Hello, JohnHistory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Deletion of segment "land action" on "Bay of Pigs Invasion" page
John, one could not help but note that you erase the whole "land action" section in the Bay of Pigs Invasion page. Since you offered no explanation, one wonders if you knew that Carlos Franqui is a newspaper reporter and author of several books on these and related matters. At the time of the Bay of Pigs Invasion he was an inconditional of Castro (he later defected), and a first hand witness of these events. Could you be so kind as to offer a rational for your actions in this regard. The section you deleted was:
"The land action was very bloody. Carlos Franqui writes: “We lost a lot of men. This frontal attack of men against machines (the enemy tanks) had nothing to do with guerrilla war; in fact it was a Russian tactic, probably the idea of the two Soviet generals, both of Spanish origin (they fought for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War and fled to the Soviet Union to later fight in World War II. One of them was a veteran, a fox named Ciutah. He (Ciutah) was sent by the Red Army and the Party as an advisor and was the father of the new Cuban army. He was the only person who could have taken charge of the Girón campaign. The other Hispano-Russian general was an expert in antiguerrilla war who ran the Escambray cleanup. But the real factor in our favor at Girón was the militias: Almejeira’s column embarked on a suicide mission, they were massacred but they reached the beach.”"
When someone talks about an unknown "fox" general of hispanic/russian origin who was in the red army, I tend to be skeptical. and it seems to be slanted to the Cuban side. JohnHistory22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Herb Parsons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no one has been attacked - please stop with your false red hearings - they are silly and do you no good. Please stand up for your points and you won't need to whine so much. thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Please stop ranting about other editors on the Obama talk page.[1][2][3] Please review WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA, and some of the other policies, guidelines, and essays about proper use of Wikipedia article talk pages. The talk page is not the place to complain about other editors, or what is wrong with Wikipedia. Further, you should know that the Obama-related articles are under article probation - I am attaching a routine notice below. Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
You were blocked because you were being disruptive at the Obama article. Returning to the same kind of behaviour right off your block is less than optimal behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously are the one violating the rules. I am being perfectly within the bounds and if you can't take truth to power then I suggest you get out of the way. JohnHistory (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Seriously - my last comment wasn't meant as a joke. The Obama talk page isn't the place for appealing your block. Reposting it over and over in the wrong place just makes things worse. Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JohnHistory. You have new messages at SineBot's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Let me be blunt here. Not only are you barking up the wrong tree asking User:Tvoz for help fighting your supposed "abuse",[4] but you are barking somethig that is not a tree (Tvoz is not an administrator) on a website that is not about barking at trees. As an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia - and probably wider, as a person using a collaborative website - you should pay some serious attention when most everyone you encounter tells you are doing it the wrong way, and blocks you when you continue. You were just released from a two-week block for causing trouble, and your first substantive post is a ridiculous request[5] to "stop the Obama Admin from literally running" the Obama page. You are not going to get any sympathy complaining that you have been abused, that you want the people who dealt with you to be punished, and that it's all unfair. Quite the opposite, this is going to turn everyone off and they will not want to deal with you at all. Based on edits like this one[6] where you ask a bot for a referral to an "honest high level moderator" it is hard to escape the conclusion that you have no idea what you are doing. If you want things to get better slow down, stop complaining, and try to learn how things work. There are some patient people around here but you have to be willing to listen, or else it is pointless. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I have a right to request an honest higher up moderator (in other words one who is known for not having an agenda) because I have been abused by the very people you say I should submit to. Why would I do that? There are a lot of people on here who have agendas in their use of censoring and blocking. that is a fact and just because there are many of them does not mean that they are correct to do this. By the way, my "ridiculous" post recently (BTW, I have been banned for doing less then using a word as provocative as ridiculous) is not at all. You in fact missed the point of the two or so sentence comment. I was saying why do all of the photos with him posing with a fellow politician exclusively include Republicans. that is a very reasonable thing to point out. Also, if you think it is ridiculous that the Obama Admin would not be active on that page then I suggest kindly that you think again. It would in fact be ridiculous to think otherwise given that it is the first non - Obama Admin page one get when they look up his name and it is the most visited page on Wikipedia and the Obama admin is well known for heavy use of the internet. If I don't seem like an expert here its because I'm not - hence me asking for HELP in doing the right thing. I don't want an opinion poll I want people to look at what happened to me and see the abuse. Under your logic, I should just shut up and let myself be abused even to the excessive point of blocking me from writing on my own talk page.
