User talk:Sure Footed1

Sure Footed1, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sure Footed1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Lester Coleman. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of people granted asylum, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Lester Coleman. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of people granted asylum, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Banning within a 4-minute period? Due process? Hello?

If you are going to consider editing the Lester Coleman page as a bannable offense, then you need to hang a sign on the page stating "warning, editing here will result in you being automatically banned".

The man was a refugee for five years in Sweden.

He was judicially persecuted.

The page, before I edited it was non-neutral, full of DOJ bias.

Warning, editing to add false, unsourced, and non-neutral information will result in you eventually being blocked. Happy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually added information sourced from the Daily Mail, U.K.

Did you even read the editing? I think not.

Do you have an email for any future newspress articles on the libel on Wikipedia of investigative journalists?

Thanks in advance for providing this. Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your version of the article. Please point out the Daily Mail reference. Thanks in advance for providing this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, before we get-into the Daily-mail or accreditidation issues, there's the issue of STYLE.

The first para of the old article launches into a discussion of the book "Trail of the Octopus". The rest of the article focuses on his so-called criminal past.

The guy won three Emmys as a journalist before the Locherbie thing wrecked his life (resulting in the DOJ chasing him all-over creation, and "that's persecution, my friend").

Definitely the first para needs to be cleaned up - and I did that.

I'll source it a bit better. I might do some of it later, as that will take more time.

But for you to call me a "disruptive editor" was completely OUT Of line, Sir. Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No sources provided as usual. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

How *old* are you. I haven't made any edits yet.

Seriously. Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You said you added info sourced from the Daily Mail so I assume you have that reference readily available. I'm asking for that information. By the way, you should be aware that the Daily Mail is generally not regarded as a reliable source when nit comes to sensational news stories but we'll cross that bridge after you provide the actual reference info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't know how old you are, but just because I didn't make the edits immediately doesn't mean they can't be made. Not everyone has their leg tied to a computer, and is a Wikipedia fanatic, sorry to disappoint.

Beyond that, this isn't a sensational news story. This man used to co-produce 60 minutes and 20/20 for CBS, he's won three Emmys, and apparently served as an undercover DIA officer, witnessed something-awful, reported it, and had a lot of problems afterwards. As for references, there's plenty, it's just that most of them were UK newspapers, as U.S. newspapers generally didn't print much about non-US government side of the Locherbie story. This is fairly typical of the U.S. press, and any such whitewashing is fairly typical of Wikipedia, evidence the Pierre Salinger article. Salinger was a former Congressman, Presidential press secretary for JFK and a very distinguished newsman, but he differed on the Locherbie story, then on TWA 800 and he was eaten-alive, by "whomever".

The one that I found (Washington Weekly) is out of print.

The Daily Mail citation was already in the Coleman article, but someone put it in the comments-section.

I'll get to it when I get to it. I have other things going on today. Sure Footed1 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"This man used to co-produce 60 minutes [unsourced] and 20/20 for CBS [unsourced], he's won three Emmys [unsourced]..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia administration Gag order and "threat of immediate banning" for editing Lester Coleman

And now you want to ban me as disruptive. Fine. Let's call The Guardian and The Register and talk about Wikipedia's support for persecution of whistleblowers. Mr. Coleman is a well-known persecuted journalist. Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's call the The Guardian if Wikipedia is a platform for supporting journalist persecution

Persecuting journalists is back in vogue. I think that this is a prime example of Wikipedia's support for google-based persecution.

I think that this is a time-pertinent issue.

If Mr. Coleman can't have a bio which is neutral, but is *required* to reflect the DOJ's opinion, and anyone who edits it is to be "banned" for "violating a gag-order" enforced by Wikipedia administrators, then I think that this needs further exploration in the press.

Why is journalist Mr. Lester Coleman being lambasted on Wikipedia? Why is it important to libel journalist Mr. Lester Coleman on Wikipedia? Who benefits from the libel of journalist Mr. Lester Coleman on Wikipedia?

Sure Footed1 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Asylum

You know the difference between seeking asylum and being granted it, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

≤Laughs≥. Glad you asked. Indeed I do.

