User talk:Aussiewikilady

Welcome!

Hello, Aussiewikilady, 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 messages on discussion pages using 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 08:14, 30 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have in the past edited wikipedia in beneficial ways. In a recent disagreement, an editor made assumptions of me that were actually incorrect. I responded in kind. People's IP addresses should not be blocked due to the emotion and incorrect assumptions of a singular editor. Not only that, disagreements in the talk section of a wiki page may eventually lead to the building and imporving of the encyclopedia. So even arguments about labelling of groups or people could in fact build a better encyclopedia. By banning people like me, wiki will dissolve even more into far-left wing activism and the nightmare of what Herbert Marcuse called repressive tolerance. I am not right wing, but I am appalled by wikipedia's recent fall into something akin to repressive tolerance. Aussiewikilady (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We'd all like to believe that we are indispensable, but Wikipedia does not need you. In fact, this seems like a declaration that you intend to battle your ideological foes if unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

My guide is the truth and making wiki sentences 100% truthful--for example wiki should say "[this source] has labelled... this person as..., for which he disagrees" "not this person IS ..." To be clear, repressive tolerance was an idea by Marcuse that we should repress the right wing of the population. I am not right wing, but I am appalled by the idea in either direction. Marcuse was a critical theorist which to him meant half Freudian and half Marxist. By banning me, you have gone even further--you have banned a liberal who was merely expressing concern that wikipedia was unfairly repressing right wing views. My concern was misrepresentation of alternative voices with labels that they themselves would not identify with. This does not mean I am part of these ideological groups, or I like the provocative statements of the people so labelled. I merely have seen interviews with some of the people misrepresented and they clearly were not what wikipedia has portrayed them as--and importantly they do not identify as what wiki labelled them as. What I am objecting to in 2022 wikipedia is that there is a tendency of "idea-laundering" where one newspaper or a person in an organization will label a medical hypothesis as "false" or a person as "neo-fascist" and then wikipedia then writes that the claims ARE false or that the person IS neo-fascist--rather than saying "The Daily Beast has claimed that ..., but the person in question responded..." In any event, I was banned for disagreeing in a talk section with a hotheaded far-left wing editor. I suppose he thought he was banning a neo-fascist, because the disagreement was about whether he really understood what fascism was. I would be in favour of banning real neo-fascists if they were disruptive, but not a centrist like me who would dislike innacurate sentences about people on any side. In any event by banning people who are not going along with left wing activism, you are are in effect setting up struggle sessions akin to Mao's China. And sure enough, here I am struggling--trying to prove I am left wing enough to be allowed back on. Would you like my voting record? My point is that these dynamics has clearly led in the last year or so to the diminishment of wikipedia, with centrists being labelled as "far-right" just because the Guardian said so, with provocateurs who I don't much like being labelled as "neo-fascist" because the Southern Poverty Law Center said so, or "misinformation" and "false" medical hypotheses being labelled so because the CDC needed that at the time. So wiki is banning alternative voices much like Twitter does now? This did not happen when people argued in the talk section back in 2008. Aussiewikilady (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be liberal/libertarian or even democratic. Each of us is here to serve the goal of writing a mainstream encyclopedia, having WP:GOODBIAS. So, basically, none of us has rights in respect to Wikipedia, we are all its servants. You might call it repressive tolerance, but we simply want that the norms and values of this website are clear, and abided by. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After your first unblock request was declined, you posted another, already-declined, one. That means no admin will come to read it. You need to remove that one and post a new unblock request, using the template in exactly the same way you did the first time. Bishonen | tålk 08:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Aussiewikilady, my heroes are Reagan, Thatcher and Bush 41. But since I do my best to abide by WP:RULES, I generally don't have problems editing Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]