Now that you have signed your post Wikidemon I am not surprised that you would say i was blocked for "causing trouble" What trouble did I cause? especially on my own talk page which resulted in my final block??? I love that. "causing trouble" hmmm you mean bringing up points of contention? I guess that is trouble for some. Seriously though, you are proving my point to some degree. I think I used the word "juvenile" but that was about it. Is "juvenile" "ridiculous" ???? I have no intention of even giving the excuse to block me now because I know that the language police (who primarily target people they don't agree with) constantly demean others in their responses and yet suffer no consequences. Good Ole boys network perhaps? I tried to explain how the terms are used to control and abuse the tools even on the talk page but of course I was blocked for doing that too. I guess it was not relevant to the discussion page to point out, in detail, the pitfalls in it and the systemic problems that were occuring. Blocked again for that. I couldn't illustrate the problems better then what has happened to me. JohnHistory (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
←John, Wikidemon is right that I'm not a tree or an admin - and I don't want to get involved in this - but since you wrote to me I will give some honest advice that I think is in your best interests and that of the project overall: it appears you were blocked at least in part because of the nature of your response to earlier blocks, and the way you addressed other editors, and your continuing to argue points after it was productive, so pursuing this may not be your best strategy for success. I truly recommend you try a lower profile and get back to actual editing - maybe on less stress-inducing, controversial topics than Barack Obama - and put this behind you. Listen to what other editors say, especially more experienced ones, about how to work here with less aggravation all around. It's a big encyclopedia, and there are much more constructive ways for you to spend your time than by fighting. Good luck. Tvoz/talk21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is my goal but I want someone to at least look at my last block which prevented me from contesting the block and writing on my talk page. Please tell me how that was justified and if not please tell what to do to help at least put one or more of these guys on the radar in the future so mabye someone else won't be abused as easily. I would be doing a great disservice if I simply let that fly. I know the deck is stacked against me, that is why I just want someone to say "that was wrong". "we talked to him". "we let him know" . that is all. Abuses of wikipedia should not be so unimportant. what could be more important? JohnHistory (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I am an experieinced editor. Looking at your history, you were blocked for disruptive edits, came back with a personal attack less than 24 hours later, and were reblocked. Then you used your talk page as a soapbox for your opinions on wikipedia, which also included more personal attacks in your manifesto. Sorry, but I really don't see that any grave injustice was done to you. A big part of wikipedia is learning to get along with others, and for that stretch of time it didn't seem to be high on your list. Now that you're unblocked, hopefully you can put your block behind you and be a productive editor. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under your definition I can't tell people about who or what is happening to me? I did not personally attack anyone in my "manifesto" and like I said someone who was being really uptight with me I called juvenile and that was the "personal attack". Listen, I get the language police thing, even though I have been called practically every name in the book yet I have never tried to block people for saying, as wikidemon just did, that I "am ridiculous (which is tame compared to other comments) That comment, would have got me blocked if I had said it to wikidemon. But, I get that now and I understand they are waiting for me to react so that they can block me for calling their actions "juvenile" or what have you. However, I was not using my talk page to attack people I was explaining my situation and i was blocked not for personal attacks but for a "rant". Also, look at my current photo agenda discussion section at Obama. that was just closed off and labeled a rant. I can't very well move on when it is still occurring. JohnHistory (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
You brought up an obscure point that made no sense, you then took comments as to the point you were raising personally, and then you accuse me of collusion. I'm not sure how to respond other than to say I can't really see why the point you bring up is relevant or why you were so forceful about. Soxwon (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you called my comments "stupid'. You should know better then that! Number two, if all of the photos show him with Rep senators that is noteworthy to discuss and it makes sense to question that choice. You say I am "forceful" but if I don't persist then you just delete my comments and call me stupid. If i wasn't a little persistent I wouldn't waste my time because you would just delete it and make sure wikipedians could not discuss what I found and what is strange. I don't understand why you can get away with calling people stupid and closing discussions that are relevant. It is weird that he is only pictured with Republican senators. you think that is totally normal. It isn't! JohnHistory (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
It doesn't matter, I'm not responding anymore, I'm moving on and so should you. I will just revert any and all future messages on the subject so plz just drop it. Soxwon (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a free image like you are asking about, feel free to upload it. Until then, please stop attacking and insulting other editors. It's not their fault that such images are not available. Grsz1100:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please show where I attacked and insulted an editor today? I have gone out of my way not to even when called mean names and having my discussions deleted. I really resent that you would accuse me of that when I have gone so far to not personally insult anyone. JohnHistory (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
You accused editors of bias and having an agenda when they have no bearing on what images are available to use on Wikipedia. Please don't flat out lie to me when you know exactly what you said. Grsz1100:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me sir, did you read what you referenced? I never accused any person of bias, I said the photos are baised (biased towards showing Obama with Republicans) That is in no way shape or form a personal insult sir! I don't know how you could make such an error? JohnHistory (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Who do you think edits the article? If you claim the article is biased, you are accusing those who edit it of bias. Grsz1100:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, you calling me a "liar" is a personal insult and I'm getting quite amazed at this process. Please do not call me a "liar". Saying the photos have a bias is not a personal insult to an editor. I never blamed any person for putting them there in fact so I don't know why you are accusing me of this and even your cited passage showed no personal insulting. Please sir, do not call me a liar and in fact if there is lying going on right now it's not me as I have proven. JohnHistory (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I'm fairly certain you aren't understanding what I am saying or the processes here. You claim the images are biased. Why? How? Why bring it up? If it has nothing to do with the editors, how can they solve the problem? You claiming that anything on Wikipedia, text, images, etc., is the same as directly saying "You are biased." Editors write the articles and post the images. If you say one is biased, then you are implying that you mean the other as well. Grsz1101:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight you are accusing me of