User talk:BoardOfEd

February 2020

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal The constant intentional vicious harassment by you must stop and stop now. I have not posted ANYTHING that is "promotional". I posted actual Wikmedia Content that is under a shared-use license (owned by myself) on Wikimedia Commons. If you care so much about this far-left antisemitic soapbox of misinformation that you yourself contribute to (the misinformation), then look at the video labeled "Wimshurst Machine in Operation", it is nothing more than the promotional video taken from the AstoMedia website of a cardboard Wimshurst machine kit and is here for NO purpose other than selling those low-quality kits. I also pointed out years ago that the very first listing in the external links section titled "The Wimshurst Machine Website: Photos and Video Clips of a Wimshurst Machine" is a link to a poorly made and barely functional promotional website that is the marketing and sales website for a low-quality grade school lab supplier known as Sci-Supply. It may have been overlooked (even though I pointed it out several times) because it claims to link to a video describing how the Wimshurst Machine works. While there is such a video there, the video is complete fiction and the operational theory presented is not accurate. It does not take much intelligence after one look at those fourth-rate barely functional website to know this link has one purpose, that is to sell low quality pre-built Wimshurst Machines. When you continually practice double standards in editing, knowingly contribute to standard Wikipedia misinformation (your Database Backend entry for example), you lose the right to become judge and jury while manufacturing fake grounds to remove the work of others.

REBUTTAL

See my response below. While I do post links on High Voltage, Static Electricity, Corona, and multiple static electricity generator pages, they ARE extremely relevant content that add to the information. Anyone interested in these machines, and or subjects would absolutely find my web page and / or YouTube channel content not only relevant but of extreme interest, ESPECIALLY for those who wish to build similar machines.

Here is a comment from Stephen Hrobak (a popular YouTuber and prolific inventor/experimenter, whose Bonetti Machine build I considered one of the best I've seen at one time):

Stephen Hrobak Best machine I have ever seen. Nice work

Of course, this is one example of 100's I could give showing how relevant to the subject matter my links are.

Spam

Now that I have had a chance to review your contributions in full I think it is time for me to make some things clear. It is very clear that this Wikipedia account is being used solely for spamming links to a single website which is presumably your own. Prior to that you were spamming links to a YouTube channel that has been "terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations". "I don't know what you did to upset YouTube but it must have been pretty bad to get you thrown off YouTube completely given the bad stuff that they are prepared to put up with. I don't know what your objective is but it is clearly one that is not compatible with the objectives of Wikipedia. "You need to stop this. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--DanielRigal Please remove this stupidity: "I don't know what you did to upset YouTube but it must have been pretty bad to get you thrown off YouTube completely given the bad stuff that they are prepared to put up with" as it is only meant to be inflammatory and like some of your articles complete fiction. Again if you a self-declared Wikipedia Judge and Jury can't bother to post entries that are accurate why nitpick and intentionally inflame users who have linked to valuable and extremely relevant content!?! Is it not the point to educate the masses with "Unbiased" and "Accurate" and "Relevant" content, or post false misleading information, while nitpicking and blacklisting people who are actually contributing useful links and content, rather than fiction presented as fact.

DanielRigal After you spite removed my links (which you said you were not going to do, but now you did it out of spite) I went to the Wimshurst Machine Machine entry and found the VERY FIRST entry in links that you allowed is to a poorly made website (With false information) that is linking directly to the Scientific Supply house that it owns, in order to sell cheap Wimshurst Machines and parts. Please advise how this is NOT a violation of policy. The next youtube link is to an MIT Wimshurst demonstration and probably one of the few accurate explanations online as to how these machines function, yet, again did MIT not post it, why is the blatantly monetary and poorly designed page allowed, the Youtube page that is actually monetized, etc. and mine are not, and currently removed out of spite. You should be the last person to harass those of us with good intentions when you yourself are directly responsible for some of the bias and misinformation that Wikipedia is currently famous for, I am sure if I go through your entries, it will not be only that ONE article that is blatantly inaccurate.

