User talk:Sceptic1954

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sceptic1954 (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 10 April 2015 (→‎Blocked for an indefinite period). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, Sceptic1954, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Danielklotz

Happy editing! -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Denis Avey

Hi Sceptic1954. You have been mentioned on the talk page of the Denis Avey article. I would like to ask you if you would be interested in commenting on whether you approve of the suggestion to include something more about the problems with his account in the article, (or not). --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked this account per this post. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just unblocked it per the discussion at User talk:Hardicanute Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick D , Sceptic 1954

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tildes should go on the talk page, not in the edit summary

Hello Sceptic1954. It appears you are trying to sign your comments, but the four tildes (~~~~) are supposed to go at the end of your comment on the talk page, not in the edit summary. In the edit summary they merely add noise. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do I have to put my name on the Talk page or just the four tildes. I will get the answer as I reply Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature showed up correctly on this talk page in your last posting. However you are still typing the four tildes into the edit summary, for instance in this edit. Your edit summary was "tidying up~~~~Sceptic1954". There is no need for using tildes there or for you to type your name out in full in the edit summary. An edit summary should simply be a comment on what you just did. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see tildes are only on the talk page, not on the main page at all. It's a bit confusing for relative newbies!Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jorgecarleitao (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Denis Avey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bradwell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Approximations of π, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vieta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for you recent edits to exeligmos. I hadn't been aware of the alternative plural to saros but it is a welcome addition. If you have any questions about the ins and outs of Wikipedia feel free to leave a message on my talk page. If you have an interest in eclipses I'd be glad for you to join WikiProject Eclipses a loose collaboration by those interested in eclipses to improve/expand/create eclipse related pages. TimL • talk 04:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite TimL, My interest at present is largely limited to numbers related to eclipse cycles and I tend only to make minor contributions so I'll decline for now, but I do appreciate being asked. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to "Tropical year"

In this edit you added a source to our Tropical year article, but did not create a proper bibliography entry, as explained at APA style, which is the style used in that article. I would create the entry for you, but I am not familiar with DIO. Could you explain what the name of that journal is, who publishes it, and its reputation? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

briefly as I'm just going out, look up the Home Page at http://www.dioi.org/. It's controversial alright but has some fairly eminent academics on its editorial board. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Britons

Hi Sceptic1954. I have noted your minor spat on Philippa of Hainault re her placing on the Black Britons list. Personally, I tend to agree with you that, despite this being "PC nonsense", it deserves a brief mention in the article. However, you may not be aware that there is an article specifically on this list: 100 Great Black Britons. Unfortunately, it badly needs attention: you'll see immediately that Philippa's name has been removed. It's not helped by the fact that on the "official" 100 Black Britons site, cited under external links, the names have been rearranged into an erratic alphabetical order ("Queen Phillipa" appears twice, once under P and once under Q) – although the original ranked listings do survive in the press release archived in note 1. I haven't got the time or inclination at the moment to try to unravel it all, but I draw it to your attention in case you have an interest in it. No pressure! GrindtXX (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grindt. I don't plan to get into the 100 Great Black Britons article but wonder why Philippa's name has been removed. The presence of Philippa on the original list drew my attention to her interesting central Asian ancestrySceptic1954 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Having said which I note that the editor who reverted my edit removed Philippa from the list in the 100 Great Black Britons article, so I've restored it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olaudah Equiano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Curriculum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Wolf

Greetings. I am the author of the paragraph you say was lifted from another website -- as you see I wrote it in 2004 (some others have tweaked the wording). The other website, a tourist plug for Austria, got it from us, not the other way around. This happens all the time (they're supposed to attribute us, but often other websites do not). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I do apologise. Quite a few things in Wikipedia do appear to be lifted without acknowledgement but clearly I shouldn't jump to conclusions. I hope you'll feel able to discuss my changed wording, if you don't like itSceptic1954 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think your wording is an improvement. Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very generous of you to say so. (P.S. I heard a wonderful Wolf recital last night and was wondering about links to early Schoenberg))Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Seacole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Curriculum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • poems traditionally attributed to [[William Shakespeare]] of [[Stratford-upon-Avon]]. Though most,{{citation needed]] though not all, <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22206151 questions over the plays'

