User talk:DeweyDecimalLansky

Professional in geo-economics, military, intelligence, and geopolitical analysis. Counter-intelligence specialist. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the articles you edit shows you are way too happy to engage in edit warring, and you've been blocked for it before. A next block might be indefinite, or you might be blocked from editing in article space. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Zero reasonable changes are being allowed to articles that lack NPOV in a politically controversial setting. Entire terrorist and cult affiliations written extensively about BLP subject Maryam Rajavi were sourced to reputable venues. The editing so far on these articles has created far-right viewpoints in them that are totally non-neutral and omit key political history of BLP that is inconvenient to BLP's publicity. Anything showing this BLP has been accused, designated, or convicted of cult or terrorist affiliation is rejected as "cherry picked" even if it is the New York Times, etc. Non-NPOV nature of these articles is being strongly guarded. Neither can one remove nor add anything no matter what source is used if it adds value to the article in a way that may be negative to the subject in the article. That is what my experience has been here. I do not speak to what others did, may have done, or their intentions. Just my own experience and what happened to me. Does every single proposal to add or change anything in articles have to be subjected to a discussion even if the additions are well-sourced? If that's the case, then this article will never be NPOV because if you examine even further in the history you'll see no one else can add the CORE terrorist and cult affiliations of this BLP to her WikiPedia article either. It's like speaking to Osama Bin Laden or L Ron Hubbard without once mentioning "terror" or "cult" respectively. Simply not accurate. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:EW. Please address this, and only this, in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2021 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

My prior comment had to do with edit warring exclusively of which I am being falsely accused. There is no accountability for others when they accuse me of bad faith and I am simply harassed by accusations of bad faith by the same users over and over hounded from article to article in a way that makes me want to stop editing here. I am actually making good faith changes to an article about someone who was on the FTO terror designation list of the US State Dept. for 15 years reflect that NOMINALLY anywhere in her "biography". That's a total omission of facts central to this BLP's history. Why does there have to be a discussion over EVERY good faith edit and when will complaints to COI noticeboards be taken seriously about it without claiming that I am the one making a bad faith accusation? DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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=''My prior comment had to do with edit warring exclusively of which I am being falsely accused. There is no accountability for others when they accuse me of bad faith and I am simply harassed by accusations of bad faith by the same users over and over hounded from article to article in a way that makes me want to stop editing here. I am actually making good faith changes to an article about someone who was on the FTO terror designation list of the US State Dept. for 15 years reflect that NOMINALLY anywhere in her "biography". That's a total omission of facts central to this BLP's history. Why does there have to be a discussion over EVERY good faith edit and when will complaints to COI noticeboards be taken seriously about it without claiming that I am the one making a bad faith accusation? [[User:DeweyDecimalLansky|DeweyDecimalLansky]] ([[User talk:DeweyDecimalLansky#top|talk]]) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (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=''My prior comment had to do with edit warring exclusively of which I am being falsely accused. There is no accountability for others when they accuse me of bad faith and I am simply harassed by accusations of bad faith by the same users over and over hounded from article to article in a way that makes me want to stop editing here. I am actually making good faith changes to an article about someone who was on the FTO terror designation list of the US State Dept. for 15 years reflect that NOMINALLY anywhere in her "biography". That's a total omission of facts central to this BLP's history. Why does there have to be a discussion over EVERY good faith edit and when will complaints to COI noticeboards be taken seriously about it without claiming that I am the one making a bad faith accusation? [[User:DeweyDecimalLansky|DeweyDecimalLansky]] ([[User talk:DeweyDecimalLansky#top|talk]]) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (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=''My prior comment had to do with edit warring exclusively of which I am being falsely accused. There is no accountability for others when they accuse me of bad faith and I am simply harassed by accusations of bad faith by the same users over and over hounded from article to article in a way that makes me want to stop editing here. I am actually making good faith changes to an article about someone who was on the FTO terror designation list of the US State Dept. for 15 years reflect that NOMINALLY anywhere in her "biography". That's a total omission of facts central to this BLP's history. Why does there have to be a discussion over EVERY good faith edit and when will complaints to COI noticeboards be taken seriously about it without claiming that I am the one making a bad faith accusation? [[User:DeweyDecimalLansky|DeweyDecimalLansky]] ([[User talk:DeweyDecimalLansky#top|talk]]) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)'' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}