User talk:Nanoatzin

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


Hello, Nanoatzin! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

License tagging for File:Pulse-doppler ambiguity zones.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Pulse-doppler ambiguity zones.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I included the license that was indicated for comment that I created.Nanoatzin (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Pulse-Doppler radar[edit]


I see that you are adding to Pulse-Doppler radar. I just want to comment that the introduction is much too long. It should be only two or three pararaphs long, just to give an idia of the subject (read the help of Wikipedia). I suggest you move most of the content into the relevant sections of the article.

Pierre cb (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I urge you to read the Wiki help as your inputs in this article are totally random, are introducing external links in the text instead of the section at the bottom, and are in general totally confusing. You might know a lot about Pulse-Doppler radar but you are in need for a logical organization of this article. Finally, I have a lot of experience in Wiki, it would be polite to answer me. You might find that I can give you some hints in organizing it. Pierre cb (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. I left you messages personally because your are the only one to input in the article for a long while and you did a lot of it. So instead of putting my comment in the discussion of the article, I thought of communicating directly with you. As you can see, I have been editing a bit the article since I wrote to you and you might understand a bit my idea on the subject. You seem to be specialized in radar and you want to input all your knowledge but for the average reader your are inputting a lots of stuff too technical. I have to go to work now but I will write back with further details on what I think about the article tonight. Have a nice day! Pierre cb (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me elaborate now. Some one has put a series of help tips at the top of your discussion page that should guide you in further details, but what I see about writing any Wiki article is :
  • A short introduction that describe in general terms the topic of no more than 2 or 3 paragraphs. In the case of Pulse-Doppler radar, the introduction should include the fields of use, maybe a word on when and why it was developped but it should not incluse details like the operating PRF for a specific system. If you noticed I transfered those details to more pertinent sections.
  • History is good to have as the first section as it describes the evolution of that type of radar. The one in the article is a bit vague but probably good enough.
  • Description of the principle is then a must. It should desbribe the Pulse-Doppler in general, not for any system in particular. I added up some info there. In the subsection of the Principle section, I think there is too much details like PRF between 3 and 30 kHZ that are related to aircraft detection while Pulse-Doppler radar is used in Weather radars with PRF of 600 to 2kHZ. There is other sentences that are obscured, even to me, like :
"Pulse-Doppler signals are audible, so a helicopter sounds like a helicopter and a jet sounds like a jet.[further explanation needed] The actual size of the target can be calculated using these audible signals, which is impossible with pulse compression and low PRF systems. Audible Doppler and target size support passive vehicle type classification when identification friend or foe is not available from transponder."
Since radar use microwaves, what can the signals sound like???
Radar receivers generally use a frequency down-conversion processes that ultimately results in subtracting the transmit frequency from the receive frequency. Apart from the Doppler shift, the resulting signal that is sent to the signal processor is a base-band D.C. signal. Once a reflection has cycled into track mode, the user can select a specific track to observe things like A-scope and B-scope to evaluate track stability. Audible doppler will be available while the target is selected for scope display on systems that produce that kind of output. You will hear a steady 1,000Hz tone if you are listening to a missile that is producing a 1,000Hz Doppler shift. You will hear a rapid whop-whop-whop of narrow-band noise when you are listening to a helicopter.Nanoatzin (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I reorganized the others sections in what look to me a more logical progression but they seem to be wrttien for specialists in the fields with long examples that are military specific while this type of radar is use in a wide variety of fields. Explanation should rarely include cut-off values like the number of dB for clutter rejection or subclutter visibility. It should just explain what are those concept related to the Pulse-Doppler radar.
  • The signal processing section is written like a manual for a radar tech. It need to be simplified to be understandable by the average reader.
  • You have made link like this one clutter. All links should be to wikipedia other articles like in this case clutter. You can put a reference like this after a sentence <ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Clutter|publisher=Radartutorial</ref> but it is not the same thing (see Help:Contents/Links for details).
  • Figures and image should not have a number of pixel size specified as different browsers will interpret this diffrently. Generally just use the thmb or a upright= (see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial).