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford

I didn't do a wholesale revert. That's why I explained that the film should be mentioned. I actually corrected the link, because you were linking to the word "anonymous", not the film. I've explained the reference on the talk page. Paul B (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A topic of interest to you is covered by ArbCom sanctions--please read the links

Please be aware that the Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If any editor engages in inappropriate behavior in this area, that editor may be placed under sanctions, including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. This is not a threat or a warning; it is nothing more than an effort to acquaint you with the sanctions under which these articles have been placed. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about edit warring as such but I wish to ask advice about what I consider the unacceptable behaviour of an editor. Please can tell me how to proceed. Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without a specific question, it's pretty hard to 'answer' you....I really think the is something that might be handled more easily in a 'live' discussion....if nothing else, you'll get more 'opinions' about what your issue is... (don't take this as a 'refusal to answer'...if you ask a more specific question, someone will be happy to answer it) Revent (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Information icon 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:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. 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) 09:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Please be aware that you are risking a block for WP:Edit warring if you persist in restoring material for which you don't have consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, what I have done is to put in a version which I think reasonable. I expect it to be reverted and that's fine I won't re-revert. But as I explained to you I'd like to know if someone who doesn't have a particular axe to grind could review it. I doubt that my suggestion will be acceptable to others but what should I do if I consider others are not giving any space to a significant minority view. Thanks.
It's been reverted, as I expected, and I won't re-revert. I have to say that only Tom Reedy has expressed objections to the material I included, the other two editors involved didn't seem too hostile. It would be extraordinary if wikipedia Stratfordians block reference to a statement from a leading Stratfordian. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed. Further to previous I don't think the warning was justified as I was restoring material in a different form, namely within a single note, whereas previously it had been in a separate note. By restoring it in this form it had less prominence than previously. Had it been accepted there would have been complete agreement amongst all but that was not to be. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the great things about Wikipedia is its easily-accessible archive of all edits for a page, which makes a simple task out of checking up on complainants trying to recruit a posse to bring justice and free speech to the downtrodden underdogs of Truth to see if they're misrepresenting themselves, as you have done here and here. This is your actual initial edit to the Edward de Vere page, which as anyone can see is far more than simply "adding a reference to show that not all academics reject non-Stratfordian theories entirely". Your disingenuousness belies your credibility. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC) There is nothing more to it than that I've said. Where is the assumption of good faith. I've said use the reference from the SAQ page, it's better. There's no point in wading through archives over matters of common sense. If you force everyone who has a different view to you to wade through archives then you have a very effective way to drive them from this page. It really doesn't matter much in the scheme of things, what is written here will not have any real effect on the spread or otherwise of authorship theories. I am annoyed with myself for the amount of time I have spent on this. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SAQ talk page

Sceptic1954, on my talk page you wrote: "For the record I didn't just stride onto the SAQ talk page, it was a continuation of a discussion on the 17th E of Oxford talk page and on my own talk page."

As far as I am concerned, this just supports my contention. Not only rules and guidelines, but various customs are supposed to be observed on Wikipedia. Generally, discussions about an article should be restricted to that article's talk page. Other discussions might also be in progress on a given talk page. On the SAQ talk page, I was involved in one in the section Latest edits, which had nothing to do with anything on the Oxford page. Yet you did just "stride into" that section, talking about something entirely different, and, as it seemed to me at the time, rudely interrupting someone else's conversation. There are other editors at work on these pages besides you and the one other person you happen to have an issue with.

You also wrote: "I've never done edits where I've been forced to go into all sorts of detailed rules."

Yes, detailed rules, guidelines, and customs can be constraining and annoying. Alas, not only on Wikipedia, they are a necessary part of civilized life. --Alan W (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will see that I am mentioned in the opening contribution of that section. Tom Reedy, whom everyone seems to follow also wanted the discussion on the SAQ page. In Wikipedia all sorts of detailed rules can be invoked as a cover for POV.

Regarding rules I'll quote Jimbo

>Gardner says there are approximately 80,000 active editors of the site, but that number has been slowly dropping over the past few years. Wales attributes at least part of the decline to an increase in rules and a fairly steep learning curve for new editors. Of the several hundred editors in attendance at Wales' "State of Wikipedia" speech Thursday, only three said they had started contributing to the site this year.