Do you want to have a discussion about the refoulement policies of different governments, a discussion of how refoulement is a jus cogens violation, or which treaties are referenced in the asylum procedure? And which plurilateral treaties also apply to the procedure, in different regions of the world? The difference between judicially granted political asylum and diplomatic-granting of political asylum?

"Bring it".

Sure Footed1 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just making sure as you added Coleman to the List of people granted asylum article when the source plainly states he was refused asylum. I (and Wikipedia) could care less about how you think asylum should work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My what a charming response. I didn't discuss my opinions of asylum. I made reference to various declensions of the asylum procedure, and laws (and treaties) under which asylum is either granted, or recognized. For example, Snowden was granted "diplomatic asylum", which the U.S. doesn't recognize. If he had it granted by a judge, that would be another kettle of fish. Did you know that? I'll bet you didn't. My point is that I do know a great deal about asylum, more than most people you'll chat with on Wikipedia.

Back to Mr. Coleman. I had been under the impression he'd been granted temporary protection in Sweden. That wasn't accurate. It looks as if he went-through the asylum procedure and was refused, full-stop, then moved out of Sweden, to another country, then went-back to the United States (where it appears he had a hell of a time, until he counter-sued, and then he moved back to Beirut).

I didn't realize he didn't get asylum in Sweden. As such, hedoesn't belong on the list of people 'granted' asylum, given that information. But neither was I "disruptive editing. But in all frankness, I don't think you were aware of the facts either, when you were making ad hominen attacks on my editing.

You looked it up right now. Didn't you. Sure Footed1 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

So you added information not belonging in the article three times without bothering to check the facts (or the source you yourself provided)? Sounds like disruptive editing to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I had understood something incorrectly. That's not disruptive editing. That's misunderstanding the facts.

You might want to reread the Wikipedia manual on "assume good faith", because you aren't following it.

As well, you are being quite rude.

Sure Footed1 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well let's take another example. In this edit you claim that Coleman won the Edward R. Murrow award. What's your independent source for this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User: NeilN needs evidence of one point

Listen guy. I'm not on trial. If you want an official source, for his receiving the Murrow award:

• "Trail of the Octopus", page 58, para 2.
• D.C. District Court filing 1: USCOURTS-dcd-1_04-cv-01688-0 I don't find anywhere that it is refuted.
• D.C. District Court filing 2: USCOURTS-dcd-1_04-cv-01688-0

List of references to satisfy User: NeilN

These references are unusable per our policies.

• WP:SELFPUB - The material is self-serving and involves third parties.
• WP:PRIMARY - Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. This also self-published. Anyone can claim anything they want in court filings.

This is why I asked for independent sources - sources that actually fact check Coleman's claims or the organization handing out the award. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I have no time to do that right now. Independent sources are probably more difficult to obtain, and contacting organizations to validate the claim of the Murrow award and Emmy would be something useful to do. What complicates obtention of neutral validation is that the interest in enforcing the government's side of affairs was so signficant in importance (on political grounds), and the media buy-in so wholehearted that few articles supported his story. And even then, those no longer exist online (examples in "The Telegraph" and the "Washington Weekly" which no longer exists), part of that being due to the WWW not having it's advent before 1996. Sure Footed1 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be online. The newspaper name, section, and page number of the article will do. Having said this, any offline source will be carefully scrutinized as that article has suffered from people providing hoax references (claiming Coleman was dead, claiming Coleman had a twin brother who actually wrote the book, etc.) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look for the other articles later. I stuck them in a word-file. I'm not in the mood right now / have things to finish. I'll do it when I feel like procrastinating again.  :) Sure Footed1 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd read he was dead as well - was surprised to learn he wasn't. There's some alleged link between his alleged exoneration on the passport/identity charge (which was supposedly linked to a diagnosis of a serious illness), so I thought he'd passed away. There's also, interestingly, an apparent running battle between him and other persons related to the actual in-person scandal in Cyprus, with the DEA, on his book page on amazon.com, as well as on the opposing-opinion PA103 book by Michael Hurley. They still are quite angry at one another, because if you believe LC, MH dropped the ball and conspired resutling in loss of life (whereupon LC was persecuted mercilessly), and if you believe MH, LC accused him wrongfully.Sure Footed1 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came on hard but other editors and I have been dealing with hoax/poorly-sourced claims for years (and "lawyers" and "university representatives") and it's a bit wearying when they're repeated, albeit in good faith in your case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing. I apologize for being curt.  :) I admittedly was editing without perfect sourcing. I do think there's changes that need to be made. I'll work on it incrementally, in the off-hours.  :) Sure Footed1 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Back to reality