PERSONALLY insulting the....ARTICLE???? That takes the cake! I guess in your view one simply cannot criticize anything. interesting. JohnHistory (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Are you reading what I'm saying! I'm saying, you are accusing the editors of bias and agendas, which is an attack. The images available for use on the article are not up to them, and you are fighting with them over nothing, so drop it. Grsz1101:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, the photos present a biased image. I don't know who uploaded them (or how many people did) and I don't even care. The reason I brought it up was to make it more accurate and less strangely (100% Rep Senators) absent of Democrats. that was all. To say me pointing this out is "attacking and personally insulting" Editors is just not reasonable. BTW, don't create these fake charges and call me a liar and then say "drop it'. How about just don't start it next time guy. JohnHistory (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Then next time, if that really was your intention, rather than coming in guns blazing with accusations that the article is written by Obama people, say simply "I think the article should have images of Obama with Democrats." Grsz1101:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious. Have you gone and accused the two guys who did personally insult me in the section you came at me over? because those guys really did personally insult and attack. So if you came after little old me for nothing, God I hope you did something with them too. Otherwise, Height of Hypocrisy. JohnHistory (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I haven't. They know better, and if an admin sees fit to deal with it, they will. Believe it or not, I came here in attempt to help you better express what it was you wanted to see in the article. Grsz1101:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, my "guns blazing" was just me saying that we have to be mindful that politicians (especially internet savvy Obama Admin) have a vested interest in these articles. Do you deny that? What is even controversial about that? JohnHistory (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Here you go again. I never accused any specific person of working for Obama. I simply pointed out that the chances of no interference from them would be unlikely. Do you believe that no one connected with the Obama Admin has ever edited (or monitored) the article? Doesn't that seem hard to believe given the article prominence. Either way, I was simply pointing out that we must be aware of that at least possibility. I guess you would counter that we shouldn't be aware of it, and it has never and will never occur. I disagree with sir. But again, I never accused anyone of working for the Obama Admin and you really need to stop making my general comment somehow user specific and insulting. I'm just trying to warn everybody because it seems that some people think this idea is absurd. I think thinking this idea is absurd, is absurd. JohnHistory (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
If you truly wanted to help (How can they know better if no one tells them they messed up?) then you will now be my ally in the civil fight for what's right. We shall give no scally wags quarter. The truth is our bible and we are devoted adherents! JohnHistory (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
But I must warn you son. They are many and we are but few. Though they possess the numbers we possess and unshakeable reality. The reality of our convictions as men who seek The Balance. JohnHistory (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Those on the Right fall by it's extreme -Those on the Left likewise fall into their own abyss. In the Middle we seek The Balance. Sometimes The Balance may present itself as Right in the face of the Left. However, it will also present itself as the Left in the face of the Right. Like the little dots on a yin yang the center seeks The Balance. To Balance something, the Left and the Right must lose for they cannot survive the Middle. JohnHistory (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Regarding this note, I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't blocked you in the past. If you believe that other editors have been uncivil to you, why not try WP:WQA. Guettarda (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am having some troubles with user Dayewalker. I have asked several questions concerning william Monahan's entry and he erased my comments every time. This has happened about a dozen times. How can I stop him from bugging me? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )[reply]
As is probably evident here I myself am trying to deal with the giant Wiki bureaucratic nightmare world. I think it is best to view wikipedia and your interactions with it as that of basically an anthropological study as opposed to anything else. That is not to say that you can not change things. Hell, I changed The Red Baron from a Jew into a Protestant. I'll get back to this later when I am in a more "lucid" mindset. JohnHistory (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
BTW, you wouldn't believe the war I had to fight to change the afore mentioned Baron from being Jewish. It was just one of those things. You read it and right there in the intro it says the Manfred is Jewish and I thought, wait a second I saw an entire documentary and I read his book and I never read or heard that. But it's right there in your face. So I looked at the sources. I ended up actually buying the main source, there was one other one but it was even more esoteric in quotation, turns out not only was the page number wrong (it didn't in fact even exist) but absolutely no evidence was put forth. I am a little foggy now it would be back in the archives, but anyway it went on forever. I ended up getting several people who seemed bent on just thwarting my basic attempt to just rectify it. Wikipedia is personal. A lot of these guys probably all think a like. Anyway, eventually cooler heads prevailed and it was taken out of the article. The funny thing was that there ended up even being a big debate, as I just remembered, over the me quoting the first sentence of the book which stated "This book is a book of propaganda" as to whether that didn't matter or not. The point is, if you are persistent and honest then you may succeed but some of these people are basically full time wiki power trippers (to put it nicely) and if you want to have a life you can't really compete at such a low level. Wikipedia desperately needs better Administration and stricter enforcement of the Jimbo guidelines which are fair and balanced. Learn the Jimbo Guidelines and even though they are often thrown in the trash, especially where strong group-think persists, they will be your best ammunition against the wiki lords and some of the zombies to use the vernacular of our times. Of course finding allies of The Balance, however few, is also a good strategy. I'm sure the Obama Administration could help you with how to dominate an article but again it would be difficult to get their input, yet alone match their output. Time and numbers. Lack of life(lack of perspective) and group think. Motivation = Money / Allegiance / Zombie
Basically, the best thing is to do something because even when, and in fact especially when they censor you and they abuse their tools and they attack you personally or whatever the abuse if you point out these problems people start to realize that the article is not honest. When that happens, when enough people get it, then the article is defeated at its corps. Wikipedia doesn't give out medals to people like us. But they do give out medals. Wikipedia is being defeated everyday and they don't even know it because they live in a wiki cave zone. More and more people are realizing the inherent problems, and again that is why this is an anthropological experience, in Wikipedia. These people like Dayewalker as you pointed out are actually a cancer within wikipedia. We aren't going to lose. Only wikipedia can lose. People can be cowed with bad info but wikipedia is being cowed with a bad name and that soon will override it's ability to cow people (in isolated Wiki group think zones) It is sad because I have been here for many years and I know first hand that wiki is worse then ever. People are even more entrenched and biased group think mindset coordination is the law of the day. JohnHistory (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