"The procedures can be off-putting to newcomers," he said. "A lot of [the framework rules] are there for a reason, but a lot of it is hard and complicated for no apparent reason."<

although I think Tom and his allies make it hard and complicated deliberately to keep others out, which they are likely to have succeeded in doing in my case.Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add I had an arbcom notice served on me by Tom Reedy - imagine you are invited somewhere and one pf the other guests comes up an throws a great rule book ay you and says he won't let you say anything until you've read it - you just go somewhere else.Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Touchstone (As You Like It), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Touchstone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pyramus and Thisbe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Brooke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernst Lobethal concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernst Lobethal, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Howse concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Howse, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rob Broomby concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rob Broomby, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sceptic1954

Hi Sceptic1954, I greet you. Am also interested in SAQ. You may look what happened to me. I am not banned, but I have to be extremely carefull. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission James William Davenport Long

Hello Sceptic1954. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled James William Davenport Long.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James William Davenport Long}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Ring

Re: [1], have a watch of [2], and note that even when the traffic is bunched bumper to bumper it's still rolling at 50 km/h (like in the photograph). —Sladen (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever tried taking Trolleybus б in rush hour? Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, didn't take Line Б when I was there—like the person in the video, I just cycled around the Ring on my Brompton Bicycle. If you're local, would you be able take another high-angle photograph from a suitable location to help demonstrate the extent of the rush-hour traffic? —Sladen (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture demonstrates it well enough, crawling in one direction, moving freely in the other. I don't have an especially good camera and don't carry it very often but if I get the chance and remember I'll try to oblige. Thanks for telling me about the Brompton Bike - this may be useful to me in the future. I'm not aware of many cyclists on the Garden RingSceptic1954 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfred Schnittke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page You and I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Howse

Hello Sceptic1954. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Patrick Howse".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Howse}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rob Broomby

Hello Sceptic1954. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Rob Broomby".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rob Broomby}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Kollerstrom article

Warning: one more revert will put you in violation of WP:3RR at Nicholas Kollerstrom. Please stop your edit warring. Frizzmaz (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Go ahead and report me, I think I'm exempt under 7 and quite possibly 3. I consider that your edits violate BLP policySceptic1954 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

December 2013

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Holodomor, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Please familiarise yourself with the subject before making any changes, particularly if you are going to blank a reference. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Should you care to look I've been editing for a while. The article is not protected. I made the edit on grounds of logic and found that I had brought it into conformity with the main Holodomor Denial article. I am not going to get into a big debate about this over Christmas and it's not worth my wasting a lot of energy on if the article is effectively controlled by those of a particular point of viewSceptic1954 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look at your contributions... which is why I used Twinkle rather than leave an overt, personalised comment. In conformity with the main Holodomor Denial article? The Holodomor Denial article is predominantly an article tracing the historical issues, cover-ups, etc. In case you haven't noticed, the Holodomor article deals with contemporary issues and is a separate article, therefore your desire to bring the two articles 'in line' with each other is not only redundant but flawed logic.
I have no interest in debating the issue with you, particularly as, in the case of your bringing up a POV issue, that seems rather like the pot calling the kettle black. I am, actually, neutral. Past warring over the article has resulted in a consensus version. Please be aware that Eastern European Discretionary Sanctions apply to trying to lead it one way or the other. If you have anything more to say on the matter, please do so on the appropriate talk page. Wishing you a Happy Christmas --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of statues of Stalin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Museum of the Great Patriotic War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Ashton

Hello. I appreciate your note to me on the editing of the article on Catherine Ashton. I've continued working on the article (and also written an explanation on the Talk page). Please take a look at the article as it now reads. I would hope that, following the recent edits by both of us, it might be possible to remove the neutrality tag. If you think more work is needed, let's please discuss any remaining issues. Thanks again! Nandt1 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Ashton (again).

Hello. In an attempt to achieve agreement to remove the Neutrality tag from the Assessments section of this article, I have edited down what some have seen as the undue weight of laudatory comment in this section, and am now requesting feedback at the article's Talk page. I am contacting you in view of your past work on this article. Nandt1 (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never got back to working on this so go ahead and remove it. I really must try not to get involved in contentious political articles on Wikipedia -life is too short. Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for your response. Good luck with your future editing! Nandt1 (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murder in the Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smithfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernst Lobethal concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernst Lobethal, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernst Lobethal

Hello Sceptic1954. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ernst Lobethal".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernst Lobethal}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the revert

Sorry for the mistaken revert. Tapped on the wrong link on my watchlist. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 04:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

August 2014

As an editor of some years standing, never blocked since early days, I transgressed quite unknowingly. I am very sorry that I have apparently been unable to persuade four administrators of this. Now I am in the clear about the meaning of the rule I will be careful not to breach it again.Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. 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.