DanielRigal HERE is a PERFECT example of the stupidity of self-appointed Wikipedia judge and juries such as yourself, look at the External Links section of the Electrostatics page and look at THIS link Man's static jacket sparks alert beside the fact the story is fake news (as is nearly 100% of BBC Fake News Content) it has very little relevance to the subject matter SPECIFICALLY since there is NO WAY in hell that a human wearing a piece of plastic can generate enough current to burn anything unless the carpet in question was wet with a highly flammable volatile substance. Fake NEWS that has no business being there, but out of spite you chose to remove my relevant link, leaving this sort of BS.

"I don't know what your objective is but it is clearly one that is not compatible with the objectives of Wikipedia." Your insane asinine "OPINIONS" should not be relevant, clearly, you have given yourself the right to determine when to be an obstructive Wikipedia NAZI and when you alone have the right to look the other way (which you suggested you did) until you decided to ultimately remove my links by spite. It takes two to tango, and if you have time for this, I'll be happy to bring it on, IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF are what is wrong with Wikipedia and certainly NOT the solution.

NOT SPAM!!!

DanielRigal I DO NOT APPRECIATE YOUR BASELESS ACCUSATION THAT I AM A SPAMMER! I am not spamming as my ONLY contributions to the Far Left Biased soap box we know as Wikipedia are on Electrostatic Generator pages related to Wimshurst Machines, Van De Graaff Generators, Bonetti Machines, CW Multipliers and Tesla Coils. I DO link to my own website in the Links section because like the other links on MOST of these pages I build examples of these machines, and if you bothered to look my Quadruple Bonetti Machine gets the largest spark length to disk diameter of any machine built like this in modern history, that is not only relevant, but interesting to those who build and or use these sorts of devices.

Further to your comments on my old YouTube account, YouTube DID terminate that account for "Multiple Severe Policy Violations" (with not ONE previous warning of a policy violation), however I DID NOT EVER violate their policies. What I DID do was place links on like pages that I was a subscriber to,linking to my page in the comments section manually, and as I suspected MOST of the channel owners where extremely excited about my content. I have since read the YouTube promotion and anti-spam policies, and see no where in the language where linking to your own channel with like minded content in a comment is either SPAM or forbidden, especially since as a Software Engineer with 37 years of experience, if I was planning on spamming I could hit hundreds of thousands of channels at once with a robot, and I did not. I DO NOT SELL anything on my static web page or my YouTube Channel other than post pictures and / or videos of my homemade electrostatic generators, again of interest to the Wikipedia pages I posted links on because my machines are unique in their unparalleled power outputs. On Facebook I am a prolific contributor to the Electrostatic Machines Facebook group [Currently one of the Admins], and the responses to my contributions should be a shining example of the relevance of my links, and the importance of including them on the Wikipedia pages I linked to. Sorry for any misunderstanding. --Moses Newman (talk)

However you want to spin it, Wikipedia does not allow you to use it to promote your own website, even if that is not with a commercial aim. Please read WP:ADV which explains this.

I did initially issue you with a first and final warning for spamming but then backed off when I saw that it was not as commercial as I expected it to be. Given your response above I feel that I made the wrong decision and should have just stuck with the automated first and final warning.

Lets be clear here. It is not like you have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. You are clearly not here to help us build an encyclopedia. You are only here to promote your website. Coupled with your bizarre and massively irrelevant claim of political bias, I'm inclined to suggest that Wikipedia might not be the best place for you. Of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong by contributing constructively in future. In the meantime, I'm upping this to a final warning. Please do not post any further links to your website in any Wikipedia articles. I don't care about the links currently on your User page so long as you don't try to turn that into anything any more promotional than it currently is.--Dan ielRigal (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, I read WP:ADV and YES you are right it SUGGESTS you do not link to a site you own, or operate. Again I suggest looking at the relevance of my content to the subject matter. For instance my long time internet acquaintance the great Antonio Queroz (who is a Brazilian PHD'd electrical engineering professor) website is linked on all these pages, while he most likely did not post the links, no one could suggest that it would NOT be a terrible disservice to these pages should his valuable and informative content not be mentioned. While I do not have the wealth of knowledge (or even close to it, as Antonio does) my specific machine design (of the Quadruple Bonetti machine) is highly relevant, had I been aware of the policy in advance I would have certainly suggested the inclusion to others that if they agree on the value of the link, they link to my pages for me (and only if they agreed the content is relevant).