"Be the Giant Buddha on the Page and in the light of your honest transparency their idiosyncratic falsehoods will be illuminated." -Me JohnHistory (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
John, please be aware that this user who you are communicating with is a banned user, please check the ANI thread concerning him, found on a link on this IP sock's talk page. Banned users are not allowed to edit, per WP:BAN.— DædαlusContribs08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John History: I have another "mainstream" source which tries to pin all of the "outrage" on Conservatives, CBS News: [8] Now this is interesting, because if the mainstream media is finally reporting it, even if they spin it that only "Conservatives" are outraged, I think the remaining CNN and CBS viewers who aren't dyed-in-the-wool commies are going to wake up and say, "Yo. CNN and CBS. Do you HONESTLY think any right-thinking sane Democrat can support what this dude is saying??" And then, due credit must be given to the Conservatives who exposed this disaster in the WH. I just think we need to SLOW DOWN a bit and wait for the facts to unfold. Being on the 2002 Committee is just the nail in his coffin. This guy is clearly a pathological liar and shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of the White House. I am sure Glenn Beck's people are watching the Talk page. ObserverNY (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Go check out my update in the political/reception section, I just posted it. You and I are writing history, my friend. I just added updates from ABC and WAPO. This guy is GOING DOWN BIGTIME!!!! ObserverNY (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
You are mistaken regarding the definition of vandalism. An edit by a user who disagrees with you is not vandalism. Vandalism is an edit that has the obvious intention of disrupting the encyclopedia - like this. Even when you are sure another user is wrong, being wrong does not make anyone a vandal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)20:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think deliberately reverting something and ignoring the consensus early in the morning with no new argument is if not technically under Wiki guidelines a "vandalism" it is in fact a form of vandalism in the real world. I'm glad to see that after I had an honest frank discussion with you on the talk page and pointed our you errors in logic, that I was blocked from something 12 hours prior that was not considered worthy of block at the time. I guess when you can't argue with someone intelligently, it is best to just try to shut them up. I call that weakness JohnHistory (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
{{unblock|The editor was not following the consensus as I showed it. I didn't realize reverting it 3 times was block worth. And this occurred over 12 hours ago, and I did no reverting after that. All I have done is discuss things on the discussion page and then suddenly I was blocked 12 hours after said event. I was the one who originally introduced the "blog" and it was deemed irrelevant, inappropriate, and misleading in it's partiality. Thus, at the late hour I tried to maintain it and asked for a general consensus before including it again. Wasn't the person adding it after it had been taken out by consensus the one editing it incorrectly, and again this was over 12 hours ago. Thanks.}}
{{tlx|unblock|Again,this is not the end of the world, but I wouldn't have done it if I had known I could be blocked, and it was in absolute good faith because I was just maintaining the consensus, while the other editor was trying to ignore it, and that consensus and my editing has since been upheld, and most importantly my block was instituted 12 or more hours after the event while I was just discussing things with other editors on the talk page which seems vindictive}
I'm not really interested in your views of the other editors; indeed, all that rather suggests you're trying to justify excess reversions, which really isn't a good idea. To get unblocked, you need to promise to avoid edit warring and WP:3RR - have you now read and understood that? - and avoid the accusations of vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the 3 revert rule, or I wouldn't have done it. So yes I can promise to not do that. Listen, I'm not used to all of the "wiki speak" , okay so yes I will avoid the word "vandalism" and "edit wars". I really didn't know that 3 and you can be blocked even 12 hours later. I have no reason to do it again, because even though I never report anyone I 100% get reported so it would not be in my own interest. JohnHistory (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Hey, my apologies - it was pointed out to me that I accidentally wiped a big part of your talk page and I really don't know how that happened. I thought I just went in and put a strike through the "commie" comment because I was admonished by yet another editor. Do Wikipedia editors ever get laid? ;-p ObserverNY (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Well good for you APK! I hope you practiced safe sex. Do you see now that JohnHistory wasn't upset and that it was an accident on my part? I just find this uncontrollable urge of "some" editors on Wikipedia to go around "watching" the behavior of others is indicative of control-freak personality disorders with no sense of humor. At least you've shown me you can differentiate between a joke and an insult. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
I don't think it was Spam to point out facts such as 'acid" is LSD, and most "acid" today is not LSD. Or, perhaps, was it the "son" comment that you got you so upset??? JohnHistory (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
That is not the "Happy Weed' I played. Obviously they have changed the list and made it, as relates to our "conversation", vastly inferior. How saw. "dextromethorphan" ???? what? what about Ketamine and Phencyclidine??? JohnHistory (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Did your whining butt just call me a "twat"? don't worry kid, I won't "report" you. This isn't 1984 on my page. But, that is not the Happyweed version from the mid 90's I was talking about. JohnHistory (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
C6541 - Yo. Get back on your self-righteous horse and apologize for calling John History an "egotistical twat". That's disgusting. ObserverNY (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Here was the simple point I made, according to the recently declassified DEA microgram bulletin, and anecdotal evidence, most "Acid" is no longer LSD, but instead various mescaline analogues that no buddy even wanted to take in the dirty 60's. The Last Great Acid Wave was in the 1990's, and now it is gone and many children are nowadays unfortunately taking trojan horses to their pseudo souls. That was it. But thanks for listing a bunch of random crap on my page C6451. Thanks a lot. JohnHistory (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Free clue for the clueless: I have a life, one which doesn't involve watching my Talk page 24/7 and responding within moments loud-mouthed badgering. Oh, and genius, spelling counts with names.
Short form: Tl;dr. But a brief skim showed enough falsities, phony comparisons (Jon Stewart is a comedian? Really? He's not "objective"? really? Which has what bearing on anything whatsoever? When something starts off that phony and intellectually dishonest, it's a clear sign that the rest isn't worth much bother), psychological projection, mind-reading, and outright bullshit to make clear that the content of your wall-o-text has little to do with reality and its purpose even less to do with actual debate.
Like Barney Frank said, having a conversation with you would be like having a conversation with a dining-room table. This is a project to build an objective encyclopedia, not a chance for you to indulge your AM-radio blowhard/screaming town-hall-meeting-lunatic schtick.
