User talk:Cambriana
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambriana for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Six words (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Beetsta and Six words, a word with you
[edit]If I included all the relevant info and did not remove any links in the end, and added more sources, and neutralized the statements, and there is no ability to talk on the talk page as was used as a deflection to editing, effectively starting the edit war, then why have I been blocked for "edit warring"? Beetsta, if only long standing members can edit the talk page of the Aspartame why did you ask me to first talk there? Does that make any sense? Where is the logic in reverting an edit with no apparent reason for doing so, and asking a person to talk first when they can't? How about you go to the talk page, state your reasons for repeatedly reverting my and the edits of others yourself at the very least? But you don't because you have no reason. You're clearly a biased user and no doubt has done many things like this to other articles on Wikipedia from your quick and no-good-reason reversions other than doing so, my guess is, because your friends here didn't like my changes, either that, or you've got a stake in aspartame sales.
Further, the changes are not anything controversial or not neutral. What was said that upset you two so badly? Why is the dmoz list not being shown? Is there something terrible in showing the sites which list the reasons why aspartame may not be safe? Do you have something to hide or a stake in aspartame sales? If not, why then are you blocking me and accusing me of being the one to edit war? You both are obviously biased in this matter. This not the main article on the aspartame controversey, so it was good for Supertorus to suggest it moved to the safety issues and to leave the bulk of the controversy statements on the controversey article. You're block is unjust and a matter of biased pride with you two, as is typical of the moderators here and you know it. Hope you puff down from your puffed up states and stop falsely claiming that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, when you prevent that by simply claiming "edit warring" without anything to show for it but pointing your fingers at edits. Forget to mention the other tactic in preventing edits that you guys use to keep your personal edits safe from change and improvements: make a sockpuppetry accusation. It's true what is said about Wikipedia after all, isn't it, that it's not neutral, and filled with moderators who can't let go of their precious edits and businessman who pretend to be your average citizen just trying to spread the truth. When you can explain how my edits were not in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, then you'll show that you are neutral, and not biaesd yourselves and simply using whatever claim to protect your personal edits, personal point of views, and stake in aspartame sales. Cambriana (talk)
Whitewashers
[edit]"DMacks(talk | contribs) . . (34,959 bytes) (+1,827) . . (Reverted to revision 490126596 by Six words: this has now become bad-faith/vandalism--simple removal of neutrally-worded content with summary of "moving to another section", whitewashing/"50/50-evenhanded" writing (or slanting the other way) when ...)"
So a person says they are going to move a paragraph, and someone named Dmacks jumps in immediately and makes a white washing accusation and states without a thing to back it up, that this person is instantly a bad faith vandalizer, leaving no time for the change to be made. Is that mature. Is that adult behavior? Is that good faith editing? Is that, could that, possibly be, "edit warring"? Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? No warning, but rather start a gossip about a person being a sockpuppet, then follow up with an instant declaration that they are a vandal when they say they are going to move a paragraph? And then if they continue their editing, move and shorted the statement, leaving it to be read on the main article where it should be, a moderator jumps in, you Beetstra, for, for what Beetstra? Because your friends threw fits. The bad faith editors are you guys. You're cyberbullies who make the Wikipedia controversial and in doubt, especially by accusing others of what you do and labeling them what you are. My guess is that none of you have a conscience, and that if you do, it's smaller than walnut, and encased in a very hard and well sealed shell. Cambriana (talk)
Can you hear the silence everyone?
[edit]Look how quick this gaggle of quacks was to revert the changes to the aspartame article and to block me and no doubt others who tried to make it neutral, and look how slow they are to explain why they reverted and blocked. It's very telling, speaks vey loud volumes and says it all. Four users opposed perfectly good changes, and not a word from any as to why, other than one, who said what amounted to, "Just because I like this one better." So much for discussion.
The more you make edits that don't agree with the personal tastes and business stakes of the Wikipedia staff and their friends here, the more you aren't apart of the groupthink, the more you criticize the staff and their friends, the more likely they will be to ban you, because they aren't neutral at all, not with things they've staked their reputation and money on, of course. Cambriana (talk)
May 2012
[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Cambriana. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)