As far as your nonsensical comment You are clearly not here to help us build an encyclopedia, I have made numerous contributions and corrections to Wikipedia over the years, as I mentioned Wikipedia has a WELL KNOWN and DOCUMENTED (see bellow) history of far left and YES blatant anti-semitic bias, as well as patently false blatantly inaccurate posts such as but not limited to this one: Back End Database by you: DanielRigal. The reason you are not aware of my past contributions is that I did not have the time to contribute for years now, and when I did now, I forgot the username I used to use, so I created the BoardofEd user. I'd suggest if you truly want to create an unbiased and accurate Encyclopedia, that you start by not posting biased and/or blatantly false information like the article I linked to (keep in mind that is the first of your articles I actually read, so I have no idea if that is the ONLY false and misleading article you authored. Yes, I will make the suggested changes so you know why it is false as soon as my time permits.

(BTW, I just noticed that your site seems to have been added to a spam blackist, which will automatically prevent you posting any further links to it. I'm not entirely sure how that works but that wasn't anything to do with me. I guess I wasn't the only person to notice what you were doing. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

You knowingly (and looking carefully at your language you knew when you wrote it) posted that you found my website's IP address on a "Blacklist" when you knew the four entries out of 50+ known blacklists listed a total of 6 incidents of SPAM 4 in October 2017, and 3 in 2010, I am sure you knew and checked that I have only owned this IP address issued to me by Cloudways.com in February 2020. You also probably know that my domain name misterbonetti.com was only registered by me six months ago AT MOST. If you actually viewed the content on my website and or YouTube channel and compared the contents to long-listed links on the same pages I added the links to, you would understand the relevance to the subject matter. While after you pointed me in the right direction it is CLEAR now linking to my own site no matter what the relevance is, is frowned upon here, I will not do it anymore (although since there are only a hand full of entries in Wikipedia that this link is relevant to, that was not going to happen regardless. I appreciate your passion (if sincere) in keeping this a real "Encyclopedia" experience, and do not fault your efforts in ensuring that it remains that way, I just suggest that you stop ASSUMING and try to be less inflammatory. I sincerely suggest you look into the link I provided about the WELL KNOWN far-left bias of Wikipedia and do some of the searches I recommended it, because CLEARLY there are serious issues with Wikipedia, and my relevant links are the least of your worries.

FAR LEFT BIAS ON WIKIPEDIA

Examples Of Bias In Wikipedia

I suggest you also look up any information on the so-called "Palestinian Israeli" conflict, and of course, you will find that virtually ALL of the content is not only blatantly anti-Semitic, but absurd Muslim Terrorist Propaganda often directly copied from the HAMAS Muslim Terrorist owned epicenter of 22+ Muslim Terrorist Propaganda pages PalInfo.EN and its famous Palestinian Information Center. Of course, this topic is a lengthy one that deserves its own pages.

March 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Electrostatic generator. DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal When and WHAT did I post on Electrostatic Generator that the officially self-appointed Wikipedia Nazi is claiming is advertising? Personal attacks from a BIASED lunatic who contributed patently false content to Wikipedia is a severe violation of policy, so I ask once, what content or link did I add that the Gestapo thinks is advertising?

BoardOfEd, if you are interesting in continuing to edit on Wikipedia, you need to dial back the personal attacks. Focus on content; do not attack other editors' character. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred Thank you for the help, I will, but please read the lengthy exchange. The "Editor" in question attacked me personally calling me a "Serial Spammer" (Which I am not) and assuming multiple other slanderous lies, like him, you must universally apply the same standards to ALL editors and not pick and chose. In addition, you rolled back my changes to "Database Backend" for no apparent reason, the article as previously written IS NOT accurate and NO Microsoft did not invent the so-called "Back End Database" the concept dates back to the early 1970s, Microsoft was a relatively late player, and their major "Back End database technology" was Sybase technology they acquired by a strong arm legal battle after Sybase parted ways on the joint product that would become SQL server like I said the term "Backend Database" and "Database Server" (and existing and much more accurate Wikipedia entry) are synonymous. In addition, SQL IS NOT "A low-level database language", and code stored IN the database "Store Procedures" are not only a major part of best practices when dealing with a database back end, but they are also quite common, the description of what constitutes a "Backend Database" is completely off, hence the reasons I linked to "Database Server" where the information is accurate, and actually the same thing.