Yes, I get: there's a Negro in the White House! Run for your lives! Just change your underwear and get on with your life, already. --Calton | Talk12:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it now! Wikipedia is a project to build a libelous, left-wing lunatic, "ludicrous" encyclopedia run by fascist control-freaks who have nothing better to do than act as trolls for the Left. Got it. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
The word "thick" comes to mind. Tip: Making Shit Up and attributing it to your ideological opponents is really bad way to deal with the real world. Further observation for you soldiers in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders: WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Calton | Talk02:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Stewart is on Comedy Central. He is a comedian, and has been for a long time. He says openly, "This show is not objective." "This is my show", etc. You brought him up as this great informer and yet you then say, "What does that have to do with anything". You see, you can't even have an honest discussion, and I'm sure that really made it impossible to then realize that your own study contradicted yourself about news viewers, which was the height of ridiculousness that you would cite a study that contradicts you in its very opening.
Why would you mention Obama being black? What does that have to do with anything, but a pathetic attempt to stifle debate?
Who is this unsigned questioner? Gee, I wonder why it's ok for the mainstream media to say over and over again how Obama is the "first African American President" and for Van Jones to call him "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" but if a non-Liberal refers to Obama as black, all of a sudden it "stifles debate". Good grief! ObserverNY (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Yeah, because showing your own study contradicts, is not worth reading because I quoted Stewart beforehand saying that he is not objective and the well known fact that he is a comedian on comedy central. Yeah, you lost this one big time. JohnHistory (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Again, your own study showed that you were dead wrong! And, I have yet to hear a defense of FDR, and Wilson's militarism and arrests of 100,000 of political prisoners.
Why does the left always make straw man arguments, and obfuscate, and cite things that contradict themselves? It's quite astonishing, and dare i say pathetic! JohnHistory (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
As a friend of mine put it and as you demonstrate clearly, the Republicans are the Projection Party, as every word in your last 'graf is pure self-revelation. Psychologically, it's better to deal with reality than to attribute your sins to others, you know.
I said I'm not interested in "debate" with you -- were the words I used too multi-syllabic big? -- any more than I'd be interested in "debating" the president of the Flat Earth Society or the guy who used to run around town claiming he had PROOF that Stephen King was behind the murder of John Lennon -- where to even begin with people like that? -- but the breathtaking stupidity of your first response is too provoking.
Really, Jon Stewart is a comedian? And...what? This startling new finding is evidence for...what? This astounding insight is counter-evidence of claims of being informative...how? It's grossly apparent you've never actually watched his show, though I suspect you've been presented with enough out-of-context clips to pretend to knowledge. No, don't bother answering, since it'll be more of your trademark obfuscation, and again, I'm not interested providing a free education for someone running away from reality as fast as his little legs will carry him.
This is especially hilarious coming from someone ranting about "strawmen arguments" and "pathetic", by the way. Some might even call it "ironic".
You know, I think it is truly pathetic that instead of addressing the factual data and issues raised you run away into the tiny arches of your mind and reference this. Why not just point out my errors, instead of impugning my integrity? My little legs (I'm 6'3) have carried very far, and apparently you have been left in the dust with only random insults and cliches left as the harbingers of your inability to honestly debate someone else. By the way, I have not simply not "seen enough clips" I wrote my honors thesis at Umass Amherst on Mussolini's socialism so I think you are really showing your true colors here. I don't think you are worthy of my standards of debate so why don't you go bark up the tree you dropped out of.
Listen, I will take his word for it. He said 'This is my show, I'm not objective". That's good enough evidence for me. I mean could he have made it any clearer? Anyone who get their news from stewart, as clearly you do, is just sad. I mean, that is like watching Sesame Street, grow up already! It all over the top satirical ideology and (you got love that audience he has) partisan crap, and guess what, comedy central should have been enough of a giveaway for you. Alas, here you are. Stewart has also said approximately, when pushed on said issue, ~ What do you expect from a show where sock puppets come on afterwards. I also saw a CNN thing on how he edited an Oreilly show to make it look different then it was. Anyway, that link is completely in line with your though process that simply demeans and ignores as opposed to addresses the issues. By the way, your own study, as I pointed out, say O'reilly (This is 2007 many more have switched to his show since) who has had the largest Cable News audience forever, along with Rush Limbaugh have some of the most informed viewers, and I pointed out that you were just wrong in how you presented Fox News in the study. So, keep changing the channel, keep throwing insults around and having to come back here and draw lines through your own comments (it wasn't me who made you do that). They just make you sink deeper into your own malaise, your own abyss and you look twice the fool. Why do I bother with someone whose own touted study contradicted themselves??? So far all you have you done is throw names around, that's it. Seriously pathetic. JohnHistory (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
And, if you do decide to continue this (your comments are so convoluted) please answer my first question to you which is - would you have signed the 9/11 petition Jones did, or not? Through all of this dialogue you have still failed to answer that. You are the one who brought it up in the first place. It would seem that despite Jones doing nothing wrong, and those just being valid questions in your opinion, your spine has gone missing.
Again, you keep mentioning Obama being black and "get over it", etc. Then when I raised this strange, and random reference with you, you make a totally incoherent argument about it that was completely baffling and off topic. I'm starting to wonder about your mental cohesiveness. JohnHistory (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I am sad, but did I use words that were too big for you? I will try once more.
Go away. I said twice, now I say three times: I do not care and you are not worth time. You say dumb things. You say dumb things twice about Jon and his views and still not make sense, even when told why. It would be less waste of time to talk to Flat Earth guy, guy who lives in bushes in a park, or an office chair. At least they might tell truth.
I said words about Obama = black once. You know what I meant. You keep on about it. Why? Too much truth? Hit too close to home? Again, you and pals just change under pants and get over it. Civil War? Over. You lost.
"Debate"? You do not care, you just like to shout. Use brains, not glands.
