User talk:Unique2tell

Unique2tell, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Unique2tell! 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! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:It seems Niemti is a bit of a troublemaker at Wikipedia. I've read some of the material on: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I must say, this person Niemti should be reprimanded, at least. I have the right, as anyone else does to add informative facts to an article deemed to be historical fact. Niemti (it seems) prefers to see history as Niemti sees it, and omits truth.]]

Read this[edit]

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007178

For starters. --Niemti (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's now protected against vandalism. Consider it a warning. --Niemti (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you refused to stop[edit]

There's a thread about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, have a nice day. --Niemti (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Your edits on Warsaw Uprising have been tendentious and disruptive. You need to stop trying to push Wikipedia's coverage into the direction of your preferred agenda.

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued tendentious revert-warring immediately after by warning above.. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 27 January 2013 (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).

Unique2tell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I havn't done anything wrong, in fact I did justice to history by adding additional, previously purposefully omitted, fact to help create a more historically accurate article.

Decline reason:

Your attitude in the unblock statement only affirms the reasons for your block in the first place. It seems that if you were unblocked, you would simply continue with the tendentious editing that led to your block. Simply saying that you are right with no credible backup will get you nowhere. Also, using HotCat to edit pages will wrap your text in superfluous [[:Category]] syntax. It's not a shortcut for the "edit" button. Airplaneman ✈ 23:15, 27 January 2013 (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).

Unique2tell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You stated I didn't cite a "credible reason", well, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_by_Nazi_Germany Also, I have no idea what HotCat is!

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:02, 28 January 2013 (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).

Unique2tell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I was blocked was because I was wrongfully accused of vandalism, I provided my reasons for my unblock request and proof of the honesty of my edit. I did not change any facts, I merely wrote the fact more accurately so that readers could understand that certain nations were subjugated to work with the Nazis, and the Soviets were the only Volunteers cooperating with the Nazis. The Baltic States had to play both sides as they were forcibly annexed by both The Soviets, and The Germans during WWII. They were forced to collaborate. I feel it is completely wrong to twist historical fact to make it look like these nations willingly cooperated with their oppressors. It isn't fair to those people or those countries, it makes them look bad, they fought hard to get rid of The Germans, and The Russians. Enough is enough already. My minor edit is to make sure readers are aware of the fact that these nations were subjugated. Please remove my "Block", and restore my fact unto the page Warsaw Ghetto Uprising under the section titled "Belligerents". Simple facts omitted from historical articles can sometimes over time change what people believe versus the truth. Thank you

Decline reason:

You show no comprehension whatsoever as to what led to your block, nor do you provide any assurances that the disruption would not continue if you were to be unblocked and therefore your unblock request is denied. I strongly suggest you review the guide to appealing blocks prior to beginning any new unblock requests as repeated requests that do not address the reasons for your block may lead to your talk page access being revoked. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:48, 28 January 2013 (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.

HotCat[edit]

It's curious that you appear to be using HotCat without your own knowledge. It's a tool for adding categories, not making edits. Airplaneman ✈ 20:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, I did not use any such program, nor do I know of it, I am self-taught on the computer! I went in to "edit", and did so. On another note, I feel all of my unblock requests have not been read as being together, it seems each one is separately reviewed, and judged, I thought I just would add the information requested, and the Administrator would go over all of them? Maybe someone will be willing enough to make the historically inaccurate article more concise as I have tried to do? There is plenty of evidence out there that shows I was only clarifying a couple of certain points so there wouldn't be a mis-understanding, or mis-interpretation of history. Now there is clearly a twist in the historical data under "Belligerents" which will lead many to think that those Nations did willingly, what was done by Nazi created "Puppet Governments"! The truth will prevail!99.141.190.62 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is just one example of what should be qualifying "citation" directly stating they were Puppet Governments:http://defendinghistory.com/tag/lithuanian-provisional-government Unique2tell (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

First of all, the reviewing administrators for your blocks have clearly taken the time to fully acquaint themselves with the situation, as evidenced by their declining rationale rife with examples and context to support their reasoning.

Secondly, the link you cite certainly does not qualify as a reliable or neutral source. Looking at the site's editor alone, Dovid Katz, raises red flags.

Third, I'm not sure how HotCat is making its way into your edits if you're simply editing via the edit button. Example. Try going to Preferences --> Gadgets --> Editing and unchecking the box next to "HotCat, easily add / remove / change a category on a page, with name suggestion". See if that helps. Airplaneman ✈ 05:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]