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.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 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).

Sceptic1954 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I transgressed quite unknowingly and the rule is not clear, and in fact I didn't break the rule as worded. I appreciate administrators are busy and I didn't state my case fully as I thought an apology would suffice. The 3 R page states "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Another = an other = one other. That means quite clearly that I should not revert the work of any one editor more than three times in 24 hours. If I undo the work each of two editors three times in 24 hours making six reverts then I am not breaking the rule. To convey what is intended it should read "A revert means undoing the actions of one or more other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material or whether involving the same or different editors, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The wording should be changed. I am not being a lawyer looking for a get-out clause, this is what I how I understood the rule and I think how many a reasonable person would understand it and I am writing this for the sake of others and not just myself. I have no relevant history of disruptive behaviour, I have not been involved in editing an article with this many active editors before and this level of dispute. I twice stated on talk "I don't want to get into/get banned for edit-warring" so was trying not to break the rule. It's quite clear that I was anxious not to break the rule and could only do it through ignorance. You will find that I never reverted the edits of any one other editor in full or part more than three times. I wasn't being otherwise disruptive, I wasn't at all abusive, everything I did was supported by reasoned argument on the edit-summary or in talk. Ignorance of the law may be no defence but it is mitigation and I assume wikipedia is not in the business of trying to trip people up with confusing wording. The block doesn't matter short term but I don't want to have it on my record. I don't see why I need undertake to stay away from the page as I've accepted that I unknowingly breached the rules and am not going to repeat it. Excuse the bold. The lack of grovelling may not help me but I am innocent as far as the rule is worded and have been acting in good faith. Thank you if you took the time to read this far. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's probably the worst reading of the policy I've ever seen; you feel it would be more acceptable to be edit warring with multiple people? I don't find it reasonable that any person would make such an assumption. The next time you're confused about edit warring, please stop reverting and ask someone. Kuru (talk) 02:52, 8 August 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.

I have seen lots of wikilawyering about the 3RR rule, but I believe you get the award for the most preposterous analysis I've seen to date.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no assumption of good faith in your comment. Please explain why my analysis is in any way preposterous.Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another administrator will evaluate your unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my request that you should explain why the analysis in unblock request is preposterous. You have made an accusation, namely that I am wikilawyering, by which you surely fail to assume good faith on my part, which, if so, is a breach of one of the cardinal principles of wikipedia, and then when requested you give no explanation for this. In the absence of an explanation I do not expect to let the matter rest. In all good faith I have explained why I understood the rule as I did and offered an alternative wording to avoid confusion in the future to assist the community and I am accused of wikilawyering. I do not consider that to be at all an appropriate response from an administrator.

I would ask the person who considers my unblock appeal to take account of the fact that the administrator who made the block is one capable of making the accusation of 'preposterous wikilawyering' against a fellow member of the community and then failing to substantiate this when requested.Sceptic1954 (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Bbb23 I remind you of the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator#Administrator_conduct Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. ... Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. and repeat my request that you justify your description of my analysis as 'preposterous wikilawyering'Sceptic1954 (talk) 03:06, 8 August 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).

Sceptic1954 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I read the rule exactly as it is written 'another user' means 'one other user'. For the meaning you want it should read 'other users' I will attempt to get it changed. I don't see anything unreasonable about my interpretation. I always assumed it meant was to avoid two editors undoing each others work every few minutes in a pontless ping pong for a sustained period of time, which is clearly undesireable. That wasn't happening here. There are other editors on this article who are sympathetic to my position, they hadn't been active during the period in question, but if they had been the outcome in the terms of the number of reverts would have been exactly the same, so why should I feel there was anything unreasonable about my actions. I didn't cause anyone suffering or damage wikipedia. When I realised the opposition I was up against I gave up, it seemed futile. At least kuru hasn't made a personal attack but he hasn't understood my point. I didn't feel in the least confused as I read the rule exactly as written so felt no need to ask. I was initially going to apologise for misreading the rule but when I studied it closely I realsied I hadn't misread it at all, hence the lack of grovelling, as it really is the wording at fault not me. kuru has not addressed the wording but the implications of my reading. Whether I am able to edit that article or anything else for the next 36 hours is neither here nor there for me, what's bad is that there is a genuine misunderstanding and a slur on my record.

