User talk:Hadding

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Plates of Nephi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Plates of Nephi

The edits you've made to Plates of Nephi do not really pertain to this particular article. I believe you want the article on Golden plates. That is the article that deals with Joseph Smith and the plates, not this one. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Alfred Ploetz has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Miquonranger03 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your edits in the article Animal welfare in Nazi Germany should be more careful. While you can certainly remove questionable source, you must have to look the other parts of the article are not destroyed. Compare this version after your edits and this version. Your edit resulted in Cite error in reference section. Be careful about technical aspects, if you continue this behavior, i.e. removal of parts of article without fixing it, it may be considered disruptive edit and your account may be blocked for a period of time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do this again

You have repeatedly attempted to insert false information into the article about Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. Please stop. It doesn't matter what some foreign correspondent for the NYT mistakenly wrote 90 years ago if we know with certainty that it is false. The only reason to include it in the encyclopedia would be if the false report had turned into an incident in its own right. In that case, some brief mention might be warranted. Otherwise, no. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for blatant disruptive editing, i.e. edit-warring at Posen speeches to insert tendentious WP:OR in support of Holocaust denial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reviewing your contributions further, I'm upping this to indefinitely. We don't need nazi propagandists in this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 2 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am inserting true, relevant, and verifiable material. I have documented that specific claims in the "Ausrottung" section of the "Posen Speeches" article are false. I find the characterization of my editing as tendentious quite odd, because the article was highly tendentious before I touched it. It was arguing for a particular viewpoint regarding possible meanings of Ausrottung, and it goes beyond this, including negative characterizations of the motives of people who take the opposite view. The article as it stood before I began editing abounded with biased writing that makes Wikipedia look like a joke as a reference. The main point of the "Ausrottung" section of the article as it existed, prior to my editing, was that ausrotten/Ausrottung has never meant root out/rooting out. I directly disproved that with a citation from William Dwight Whitney's A Compendious German and English Dictionary which gives "root out" as the primary meaning of ausrotten. When a point that is supported by several paragraphs of argumentation is proven to be wrong, extensive editing is in order. The two other users who removed all of my additions did so for very poor reasons. In the first instance it amounted to circular reasoning, i.e. the user said that Himmler had "defined" ausrotten by explaining what he meant with by ausrotten with the word umbringen. That only makes sense if ausrotten can only have one meaning, but that is precisely the question: can ausrotten mean something that makes sense in the context of Himmler's Posen speeches other than killing? Nobody is saying that ausrotten can never mean to kill, only that also means to expel, which it clearly does mean in the Luther Bible. In the second instance no reason whatsoever was given. All information that I added is verifiable. So who is being disruptive? Not I. I am only guilty of telling people things that they didn't know or don't want to know, and it's pretty clear that the people who removed all my edits didn't even check to see if what I was saying was accurate. Hadding (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Allowing holocaust deniers to edit would bring the Wikipedia project into disrepute and make it less reliable for readers. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Future Perfect and FisherQueen have both justified blocking my account essentially on the basis that they do not like what they perceive as my perspective. How does my perspective matter, as long as what I post is verifiable, true, and relevant? Neither Future Perfect nor FisherQueen has said that any part of what I posted was inaccurate. I directly disproved the main thesis of the "Ausrottung" section of the "Posen Speeches" article, but now, if my suspension stands, that totally flawed passage will remain as is. I would suggest that Wikipedia needs people of all perspectives, each to bring criticism to bear on the others. There should be no problem with my perspective or any other perspective as long the standards of truth, verifiability, and relevance are upheld. The question here is whether Wikipedia is to be a place where all people can deal rationally with each other, or whether it's to be a place where some administrators use their position to suppress dissent

Decline reason:

It's not dissent, it's bullshit, garden variety holocaust denial. Nothing new to see there; go to Stormfront or some other similar venue to find friends. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:10, 3 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

If the unpopular viewpoint is not allowed access to Wikipedia then how are the representatives of the popular viewpoint to be kept on their toes? The article as it stood before I began editing was blatantly tendentious and contained a number of falsehoods which have been able to persist because criticism is stifled. As long as content consists of verifiable facts, the viewpoint of the person who posts them should be irrelevant. This most recent admin to reject my appeal, Jpgordon, is obviously more emotional than rational about my contribution: "It's not dissent, it's bullshit...." No inaccuracy has been found in anything that I posted.

Decline reason:

I have reviewed your global edits. You have an agenda (one that makes me nauseous) and you support it with cherry picked factoids to spin articles and split hairs to serve that agenda without regard for weight, context or truth. I'm sure you can find some good neo-nazi sites to debate whether this person or that person is muddied by Jewish ancestry but you won't do it here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2009 (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.

Life advice

As I'm sure you've discovered before you ever joined Wikipedia, your opinions are widely rejected by just about everyone. This, I perceive, makes you feel that your viewpoint is being unfairly discriminated against. If you're able to do so, consider taking just a few minutes to consider the possibility that the reason that everyone to whom you describe these views recoils from you in horror is because these views are untrue in the factual sense and wrong in the moral sense. Maybe it isn't that the rest of the world is unfairly stigmatizing your truth. Maybe it's that you're badly, badly wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good refutation of the fraud this editor has been trying to perpetuate. It's an old denier argument: pretend the language doesn't mean what it always meant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]