I think you are one of the most silly people on here. You brought up a study that contradicted you, you think saying that Jon Stewart, who has been a comedian his entire adult life and who makes countless jokes and punch lines with a laughing audience, is a comedian = flat earth when it really shows the flatness of your intellect. I just watched him complement the kids who busted acorn, and call himself a "fake journalist" who was bummed out that these kids scooped even him. You know what you have failed at the most basic tests, and yet you still come back to swing names around. I didn't get a Masters in History from Umass Amherst to try to educate people with as little intellectual capability and honesty as you. This all started because you said Van Jones signed something with "good questions" and then, after all this time, because you have no spine you have refused to say wether you would have signed it or not. I think that is cowardly of you. I also think that you refusing to address any of the myriad of historical issues I brought up, yet again still coming back to throw meaningless names around, shows that you are philosophy bankrupt, or perhaps never left your moms basement in the first place. Good day kid, you really take the cake for being an ignoramus, a blowhard, and a fool with little or no true knowledge. Again, anyone who cites a study that directly contradicts them is so foolish and ignorant that it is comical. JohnHistory (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Christ, you're a nitwit. The ONLY bit of your idiocy I have ever bothered addressing -- because it was so obvious that even a child should not have had the slightest trouble with it -- was your continued claim that being a comedian automatically disqualifies anything said comedian says. Which is, of course, stupid, but I underestimated your capacity for either self-serving delusions or intellectual honesty. Given your obsessive behavior above, it could be either.
Let me try again: Go away, dishonest troll. You're wasting my time and -- based on your contributions here -- everyone else's because this whole "reality" thing is giving you fits.
Wow, you are clearly losing it big time, kid. If you want it to end then just stop you don't need to throw meaningless names around it just makes you look incredibly immature. I mean, you even resort to "your momma" stuff. Are you for real? Kid, you are hilarious and just totally ignorant on these subjects. Whose the obsessive one, if you don't come back flinging random insults it ends. Get it, or is that too complicated for you? BTW, I never said be a comedian disqualifies everything you say, I just said being a comedian and self proclaimed "not objective" "fake journalist" (wow looks like I do listen to what he says) is just that. So, learn how to read and stop acting so flamboyant and illogical, kid. You started this and now you look strange coming back and time again to say nothing buttoally meaningless insultsJohnHistory (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Are you a permanent rider of the short bus? Do you still eat library paste?
Look, son, I realize that this whole "honesty" and "reality" thing must be difficult for you conservatives to wrap your minds around, but even you should have figured this out: when you start off a "debate" by being dishonest, you've immediately signaled to the other person you don't have an actual interest in actual debate, just screaming, and continuing would be a compete waste of time. Yes, if you manage to get the first untruth past, you might get the person going, but if you reveal your cards immediately, the game is over.
BTW, I never said be a comedian disqualifies everything you say, I just said being a comedian and self proclaimed "not objective" "fake journalist" (wow looks like I do listen to what he says) is just that. Congratulations, you've managed to achieve complete incoherence by mangling your own words into nothingness. Maybe it really is some sort of intellectual and not moral deficit.
Calton, stop it before you make a bigger fool of yourself. You cited a study that contradicted you, and you have failed to back anything up. That is the mark of someone who has no business talking with me. All you can do is slander, which is the last refuge of someone totally out of their comfort zone. Please, since you couldn't debate or back things up, and in fact hilariously contradicted your own allegations, just stop. The fact that you call me obsessive and a troll while you just come back and say the same meaningless insults around is beyond pathetic and hypocritical. JohnHistory (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
So after watching our President's Labor Day Propaganda Picnic with the AFL-CIO, having vomited "deuce" so I would be allowed to flush my toilet, I turned on the Rush Limbaugh show and gathered some sanity. Poor Rush had woken up the night before from a terrible dream. He said, "I was a slave, building a Sphinx, and it looked like Barack Obama." LOL!
Then I come back to this bastion of raving lunatics to find a message from Admin John Connolly on my talk page, (you know, the one who complained about me accidentally deleting part of your talk page when I went in to strike the commie clause?) telling me I've been banned for 24 h. Uh, ok. So then I go to JC's talk page and find this:[9]"ObserverNY's uncivility and personal attacks" followed by a section JohnHistory?
You and I are vewy, vewy BAD! We must not be allowed to talk to each other!!
Don't you think it's pretty funny that an Admin can call my edits inept, yet is too inept themselves to activate a 24 h ban? LOLObserverNY (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Definitely. I know they seem to come to my page a lot don't they? Anyway, that is ridiculous and if you give them a cm. of rope they will hang you, while I consider myself pretty thick skinned and they can give me a mile of rope and I'm cool to swing it while they jump. The illiberalness of modern liberalness. Sad. JohnHistory (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Beware the admin Gamaliel who just reverted my undo on Bachcell's inclusion of an "editorial quote from the Huffington Post". I left a message on Gamaliel's talk page that if he/she is going to allow such stuff to clutter up the Van Jones article then I expect no protest if I add an editorial quote from Michelle Malkin or World net Daily. ObserverNY (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Hey, it warms my heart to know there is one right-minded, decent, sane editor in Wikipedia. Thank you for your effort to show admin "the light". They don't get it. They never will. I'll have little time to play from now on, I think that's a good thing. I'm grateful to have a job so I can start paying back my daughter's college loans (have you taken a look at NYU's tuition lately? Gak!) I believe Glenn Beck is right - we WILL surround them, WE THE PEOPLE will take back our country and prevent it from becoming a banana republic under this megalomaniac of a President. We must save the little "mush-heads" (credit to Rush) from misguided ideologies and their parents' crusade for socialism. We must. In Liberty - ObserverNY (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
A while back, I ran into what very well may have been the Obama Admin's Iron hand on the Obama page. I was told I could not say such a thing. I could not even utter it! It was slanderous and illogical to think anyone from the Obama Admin would come to the most heavily viewed Wiki page, and the first one listed after his official whitouse Gov pages. You shall not speaketh of it was the collective belch of the myriad of minions. This wasn't the first time my honest inquiries, and sometimes frank assessments and style had gotten me into trouble on Wiki. There had been several, notably a certain Red Baron's false Jewish Heritage (in which I triumphed most magnanimously) but it was at this juncture with Obama, this crossroads if you will, that I realized after being blocked for a fortnight from even commenting on my own page, which was erased, or appealing said block for the holy mistake of calling someone else's editorial escapades "juvenile" while I myself had been called every name in the book to no consequence, and with a certain pride in not having ever gone out of my way to block anyone, that I realized something...
