User talk:Damonthesis

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

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, 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 (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychotronics[edit]

Could you please provide an explanation for this edit: [1]. According to the Google Books search facility (which is usually accurate) the word 'psychotronics' does not appear in the book at all - it certainly doesn't appear on page 13, which you have cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The page is referencing an article in the Moscow Times from 93 that I cannot find an original copy of, that article discusses the Russian psychotronics program. I'm trying to leave only cites that have available sources on the internet now. It's a little difficult when the articles I am looking for are 20 years old. This term is generically used for weapons that use radiation to modify thought processes, I have a cite from a NSA textbook now.
In the edit I linked, you are citing a book by D. V. Giri - nothing whatsoever to do with the Moscow Times. Can you explain why you appear to be citing it for something it doesn't say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
He sourced the Moscow Times article, I was trying to use a description published in a book that could be verified. The search doesn't work on that book, if you read through his citations (which are searchable) he sources a number of articles written about psychotronics, without using the word in the searcable book. Incidentally did you see how much that book costs?
So in other words, you cited the book for something it didn't say. Don't - this is a gross violation of basic Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation.[edit]

This edit [2] is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, and a clear copyright violation. Do not ever, under any circumstances copy-paste material into articles without clearly marking it as a quotation. And note that the copying, even as a quotation, of large passages is a violation of fair use, and not permitted. If you do this again, I will report the matter. I suggest that before you edit Wikipedia articles further, you read Wikipedia:Copy-paste, along with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources etc - there is little point in making edits that are going to be reverted, and your edits to the Psychotronics article are doing little to improve it - what it needs is a clear (sourced) definition in the lede as to what exactly it is about, followed by (properly sourced) sections which refer directly to the subject matter. A rag-bag of vaguely-related material isn't going to have much credibility should it be proposed for deletion, which may well occur if we can't define the article topic properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So, do you think I should just quote those pieces, or paraphrase them? They looked logical to me, i get the copyright thing. Damonthesis (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Why are you asking for advice? You show no signs of listening to it. I have already explained what needs doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Psychotronic weapons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Department of Defense
Thought identification (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Department of Defense

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Something for you to read[edit]

WP:ICANTHEARYOU GDallimore (Talk) 17:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Something for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:HARASSment_by_user_User:GDallimore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talkcontribs) 23:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
They know not what they do.

May 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for violating WP:3RR, WP:CANVASSING, and personal attacks, as you did at Psychotronics. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Request[edit]

A group of individuals, including at least one admin, has conspired to suppress relevant and topical information from being included in Wikipedia. My attempt to thwart this organized censorship has resulted in blocking by User:Bbb23. Someone that cares about censorship, please respond to this unblock request. I am currently in the middle of a discussion on AfD and an ANI against another user, which this admin has stopped me from being able to participate in. The "system" here is not working. This group has violated WP:HARASS, WP:GANG, and WP:HOUND in order to systematically stop WP:RS from being followed. They are intentionally censoring valid material, and appear to have been doing so for an extended period of time.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Damonthesis (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

"Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=553122180&oldid=553121824 A group of individuals, including at least one admin, has conspired to suppress relevant and topical information from being included in Wikipedia. My attempt to thwart this organized censorship has resulted in blocking by User:Bbb23. Someone that cares about censorship, please respond to this unblock request. I am currently in the middle of a discussion on AfD and an ANI against another user, which this admin has stopped me from being able to participate in. "

Decline reason:

Even if there is a vast conspiracy on Wikipedia to suppress the WP:TRUTH, unblock requests will not be granted without the blockee addressing his own behaviour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

I'm not an admin, but see WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


  • I just want to tell you that regardless of the situation, 3RR happens to be of our strictest rules, and violating it is almost always immediate blocking. We also have a very strong policy against Personal Attacks, and we absolutely cannot have anyone commenting on the editors. Comment on the article, not the editor. A third important rule is against trying to gather support by directly going to users, another strict no-no.
Your block is only for a week. So rather than try and make your situation worse, I suggest you calmly wait it through, and try to use legal and correct ways of trying to resolve the dispute than try to go after everyone's throats again. Thank you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the "don't attack other editors" rule, and under normal circumstances I would agree with it completely. When editors are acting in good-faith, thats exactly how I would be acting. The "general concept" here though, of never accusing anyone of doing anything wrong, is the most counter productive rule I could imagine. If you have a group of people conspiring to do something, like censor, in a place, like an encyclopedia--and somebody notices it--you'd better want to hear about it. Free speech is not the kind of thing that we can sweep under the rug of civility. Mind you, I'm not telling you my opinion should be expressed no matter what--I know what an encyclopedia is though, and when a valid true source is being systematically suppressed by a group of people, that's not censoring my opinion--it's keeping the rest of the world from knowing something that is true. When it's being done on purpose, it's a big, big problem. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the world is changing. Everyone that has a heart, and still cares about "freedom" needs to speak up now, or we will be hiding from the brownshirts in the closet before long. Damonthesis (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Damonthesis, I don't know if you noticed, but the above block was for one week instead of an indefinite block based upon my recommendation. There are several administrators who are ready to block you for good unless you convince them and me that you are willing to change your behavior. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by user:Damonthesis and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Administrative action needed.

