedia articles can adversely affect real people's lives.

I am blocking your account for one week to give you a chance to read these policy and guideline pages and internalize them. You're welcome to ask questions during that time. I will watchlist your talkpage, but you can also use the {{helpme}} template to get someone to stop by and answer any questions you may have. I suggest if any of this is unclear that you ask those questions. If you continue POV pushing on talk pages after this block expires, I will not hesitate to block your account indefinitely.

As always, you may contest this block with {{unblock}}.--Chaser (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2010 (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).

Unicorn76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I checked with you and other admin twice and you ok my conduct. I am posting on discussion pages where things get heated. I as seeing a major double standard here, users likes Blaxthos attack people without penalty as did the poster who stated :Are we having Fun under your block. I use a web sight far less partsian than Media Matters which seems accepted here. I did not vandalize a page yet I am being blocked without cause, therefore as you gave me the go ahead I feel it is unfair to come back with a block without a warning. thank you

Decline reason:

You are blocked for using Wikipedia to promote your own point of view. You don't address this subject, so it is not possible for me to review your request for unblock. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (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.

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).

Unicorn76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not pressing my point of view unless adding things that are missing is promoting a POV. Michael Moore my last edit did not have a criticsm page. I put slate as a source of George Galloway support of terrorism against Israel. I am using relliable sources

Decline reason:

This edit shows failure to assume good faith. In addition to your continued determination to use unreliable sources and then try to defend a) their reliability or b) your interpretation of what those sources are saying I think you need the time off. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2010 (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 seems I haver no choice but to accept this unfair block, however I think you all need to look in the mirror and honestly ask is Unicorn 76 being blocked for using unrelliable sources (which have been accepted, I've checked other pages) or because it is the politicaly correct thing to do. I am confident that if I was doing this on non PC icons this would not be coming up. Unicorn76 (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being blocked because you are not following policy. That is easily resolved by following policy. Please provide evidence to support your statement that the sources you want to use that have been described as unreliable are being used elsewhere. I would like to look at where and how those sources are being used. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this was a factor in your block, but removing my month-old welcome template from your talk page with the edit summary "Cleaning up vandllism on my talk page" does not look good. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all my critics I have checked the discussion pages, i will use relliable sources. However I have to restate I was singled out. I checked why someone can be blocked the criteria, I did not meet the criteria. Merely stating that there shold be a criticsm page or putting a legitimate sourc that some many not like is not grounds.And since I check with 2 admin when the ANI warning came out and they said I was fine, the block was punitive I urge all admins to go to the Fox News talk page and than tell me why user Blaxthos who attacks people direclty is not banned.By the same token Rd232 should have been blocked for i8insitgating problems but gets a pass. My block is a great example of the frequent claim that anyone can be blocked to a pc complaint.Unicorn76 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTTHEM. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean- Point taken but hard to accept. Wikipedia may have the best intentions when putting that up. from the blocked person's point of view understand Good Faith is a two way street. I do think notthem is just a CYA to protect the admins.Unicorn76 (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

User talk:Chaser#Unicorn76 (talk · contribs)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israeli-occupied territories. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. nableezy - 21:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 21:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please examine the talk page you will see I backed up my area. You removed an edit without discussion, please do not again. You are not an admin!Unicorn76 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have "examined" the page and I have seen that you have removed well-sourced material on spurious grounds without any backing of sources or consensus to do so. Do not continue doing so or you may be blocked from editing. nableezy - 21:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since your user page shows a bias against Israel defending itself from Palestinian terrorists, I suggest you remove yourself from any Israeli related matter.Unicorn76 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats nice, Ill make sure I think about that. Once I finish laughing at the incredible lack of self-awareness I just now witnessed. nableezy - 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn76, I'd like to give you a friendly advise. You are stepping into a minefield. Please read carefully the very important 2008 Palestine-Israel articles arbitration to get a general idea of what you are dealing with. Familiarize yourself with wikipedia rules and practices, because the administrative sanctions are harsh and are taken fast in this area. Stay cool, think, and read more then you write. Don't promote any political agenda, be neutral, and you certainly will become a great editor. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember - confronting people will not take you far. Fell free to ask me or any other user for help or advise, anytime --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the link you left, I've followed the policy it is obvious that Nableexy is not, he is counting on the anti-Israeli bias that some on wikipedia have demonstrated.Unicorn76 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 ::Unicorn76, I'd like to give you a friendly advise. You are stepping into a minefield. Please read carefully the very important  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles|2008 Palestine-Israel articles arbitration]] to get a general idea of what you are dealing with. Familiarize yourself with wikipedia rules and practices, because the administrative sanctions are harsh and are taken fast in this area. Stay cool, think, and read more then you write. Don't promote any political agenda, be neutral, and you certainly will become a great editor. --[[User:ElComandanteChe|ElComandanteChe]] ([[User talk:ElComandanteChe|talk]]) 22:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 ::Please remember - confronting people will not take you far. Fell free to ask me or any other user for help or advise, anytime --[[User:ElComandanteChe|ElComandanteChe]] ([[User talk:ElComandanteChe|talk]]) 22:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
+I looked at the link you left, I've followed the policy it is obvious that Nableexy is not, he is counting on the anti-Israeli bias that some on wikipedia have demonstrated.[[User:Unicorn76|Unicorn76]] ([[User talk:Unicorn76#top|talk]]) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)