The DOJ does pick people and persecute them unremittingly. You seem pretty young and you may be intelligent, but possibly not very experienced in the way the world works. The more I read about this man, the more this appears to have been the case. There are well-known recent cases of this such as internet activist, civil disobedience-performing Aaron Swartz, but also, political persecutions transpire against establishment figures such as Don Siegelman; Governor Siegelman was persecuted for somewhere around 9 years, until they finally imprisoned him, for a crime that wasn't really a crime. When you enter into the subject of intelligence whistleblowing, you are walking into a world where all published facts can be manipulated, and the odd are stacked against the individual. The world doesn't function like we see it on the TV. The authorities can behave pretty badly when it comes to seeking to cover up official mistakes.

Such as concerns Coleman: that biography focuses entirely on the U.S. government side of his case. There is a lot of information that presents the story other than in that bio, and it's not there.

I think your point stands that there needs to be a well-researched, defendable bio of the guy, because right now, it's utterly non-neutral.

I have things to do right now. Enjoy your day on Wikipedia. Sure Footed1 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm pretty experienced with the way the world works. Experienced enough to know not to unthinkingly accept as the truth the story of a man who has a possible motive to whitewash his past. Also experienced enough to know governments engage in the same whitewashings and coverups. On Wikipedia we report on what the majority of reliable sources say - we're not here to be a soapbox. Having said this, thank you for providing some usable sources on my talk page. I've copied them to the article's talk page and started a discussion on what content could be incorporated into the article. Please make your thoughts known there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Better understanding of Wikipedia position

Hi Neil. It's been a few years. I've realized I didn't read the talk-page very well in 2013, and I didn't realize the havoc that had gone-on on this page, so sorry for that. I also didn't know about the talking on the page CT did, which I've since-read.

I do want to add a few balancing elements when I get a few spare moments. Cheers. Sure Footed1 (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Please take note of WP:BLP/N#Lester Coleman. Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Lester Coleman

If you continue making substantial undiscussed changes to this article then you may be topic-banned or blocked altogether. Your edits are disputed, you now need to discuss them at Talk:Lester Coleman. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just deleted your defamatory statements about Coleman on the talk page. However much I might privately agree, this is not acceptable behcviour per our policy on biographies of living people. Since you seem to have no other interest on Wikipedia, I think we will be able to do without your help, thanks all the same. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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).

Sure Footed1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Indefinitely blocked? Give me a break.

JzG is a liar. I did not deface the Coleman article. I didn't even edit the article.

I edited the talk page.

JzG just erased my comments, and banned me. I had commented that I hadn't read Coleman's history in the archives, and after reading it, I'm not inspired to do research on the page.

Secondly, I added that fighting with JzG isn't worth it, becuse

"arguing with JzG is like wrestling with a pig - you end up dirty and the pig likes it".

I also called JzG a bully. I stand by that statement.

If Wikipedia is a place where such a mean little despot (as JzG) can run around blocking and deleting material, and lying about people, claiming they did X, Y, and Z - when they did not - then so be it.

If that's how this place works, then ban me. "For life". (rolls eyes)

Otherwise, unban me, please.

"Cripes".

Decline reason:

WP:BLP policy applies on all pages, and your additions to the talk page were a breach. Indefinite does not necessarily imply a long block - it really just means until you can make a convincing explanation that you understand BLP policy and will not repeat such breaches. One thing that won't get you unblocked is an attack on the blocking admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2016 (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. 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).

Sure Footed1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would appreciate being unblocked.

This fellow JzG seems to have a vendetta for me. He doesn't seem to be an easy person.

My edits were in good faith, and I wish to please to be allowed to edit. Sure Footed1 (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First of all, read and understand WP:NOTTHEM before you request unblock again. Secondly, I see no indication that you have any understanding of why you were blocked; we're quite serious about WP:BLP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:33, 18 February 2016 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.