I am offering to mentor you as a last chance. You are going to stop breaking the rules. Your only choice is whether you want to work with me to learn what you are doing wrong and thus preserve your ability to make changes that are within our rules, or whether you prefer to be blocked indefinitely the next time you misbehave

As an incentive, I will offer you the following: If you show a good-faith effort to reform, I will request that the next steps should you break our rules again be a one month block, then a six month block, then an indefinite block. Otherwise, your next strike will most likely be the end of you editing Wikipedia. I cannot guarantee what the admins will do, but they usually defer to reasonable requests by a mentor.

Interested? If so, I need you to start by doing these things:

  • Stop claiming that you didn't break a rule. You have done that several times already, and nobody has agreed with you. You are going to have to trust that I understand Wikipedia policies. Plus, of course, there are no doubt several experienced administrators watching this conversation who will tell me (on my talk, page, please; I want to self-revert and apologize if I make a mistake) if I am getting it wrong.
I definitely broke 3RR. And I've definitely been accusatory, when someone is wrong, I have a tendency to tell them.
  • Close down all of your alternate accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damonthesis. Send an email to an admin revealing them all and he will quietly shut them down. Note: I don't want to know what they were. Always edit as Damonthesis, never as an IP user or under any other username.
I've never made an edit here with another account. I had trouble signing up when I created this account. I think I've made IP changes since creating it, because I got logged out somehow.
  • If you have a beef with another editor, explain it to me here on your talk page (short and to the point, please; no walls of text). I will either ask them to stop, explain to you that you don't have a case, or suggest an appropriate dispute resolution venue.
I'm happy to. I filed an ANI over repeated "prevocational" posts to my talk page, and edit warring over what I am positive are valid sources being suppressed to fit an agenda. If you check my talk page's history, my edits have been stalked repeatedly, and three editors have been calling my comments "fringe" when I believe I am presenting an unbiased viewpoint. This "fringe" commentary, to me, is just as "accusatory" and defamatory as anything else. I take great care in finding good sources, that a reflection of the topic, and are written by prominent and authoritative entities. Just because the subject is unknown or unbelievable to some, doesn't mean it's "fringe." These editors have a multi-year long history of editing pages like thought insertion, mind control, telepathy, and directed energy weapons.. two of the three of them are responsible for a previous AfD that I wasn't even aware of, to censor this information in 2010. This group is here to do something wrong, and I'm not really sure how this community normally deals with something like that, but I've experienced it before, and not telling people is the wrong thing to do.
  • Start signing your comments. Every time. It is a small thing, but it will show that you are making a good-faith effort to get along with the rest of us.
  • If I tell you to stop doing something, stop doing it. You can ask legitimate questions about it, but stop doing it while waiting for an answer from me.
10-4

Please note that nowhere have I asked you to abandon certain positions (we both know what they are) that certain editors disagree with. Those positions are actually one of the main reasons I decided to offer to mentor you; having editors who hold minority opinions but who do not break the rules helps Wikipedia to avoid groupthink. The other editors don't get to break the rules either -- but you are not to decide whether they have broken the rules, but rather to ask me.

I think we're going to get along. Nice to meet you.

Please not reply instantly to what I have written above. I want you to think about your future here at Wikipedia for at least 24 hours before responding. (You are aware that you can post to your own talk page while blocked, right?)

I sincerely appreciate your offer, and your assistance. I want nothing more than to help make this the most informative encyclopedia on the planet.

Let me know (after you sleep on it) whether you are interested in this last chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's 1AM. I'll re-read this tomorrow and post it. Thanks again. *Stretch* Good morning. I re-read my response to what the issue is, with the intention of removing it. I can't, again, one of Dr. Martin Luther King's most famous quotes is "silence is betrayal." I see something wrong here, and while it may work inside the community rules of wikipedia, it's outside the rules of morality. Damonthesis (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I tried... With all due respect, I reject your premise. There is nothing about being moral or standing up for what is right that requires violating any Wikipedia policy. All you will accomplish is getting yourself blocked. Unwatching this page now. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. The answer is "better than you think." Damonthesis (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

I came here to find out why Damonthesis told me that I should join some debate about gang stalking. Maybe s/he is in trouble for spamming ? Anyway let me know if the note was legit or just harrassment. Saudade7 05:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You can ignore it or delete it from your talk page.
In case you are curious, he filed a case at WP:DRN, but the case was closed because DRN does not accept cases that are already being discussed elsewhere --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry this term applies to improper use of multiple accounts. While it seems obvious I had trouble creating an account, due to problems with email, only one account has ever been used. Can someone clarify how this is 'improper?' Confirmed 0 contributions on accounts listed here.

psychotronics/john norseen[edit]

Saw your entry in the psychotronics article on Norseen's research. Perhaps it would be more on topic in the mind control article. If you can find any more RS info enter it there and I will try to support it. There does need to be a little more than what the US News article has. Batvette (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)