My long vacant youtube account, set up in 2007 so that I could watch an Iraq War video someone from the upper priestly class of modern liberalism had deemed inappropriate for under 18 year olds, now lay before me like an unopened Christmas present from the 19th century! I entered, I engaged, I sent countless messages and adds on videos ranging from Britney Spears and Madonna, to Barney Frank and Operation Barbarossa. I debated, danced, declared, dangled, and disassembled countless would be liberal lecturers until they surrendered dishonorably, disappeared or began to calm down, and if not see the error of their ways, at least obfuscated astride enough to speak of me as a friend, and no longer an intellectual enemy. It was at this time, as my page attained thousands of views in the space of a couple months and my subscribers grew and grew and on countless videos and my own page, where I censored nothing and patiently debated all who chose to speak up, that I realized that Youtube is free, and wikipedia is totalitarian. If someone wanted to call me a "fucktard" well then on with it!!! If i responded to their boneheaded attempts at stupidity by calling them an "ignoramus" well so be it!!! Nothing was erased, nothing was "archived" nothing was used to trap you into a block! There was not the fake veneer of the political correct - the politically corrupt, it was just man on man action!!! yeah, you read that right with an occasional lady thrown into it as well! We didn't have to practice "good faith" in the devil! The point is not that Wikipedia and Youtube discussion are the same thing because they aren't in many cases. The point is not that incivility is okay, or even good, it is that youtube provides a freedom for the thick skinned, while wikipedia provides a crib for the thin skinned. Youtube's rules are clear but sparse, and wikipedia's rules are so convoluted and unequally applied so as to make them a a spider web of traps, and dark alleys for the would be mental mugger to spring forth from. Youtube is the 1770's USA, Wikipedia is the bureaucratic nightmare world of the 1970's USSR.
Which article? A Dick Armey one, in which case no I haven't. I am going to be working so it may take some time for me to get back to you. JohnHistory (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I´m sorry, but I am not an admin. Another editor made the difficult edits that needed doing at Dick Armey, which had about 3/4 of the article devoted to that man from MSNBC Rachel what´s his name.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior at ObserverNY's talk page is only making things worse. Please stop escalating the situation, it is disruptive. If you wish to criticize Ricky then do it at his talk page instead of debating the matter with him on a blocked users page. Thank you. Chillum14:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much that a friend was offended Chillum, just that I think both ONY and John have quality writing skills, and I'd like to see them welcomed into the WP family. New users are often put off by our many rules ... or should I say our Policies and Guidelines, and even more frustrated when they get bitten. I'm just trying to supply a little support for folks and encourage them to not give up. FWIW, I consider Chillum a friend as well. He works long hard hours here, and often deals with very contentious items and difficult editors, as well as providing some great technical skills to the wiki. As much as I'd like everyone to be friends here, I know it's not going to happen - but if we all show each other some respect, then we can work together. — Ched : ? 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just came back hear after awhile and have to say that accusing me of using alternative accounts based on what exactly? No, this is just me, myself and I. Just little old me....(and my vast network of alternative accounts I use when I go to Cuba uaahahahahhaha) JohnHistory (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Thinking that you have one of your cohorts as a tame admin isn't going to help you in the long run. Oh, and your Free Republic pal just got her ass banned. Think of that as a hint. --Calton | Talk03:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? You are the one who keeps coming back. And calling someone I have virtually zero knowledge of my "cohort" is not acceptable. Please stop acting in such a nasty way. This is very bizarre behavior. I wasn't even on wiki when you were blocked for your foul use of language, and wanton obsessive incivility. I'm surprised you felt so comfortable being like that. You never wanted to address your own study, or the other hypocritical facts you mentioned, instead you just came here and made repeated meaningless insults, and then cry foul when somebody else finally noticed them. What were you thinking? JohnHistory (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Johnhistory[reply]
BTW, do you realize how illogical telling someone to "go away" is when you keep posting insults on their page? I can't go away, if you don't. So, follow your own advice and "go away". Got it? JohnHistory (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
So me quoting him, in which he very confidently, yet falsely accused me of sock puppetry is a "personal attack" and "harassment"?? I would like some clarification on that please. JohnHistory (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
John, I'm going to have to agree with MuZemike here - please just don't post to Calton's talk page anymore (and I'll tell him the same). Stick to the content, and do not comment about the editor. If you can't agree on what should or should not be in an article, then seek the steps of dispute resolution - WP:3O if it's only the two of you. If it's a group of people, then WP:RFC to establish consensus. This has gone well beyond the "he started it phase", so to be honest, fair or not, the next administrative steps would be to block both editors - I'd rather not see it come to that. Please. — Ched : ? 04:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's what I have been hoping for just to come back to some new tirade of insults and personal attacks. But, I would point out that I have tried extremely hard to not go to the level that Calton has, in a carefree way, in this "discussion". However, the issue with me raised was not Calton but getting some guy, who confidently claimed I was a sock puppet, names wrong and then telling him, in good faith just like the story, to not become the boy who cried wolf which I thought was an appropriate allusion and good healthy example given the circumstances and evidence put forth. JohnHistory (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Dude I am going to give you some advice that comes with a LOT of experience. Let it go. Calton is one of those editors that will never get banned for more than a week no matter what he does. He has Jzg's protective web around him. Just ignore him, dont respond to him, and just report him if he keeps posting here. You cant win against the people that protect Calton. Its best to just ignore him. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.12.47 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but nanny control only discredit the institution as a whole, not me. However, such a lack of intellect on his part makes it the proverbial head against a wall, so on that level you are right. JohnHistory (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
You may have noticed, JzG has injected himself in your situation with Calton, just as I said he would. Good luck, but I'm afraid you've already lost. 67.76.14.136 (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you, as a true patriot, in joining me in congratulating your President, Barack Obama, on his winning of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. While there is, so far, no Nobel Prize Prize for Sexual Use of a Falafel nor a Nobel Prize for Abuse of Addictive Drugs, the Nobel Committee will, no doubt, be working hard on adding those soon and you too can look forward to celebrating in your own right. I'm sure the two-time Peabody Award-winning Jon Stewart will be mentioning it, as I'm sure will the not-actually-having-a-Peabody Bill O'Reilly.