I went as far I could in the reorganization of the article. I use weather radar and I know a fair bit about them but I'm not in the technical guts of them. I hope this will help you. Just contact me if you have more questions. Pierre cb (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Pierre,
Regret the nature of how the updates progressed, but the original article misrepresented the underlying math and physics in a way that seemed like fiction. I posted some information but did not see any activity before I began the initial update. The talk page made this article seem like a dead topic waiting to be deleted. The difficulty is that about a half dozen new articles needed to be created and linked to fill an intellectual void related to this article. That is a common flaw involving the explanation for mathematical domain transformations. I wasn't sure how to explain what I was doing during the process. I hope this version is more clear.
Weather radar signal processing is radically different from the kind of signal processing needed to detect aircraft, missiles, and spacecraft. There are some minor similarities at the front end where filtering takes place, but the mathematical transformations used with weather radar signal processing will not produce the kind of output needed to drive the kind of computer software that creates and updates polar or cartesian coordinates. I deliberately left that area somewhat vague because the signal processing used with weather radar and aircraft radar are almost opposite (i.e.: aircraft radar cannot be combined with weather radar). That may not be a big problem because the explanations provided for weather radar do not provide much detail.
I've worked with the design and operation of about a dozen different kinds of radar. Kindly let me know if you locate any other significant problems.
I hope this finds everyone well.
Best regards,
Greg.Nanoatzin (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


We can see that you are interested in the hazards of cyanide, but you really need to discuss such a massive editing project before making it. These are mature pages that have been crafted over many years, and editors (at least me and a couple of others) would want to see what you think is deficient or could be improved on. Sorry to be annoying, but we have all sorts of folks dropping safety information on our pages when the editors in the Chem project decided some years ago that our articles would not to serve as a surrogates for MSDs or more authoritative sources on safety issues, all of which are eminently Google-able. But we are always keen to hear suggestions because we want the articles to improve! Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The article as it existed contained information that indicated some kinds of cyanide/cyanate compounds are not dangerous. That is false. Regards. Greg.Nanoatzin (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States[edit]

I've move some material you added to the article to the talk page for discussion. There seems to be a problem with the citations. Please see Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#Material unsupported by sources.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Continuous-wave radar[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Continuous-wave radar, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(Not) Signing Edit Summaries.[edit]

Hi. I've noticed that you like to add "~~~~" to your edit summaries. I'm not sure what motivates you to do that, but the four tildes are not particularly useful in an edit summary. They are used on Talk pages, where they get replaced by a link to your user page, one to your talk page, and a timestamp (see the end of this message). In edit summaries they serve no function. They are a little distracting/annoying. If possible, please invest the time to learn how to use them properly. Thanks. Or at least you could explain why you are adding them, there might very well be something I've missed. -- Nczempin (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed: "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~ 06:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Cite your sources: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

." Nanoatzin (talk)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nanoatzin. You have new messages at Nczempin's talk page.
Message added 08:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nczempin (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[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.

Phased array (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to DFT
Radar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Coherency

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your SPI report[edit]

WP:SPI is for wp:sockpuppet investigations. That is when two or more accounts are presumed to be operated by the same editor for disruptive purposes. You report appears to be simply a year-old content dispute with an editor who has been banned in the meantime. Unless you can provide evidence that he returned to that article with a different account, there's nothing for admins to do there. You've "won" that dispute by his default, although that doesn't mean other editors will necessarily agree with your edits. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering[edit]

Power plant.jpg

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all electrical engineering related articles.

We are just starting, so there are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; feel free to participate as much or as little as you like:

You can use Outline of electrical engineering or Index of electrical engineering articles as a starting point.

  • If you want to know how good our articles are? Have a look at our assessment department.
  • If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

SchreyP (messages) 16:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I've raised your edits at WP:NORN#Self-deportation. Please make sure you read WP:NOR first, but do join in please if you think your edits there and at Illegal Immigration should stand. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You've misread the talkback notice, which was for me but linked to the wrong page. I really think that these discussions should be on boards where others can participate and you can get other viewpoints. The OR stuff at NORN as I suggest above, for instance. I'm not sure about your concerns of racism, but if you think our WP:NPOV policy applies there is the WP:NPOVN board. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


I have opened a discussion of your edits at the above named article's talk page. You should participate. But first, if you would, you need to read a few pages of policy here at Wikipedia. I just perused the discussions here at your talk page and you really seem to not understand a very important principle that is outlined at WP:TRUTH. It does not matter a bit here at Wikipedia what you know, or even what you think you know. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. Wikipedia is not about original creation or synthesis of knowledge. Rather it is about reporting on what others have written about a given subject. All material that is contentious is required to be verified by a reliable second party source. In short, that means that a college reporting on its research is not an acceptable source. A reliable journal writing about a college's research would be. See WP:RS. You also seem to be ready to place "the race card" right out of the gate. That is neither civil, nor conducive of discussion. See WP:AGF. I do not wish to discuss this article with you either here, or at my talk page; so please direct your comments on the article to the article's talk page. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverse immigration in the United States[edit]

The complete and unashamed dishonesty with which you wrote and edited this article is indicative of an editor who deserves an indefinite ban. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Racist Terminology is Political Activism Prohibited by Wikipedia Charity Status in the United States[edit]

Response to User:Factchecker_atyourservice and others:

The correct term to describe a foreign born individual that doesn't have the right documentation is "undocumented". Not "illegal".

"Illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are only applicable to someone that has been found guilty of a felony in a court of law. Articles covering immigration in the United States must stick with statutory law in 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY and case law from US Federal Court Decisions.

Those sources are the only legitimate authorities on the topic of immigration. Federal immigration control began in 1875 with the Page Act, which outlawed state control of immigration.

People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as "illegal" by US law.

"Undocumented foreign born worker", "undocumented foreign born students", and "undocumented foreign born residents" become documented by obtaining documentation. Incarceration, deportation, and "illegal" are not applicable.

Describing someone as "illegal" because of nationality, appearance, or documentation status - but not because of court conviction - is political activism that will influence the outcome of elections whether or not that is the intent.

The federal tax law is very strict on the issue: A 501(c)(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Violation of this prohibition could lead the IRS to completely revoke an organization's tax-exempt status or impose excise taxes on the organization.

It is illegal for a charitable organization to engage in political activity in the United States.

The following facts are missing from articles that mention "illegal immigration" and "illegal aliens", which obviously influences voting behavior, whether or not that is the intent.

The following facts are also missing from most articles that cover immigration in North America:

Intentionally omitting relevant facts in order to pursue a political agenda is a violation of 501 charity status.

"Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in many Wikipedia articles to describe Mexicans and other latinos that are not criminals. This derogatory and racist language is an attempt to alter voting patterns of people that lack experience regarding immigration and employment. Wikipedia is an "encyclopedic reference" used by students that will eventually become able to vote. It is a violation of federal tax law for a charitable institution to engage in that kind of political activity. Wikipedia articles become political activity when the terms "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" are used to describe people that have not been found guilty of misdemeanor or felony in a court of law (i.e.: the term "illegal" is not relevant). Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised by that kind of language.

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented". The non-political terminology is "undocumented tourist" for tourists with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born worker" any time an employer fails to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "undocumented foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.

Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are undocumented because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are undocumented because valid US birth certificate were not issued in most counties for lack of funding. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens.

Many Wikipedia articles imply that every undocumented person is a criminal, which is ignorant and racist.

"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would be non-political if used in a quote citing another source, like this one:

Arizona’s Conservative White Legislators: Illiterate and Racist on Immigration
SB 1070 is at best an inflammatory law and will surely come to serve as a rationale to justify violent attacks by the misguided against persons who appear to “look illegal.” ... Indeed, it is this ecology of fear that led to the murder of a young legal Ecuadorian immigrant in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn on December 7, 2008. The perpetrators of this crime were white youth who, like those convicted last month on Long Island for a similar crime, were out “Beaner hopping” or hunting for “illegal aliens.”

The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

It was ratified by the United States in 1951.

The kind of racist language used in Wikipedia articles mentioning "illegals" is being used to encourage genocidal behavior. That obviously falls in the category of political activism.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how "illegal" articles compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Wikipedia.

The ancestors of all undocumented people arrived on the North American continent 15,000 years ago.


These facts are well known and relevant to all immigration discussions involving North America.

I hope this finds everyone well.

Best Regards, nanoatzin (talk)

Reverse immigration in the United States[edit]

Proposed deletion of Reverse immigration in the United States[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Reverse immigration in the United States has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Just FYI. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nanoatzin. You have new messages at Nczempin's talk page.
Message added 10:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nczempin (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. 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.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States (see the section entitled Ham-handed, apparently POV edits by User:Nanoatzin), in which you state that material you disagree with constitutes a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's status as a tax-exempt charitable organization and that you will inform the IRS and other US government officials if your changes are reverted, are in my judgment a violation of Wikipedia's policy prohibiting legal threats. Accordingly, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing until you explicitly and unconditionally confirm that you are withdrawing these statements. Once you have done so, you will be unblocked; however, you are cautioned not to engage in edit warring with other editors, or else you risk being blocked again on that basis. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The diff for the inform government officials statement (beginning with "I WILL inform ...") is diff. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please note this block has been reviewed on ANI and endorsed. Toddst1 (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
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.