Decline reason:

Since you state you don't care whether or not you're unblocked, you're not going to be unblocked. You analysis is indeed laughable. What you are complaining about is that you thought you'd found a way to edit war without technically being busted for edit warring. But the policy against edit warring per se comes first; things like 3RR are just tools attached to the edit warring policy. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:38, 8 August 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.

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).

Sceptic1954 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I indicated that I am indifferent to whether I can edit this particular article for the next 30 odd hours or not. I would like to be unblocked because I was acting in good faith. I am afraid JPGordon doesn't seem to be assuming good faith on my part in interpreting my actions. I had no idea whatever I was edit-warring, I was aware of the rule and was following it. Would the next administrator who reads my unblock request please start with the question: "Wouldn't the rule be clearer if it stated that a revert meant undoing the work of 'other editors' rather than 'another editor'?" If the answer is "yes" and you think that I have shown you how the wording could be imporved please go from there. I will say that only yesterday I obtained a $69 refund from a company and they wrote 'thank you for helping us to make things clearer to us customers'. I would agree that wikipedia is full of editors who endlessly quote guidelines for their own ends, it puts me off greatly, Maybe you come across lots of people who are doing just that. I am not one of them. Perhaps I am the odd one out in a thousand and you don't see it. A friend of mine waqs once arrested and treated by the police as 'very drunk' when she was stone cold sober, distressed and foreign. Doubtless nearly everyone they saw in that situation was very drunk but she was an exception. I've been rebuked on talk pages for not giving enough respect to policies. Call me naive and literal-minded in my reading of this rule if you will but don't please don't assume I'm wikilawyering. Also ask yourself why I would be spending so much time protesting if I wasn't sincere and acting in good faith. I expect to be taking this much higher, three administrators now have effectively treated me as a wikilawyer and it is a poor reflection on Wikipedia when you can't see that this is the very last thing that I am Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As your talk page access has been (mercifully) revoked, this request is moot. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:39, 9 August 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.

Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've revoked your talk page access ("If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.").--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of the three-revert rule

I will engage in this because I think clarifying the policy is a legitimate issue, and because I fear you may be blocked under similar circumstances in the future.

Note that the actual rule, which is in a red box in the section linked by the shortcut WP:3RR, already makes reference to "other editors," not simply "another editor". The text immediately below the box also says "other editors". Your quotation comes from the summary of the rule in the introduction of the policy on edit warring.

But even so, I believe that, if interpreted logically, the summary does cover reversions of multiple editors' actions. A single revert does, most of the time, undo the actions of a single editor. But that does not mean that a series of reverts necessarily undoes the actions of only a single editor. They are still reverts even if they are of different editors, just as if they are of different edits or content. (In logic, this would be a fallacy of composition.) The clarification on different content is not logically necessary either, but it is included because typical edit wars involve the same content. Still, I may bring up your proposed clarification up at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring.

Keep in mind this important point about the relationship between 3RR and edit warring:

The three-revert rule...is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

(A violation of 3RR is necessary to bring a report at the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, but edit warring [and blocks for such] can still be brought up at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents or other forums.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) (not an administrator) 06:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMalaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=622361893&oldid=622357335 is a clear case of vandalism. Once more and you will be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI --82.198.102.128 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, why wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sceptic1954.23Vandalism --82.198.102.128 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sceptic1954. You have new messages at Stickee's talk page.
Message added 06:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stickee (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The POV editors are trying to ban me for NPOV edits of Ukraine conflict entries

I notice that you're an NPOV editor when it comes to Ukraine conflict Wikipedia entries. I am currently under severe attack -- see Haberstr -- for also being an NPOV editor of Ukraine conflict entries. Any comment or support at the Arbitration will be greatly appreciated! Maybe if enough of us protest the obvious, anti-Wikipedia bias, we'll get things moving in the right direction.Haberstr (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note on MH17 sources