Thank God, this is what I was essentially asking for. It is ironic that an even hand was even disputed against me when Calton's langauge was x10 more offensive then mine, and he started this whole thing by commenting to me on someone else page. But, all's well that ends well. JohnHistory (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JOhnHistory[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anita Dunn. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to insult you by adding a template warning, it just says it better than I can. The edit-warring on that page does need to cool down, though. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loony, you are the one who started reverting it and made no clear argument that made sense. You have reverted it more then I have, and I made a strong effort to reach a consensus, but you had zero desire to do that. You even said you didn't want an edit war, and then created one. All your arguments were nonsensical. So, I guess once you think you have it the way you want it after many reverts then you yell "edit war" 3RR rule? JohnHistory (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Uh, no. A peek at the edit history shows that is clearly not the case. As I said, I don't edit war, and I stop editing altogether if it's heading in that direction. Considering that I've spent the last hour or two discussing this on the talk page (while you engaged in an edit-war on the article) I would say "physician, heal thyself."--Loonymonkey (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since you're still, even now, edit-warring on that article I would imagine that this whole thing isn't going to turn out well for you. Really, just leave it alone for a while. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments have made absolutely no sense, and you haven't even attempted to really back them up, you didn't even know that the quote you kept erasing was in the source and you contradicted yourself about using "inflammatory language, and not paraphrasing" then suddenly another another user, who had earlier stated he didn't even want any of issue in the article, shows up follows your exact line. So, you both really just want to censor it, or ideally have it not in the article at all. As it is, it' both not comprehensive enough, and misleading because you don't see the rest of it that was objectionable, you think it is just the one phrase "favorite political philosophers" because that's what she then only attempts to refute. My suggestion to you would be to follow your own logic, and not censor and mislead through some strong inclination to do so here. Why are you obsessed with using her full rebuttal, and erasing her quote on the subject in the speech. Also I'm not edit warring, I just added that she spoke about Mao taking over China. JohnHistory (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[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).
Yeah, I really don't think this block is justified given that you the people in question (all of you?) are a bunch of morons, and losers with no life. You are dumb hack, and I don't use the C word lightly but you are the proverbial "cunts" I heard the older boys in the locker room talk about. Why one month? Do you think this will change in a month? Will you hacks suddenly gain some level of common decency and logic in that interim??? I seriously doubt it. Why not spare yourself my next rant, and just be done with me once and for all. Stop with this namby-pamby Bull shit that you have got stuck in your tiny brains! Do it, or don't. I'm done, don't make me come back and remind you of your stupidity again!
Decline reason:
Given that abuse of the level that you have produced usually results in an indefinite block, and that you have clearly indicated that nothing will change in a month, I have altered the block length to indefinite. Black Kite11:46, 31 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).
I randomly told some people, one I liked, a couple I never knew to fuck themselves I'm guessing or something in order to block myself and stop being able to waste me life trying to make wiki politically balanced. However, as someone who has majored in history, I am constantly seeing Wiki pop up, and more then a few with unsourced claims sometimes 180 degrees from the established facts which there may or may not be anoth wiki article - specifically, that is sourced and mentioning the exact opposite. It would be easier for me to just correct these from time to time myself, knowing this is not my best use of my time here on Earth, then keep seeing them now that I'm back in the States, and trying to finish my book. Thanks for the time. I feel like I'm sending an email to some internet based company now. It's been a really long time since I left, going on a year now, and politics in general yet alone on wikipedia of all the places, just are not my cup of tea anymore. I think politics is a state of mind, and I'm thinking just source, clean up is appropriate for my time level of working for wiki, or sharing some nebulous goal of having sourced material for claims that run against other wiki sourced articles, yet alone must be sourced no matter what- not mentioning established facts on pages clearly not visited as much dealing always with "politics'. as they say, but not per say - since let's face it. all politics is local - and where exactly are we, right now? So, hopefully history - namely WII, won't prove so personal or time consuming, and if not I will just stop typing, like I've done the last better part of a year. I've been on here since, god knows when. So, if I want to leave, I won't think I need to make sure it is 100% by opening the fridge pointing at the whole milk carton and shooting a swear out, pivoting, repeat with orange juice, etc,. I'll just do what I've been doing. But, again, sources, sources,sources an achilles heal asking you to let me do something when we don't even know each others first names. Strange places. JohnHistory (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Johnhistory[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.
John, I hope you're OK. I know Wikipedia can be a frustrating environment sometimes. It will hopefully be good for you to break from WP for awhile. I wish you the best! Take care. Jwesley78 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Bob Marley. Please see Help:Edit summary, thanks ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
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) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. 