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

Request reason:

Wikipedia's policy prohibiting legal threats is a violation of US law when used to silence Whistleblowers that are reporting a crime. I included US sentencing commission information and Title 8 US Code (immigration law) in an article about "illegal immigration" (actual laws). The official response of Wikimedia foundation administrators was to ban my account and remove all references to actual US law, after I pointed out that it was a crime to engage in activity intended to alter existing laws. My account ban means that the official intent of Wikimedia Foundation is to change existing US law. That is the definition of political activity. Charities, like Wikimedia Foundation are prohibited from political activity in any form. I simply pointed out that I would report that Wikimedia Foundation is violating the law. Banning accounts because of Whistleblower activity is illegal, and retaliation is proof of crime: unwanted contact resulting in harm. The page Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States and other articles contain political campaign information that advocates changes to existing US laws. That activity is banned by US law for charitable organizations. Wikimedia Foundation uses the word "illegal" to mean "undocumented", but article contain no actual US laws or government policies to support that legal claim. Removing actual law and making false claims about "illegals" proves Wikimedia Foundation is officially advocating political changes. All edits that included actual US immigration law with respect to "illegal aliens" were removed and the fake political campaign information was restored after I said I would report the crime. My account was banned in retaliation to prevent me from correcting the crime. The only possible explanation is that Wikimedia Foundation is, in fact, a political organization who's mission is to illegal engage in political activity that is intended to change existing laws. That is explicitly illegal in US code, which has not been altered by any court. I simply stated that I would report that crime. Wikimedia Foundation cannot retaliate by banning people that report a crime without committing another crime. Political activity means that educators are violating the law by accepting Wikipedia for classroom use, because classroom political activity is prohibited in all 50 states. That means Wikipedia needs to be banned for all users in the *.edu domain. I don't see any problem with doing things or saying things that will stop Wikimedia Foundation from violating laws. Please feel free to contact me regarding these issues. I hope this finds everyone well. Best regards.Nanoatzin (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You clearly don't get it, so I have gone ahead and revoked your talk page access as well. But I will try my luck and offer a response to you, that you might understand. Wikipedia is a privately owned website. You have literally NO rights here, except the right to privacy, the right to fork, and the right to vanish. You do not have whistleblower rights, you do not have editing rights. Everything beyond those three rights I listed are mere privileges. As a privately organization, the Wikimedia Foundation is free to block editors for any reason or no reason, at any time, and without warning. You are of course blocked by volunteer administrators rather than the Foundation, but that is there legal right, just FYI. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 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.

Here's the deal: Wikipedia is a private entity, and they are NOT violating anything you say they are. You have not told us where Wikipedia is trying to influence the changing of law (i.e. lobbying to Congress). We are hosting an encyclopedia, and will not be influenced by your crap here anymore. If you want to report us, you can do so on your dime. I can guarantee you that you will lose the case, and you will spend a lot of money trying to win it, but still lose. Wikimedia Foundation and the administrators here are not the same thing, so WMF had NOTHING to do with your banning. You were blocked per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NLT. Wikipedia is a private entity, meaning we can do whatever the hell we want to with blocking your account, and it's not in violation of any laws. You seriously need to stop trying to lawyer your way around us, as we've seen it many times before, and they've gotten blocked too. You're about to be blocked without talkpage by the way, so better reply quickly to this. By the way, I'd strongly suggest you now (that your talkpage is revoked) not pursue this any further. From the standpoint of another human, I'd honestly not like you to waste time and money on your political agenda. gwickwiretalkediting 01:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nanoatzin, I'm not at all convinced that you have a right to continue editing Wikipedia by virtue of the whistleblower protection laws. But even if you believe what we're calling a "legal threat" is a justifiable and legally protected act of whistleblowing, Wikipedia's No Legal Threats policy still requires "that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
And here, dear citizens, we see yet another case of gross misconduct by Wikipedia admins. Nanoatzin was a capable, proficient editor of technical articles on radar ... and pointed out some obvious failings of an article on undocumented aliens in the US. Seems like the admins didn't like his politics: he was too liberal? Can't have that. Block the guy, block him forever. WTF. The whole concept of Wikipedia adminship needs a major overhaul. It's corrupt to the core. (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you even read what he was blocked for? He was blocked for making legal threats, not any failings he pointed out in an article or any politics. It clearly states what he needs to do to get unblocked. You are making a straw man argument. Nczempin (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Electrical Engineering Project[edit]

Freshman404Talk 10:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)