Hi, no need to add <ref>http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/preliminary-report#fasen</ref> as source for the "probably" (which is correct), as the same link is already there in the <ref name="dsb1"/> template. If you need to reference the DSB report just use <ref name="dsb1"/> as many times as you need, it will always link to DSB ref. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks.[reply]

Blocked for an indefinite period

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
In 2012 I unblocked you after you agreed to stay away from topics concerning Holocaust denial. You have clearly broken that commitment with edits such as this (calling the facts of the Holocaust "the generally-accepted view of the Holocaust" is using the kind of the language Holocaust deniers use to pretend that there's a legitimate historical controversy), [3] (sanitising the article for no clear reason), this ("Holocaust revisionist" is what people commonly known as Holocaust deniers call themselves), as well as this, this and this. This talk page post was also, at best, at the very edge of the line and wasn't well considered. Taken together, and from reviewing your other recent contributions (including your editing on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article last year), these edits demonstrate that you are generally editing to promote your personal views and interpretations. As such, I have set the block duration as indefinite. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going further back into your contribution, I'm seeing lots of POV pushing on a fairly narrow range of topics, including an attempt to edit war a claim into the Heinrich Himmler article where even the source you used said it was clearly false [4], [5], [6] but which you argued sounded plausible and advocated for including in the article to either demonstrate some kind of wrongdoing by the British government or to encourage readers to consider what you wrongly claimed was a controversy [7]. This was clearly an attempt to push a very WP:FRINGE theory on the basis of your personal views. I also note that you tried to insert claims into the Holodomor article implying that it wasn't deliberate [8], [9], [10]. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2015 (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).

Sceptic1954 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I had forgotten the commitment as I wasn’t generally tempted to edit such articles. I appreciate that I strayed into breaking it here. This is a BLP, I know the subject, and isn’t just about his views on the Holocaust. Hence the straying. However because you take me to task over the way in which I broke the commitment it seems that it is not just the technicality of my breaking it that is at issue but the way in which I have done so. However I haven’t edit-warred and where there is a difference have discussed it on the talk page without personal abuse. It appears that rather than engage in discussion a senior wikipedian, for whom I had previously had considerable respect, has brought this to your attention without telling me in order to get me blocked.

I think you are completely mistaken when you think I am pushing my own point of view. I subscribe 99% to the generally accepted view of the Holocaust’. I think there is much more than 50% chance that MH17 was shot down by ‘separatists’ but I like to see different points of view respected and treated fairly which is I think that very often doesn’t happen on Wikipedia. I am unhappy if people assume that if I am trying to see a particular POV is represented it is my POV, I find it intellectually stimulating to consider different points of view. Don’t you? Sometimes I encounter conflicts because of this but I soon see where I am not going to make headway and steer away. I consider I’ve learned a great deal about the Holocaust by listening to the point of view of ‘deniers’.

I wasn’t going to get deeply involved in the debate on this article. I thought Kollerstrom’s views on the Holocaust should come in the first line, so he can’t play them down in some quarters. He may not like me for that, at all. I think his recent book deserves to be amongst those specifically mentioned – I’m about to give it two stars on Amazon. And I think it is rather weasely to spend words describing the nature of his publisher rather than the content of the book, that’s guilt by association. And yes, if I sometimes use the language of ‘deniers’, have you never come across the concept of speaking to someone in their own language? Sometimes ‘deniers’ change their views.

I suggest that another reason for unblocking me is that continuing to block me for the reasons stated could well give the subject of the article which led to the block ammunition to portray wikipedia administrators as the Spanish or Stalinist Inquisition and that he might be able to do this with considerable success even amongst those who share the 'generally accepted view of the Holocaust' Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Suggesting that a decline of your of your unblock request would be akin to the Spanish/Stalinist Inquisition will never result in a successful appeal. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:13, 10 April 2015 (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.

I suggested that a decline might be widely be perceived as such. A decline is little deterrent to me but might lead to me being seen as a martyr. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Just to get this right so that everybody can be clear. It is not permitted on wikipedia to refer to "the generally-accepted view of the Holocaust" or to refer to someone as a" 'Holocaust Revisionist", that doing so in good faith can lead to a block, and that not only are Holocaust 'deniers' condemned but those who fail to condemn them are condemned. If so I'd call that extremely illiberal, if not please clarify. I invite Nick D, Slim Virgin and any other administrators to comment. This will be quoted elsewhere. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sceptic1954&oldid=655888793"