User talk:Aspencork

Welcome!

Hello, Aspencork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benghazi edits.

Hey, sorry, I was unavailable for many days there. Sometimes life goes like that. See my reply re: your request on my talk page.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd

It's hard to imagine you could add that material to Planned Parenthood in good faith; the sentence you wrote gives an impression directly at odds with the source. Just embarrassing. Also, FYI, abortion-related articles are under sanctions and in particular a 1RR restriction. --JBL (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Nazism, you may be blocked from editing. DanielRigal (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an any doubt as to why you have received this warning then please read the discussion of previous attempts to censor the simple fact that the Nazis are regarded as right wing by all reputable historians. You can find this on Talk:Nazism and its archives. We are aware that there are fringe groups who argue otherwise presumably for reasons of self-interest, and that a few exceptionally uninformed or gullible people may actually believe their line, but this fringe viewpoint is not welcome here and has been removed many times before. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nazism. DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Friedrich Engels. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What edit war? My first attempt to add relevant information was deleted and I was told the sources I cited were "questionable." I reedited my post and cited sources already cited -- and apparently already accepted as "credible" -- within the article to substantiate an actual quote by Engels. Hence, I directly addressed the "pretense" behind my first edit being deleted in a manner that should have satisfied the individual who deleted my edit. My second edit was deleted by a second individual without any substantive comment to justify his reversal. And what's controversial about quoting Engels in an article about Engels?Aspencork (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am only going to remind you once that you are already on a final warning and that it applies to all articles. You can't just step away from one article where you have been warned and start causing similar trouble somewhere else. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I have posted can be considered "vandalism" as you so preposterously and superciliously claim, and everything I've posted has been supported with substantive citations. You should heed your own warnings.Aspencork (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

Please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an honest omission, and I'm making an effort to not forget to do that. Aspencork (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random Edits

Hi Aspencork,

Thanks for editing.

I agree with you on your comments in Nazism.

The problem is we have to prove it. I'm working on that at the moment.

Would you be able to help me ?

Thanks

91.151.6.202 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've ordered two of the books they are citing to verify their citations, and one or both might be used to turn this argument against them. I've posted historical examples that prove their biased statements false, but they 'deflect' and introduce vagaries such as changing the definition of 'credible', 'mainstream', etc., for sources to reject my sources but simultaneously do not apply the same standards to their own. I've discovered that 'facts' and 'truth' do not matter to some of these people.

February 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being incapable of working on a collaborative project and wasting too much of other editors' time and patience. This is exemplified in this ANI thread, this archived discussion, and not least by your edits to Nazism and its talkpage passim. Compare also the warnings and advice you have received on this page. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis de Tocqueville speaks to this:

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).

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

Request reason:

I feel I was unjustly blocked with no consideration given to my reason for putting my case for Wikihounding before the administrators. While it may be true that editors can consult another editor's Talk Page, the matter put before you was that one editor interjected himself unprovoked and for no obvious reason other than his stated purpose of frustrating my edits: the very definition of "Wikihounding". How he came to be involved in both articles, other than being in collaboration with some other editor(s), has not been explained. You willfully chose not to investigate that aspect of my complaint when you formulated your 'opinion' based on the input of a certain clique. Your loss, not mine.

Other editors, it is true, used my Talk Page to follow -- and stalk and threaten -- me on two different pages, but at least there was a basis to their how and why. I did not lodge a complaint against them, because I agree that they were playing within the rules -- though I do feel they are violating the principles stated in Wiki's Five Pillars -- and I've clearly stated why I hold that belief: they are perpetuating misinformation and lies. I dare you to actually read through what's been posted and come to a different conclusion.

I made significant editorial and some monetary contributions to Wikipedia, but you, through your ignorance, are ending that here and now. I remain, thankfully, sensible and unrepentant for the beliefs I hold as factual and true -- and can back up with substantive and scholarly sources -- in the face of an adversarial clique that chooses to perpetuate lies and misinformation. Alexis de Tocqueville did not speak kindly to the notion of "tyranny of the majority"; so be it if you wish to kow tow to the ochlocrats ... and do feel superciliously smug in your ignorant and misinformed decision. Good riddance to you all. Aspencork (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no understanding of the problems with your own editing and your interpersonal interactions (which I have examined in some detail), just a continuing insistence that you are right and that everyone else is wrong, and the hurling of insults at people who won't just allow you to write whatever you want regardless of Wikipedia policy and consensus. I'm afraid this unblock appeal only serves to reinforce the blocking admin's conclusion that you are not capable of working in this collaborative environment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2016 (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.

File:Drakkar is the building the French were using for a barracks, 1983.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Drakkar is the building the French were using for a barracks, 1983.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Aspencork. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]