Posting and or allowing patently false information as fact, doesn't help the cause of an online encyclopedia already plagued by blatant antisemitic and far left biased content.

Moses Newman

I rolled back your changes to back-end database because you completely removed the sourcing from the articles. That is in violation of WP:RS and WP:V. If there are issues with accuracy, please provide sourcing to support the changes; however, removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information does not improve the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Wimshurst machine. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DanielRigal (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Promotional editing and disruptive behaviour by BoardOfEd. Rather than blocking your account for having a single purpose of self-promotion, I am leaving it unblocked for the moment for you to respond, but I have protected Wimshurst machine to prevent further instability to the page while the discussion is in progress. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have NEVER posted any promotional items. This is utter nonsense, yet I have been a regular victim of unwarranted attacks by DanielRigal a regular poster of patently false content. The most recent campaign against me was because a video I posted (that is on Wikimedia Commons and I personally own) had a watermark to a YouTube channel related to the content. While the rules clearly state watermarks should not be included on photographs and original artwork, they say nothing about other media such as but not limited to videos (however, should the consensus rule that the watermark needs to be removed regardless, I would be more than happy to resubmit the video without its watermark.). As part of the campaign against me DanielRigal and his cohorts attempted to have my video removed from Wikimedia commons. The deletion request was denied. I would recommend following the years of attacks against me, while I pointed out there was a double standard (there were two directly promotional links on the page in question, it was only removed immediately prior to this campaign against me. As Wikipedia is already notorious for non-enforcement and/or selective enforcement of its impartiality and anti-political bias policies as well as becoming a soapbox for anti-Semitism and Muslim terrorist propaganda, it should be very careful about blindly allowing unhinged biased editors from selectively and creatively applying rules. If you disagree that it is editors just like the few involved here that are the reasons for Wikipedia's horrific decline, I leave you with a quote from Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sanger: "Wikipedia made a real effort at neutrality for, I would say, its first five years or so,” said Sanger, adding, “And then … it began a long, slow slide into what I would call leftist propaganda. BoardOfEd (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Requests containing personal attacks are not considered. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2021 (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.

Talk page access revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion October 2021

I will restore TPA per the discussion at UTRS appeal #49441 and with blocking admin. I have advised user to copy here in an unblock template what they wrote there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review @Girth Summit's reason for declining my unblock request. His reasoning was that I made inflammatory statements just a few days prior to the request, so I could not possibly have changed my thinking or actions in several days time. The issue with that reasoning is that I made the statements over one year prior and not days prior to my unblock request. Accuracy and facts should always prevail on Wikipedia, and in this case, the statements were outright false (that I made such comments days prior to the unblock request, unless by "days prior" he means over 365 days prior). BoardOfEd (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember where I saw the 'nazi' comments - perhaps there was an error on my part in the dates of those - but most of my decline was based on the content of your 2 October unblock request. However, you will need to raise a new unblock request (at the bottom of this page) if you wish to be unblocked. Read the guidance in the block notice first. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:28, 12 March 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).

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

Request reason:

It is now clear to me I had to learn several things: 1. That the Wikipedia community has rather a rather broad and zero-tolerance policy on what it considers "SPAM" (it is now duly noted). 2. That there is a generally excepted method of talk-based communication should any disagreements result and I clearly went around that rule. 3. Senior editors and administrators ALWAYS are right (just like the customer is always right), I don't say that they are infallible I mean inexperienced editors like myself should ALWAYS start with the assumption those more experienced and senior editors/admins are correct based on their experience, before blindly jumping to the conclusion they are engaging in narcissistic behavior or selectively targeting other editors. I clearly am guilty of violating all the points I listed here. Should I be given a chance, I will surely contribute content that is valuable and helpful to the project as a whole, and if a video or still images I will remove any watermarks or other links or markings that may be deemed "Promotional" before contributing them. I hereby pledge to strive and become a valuable member of the Wikipedia community, rather than a parasite (or someone who gives off that appearance) Once again and in any event, please accept my sincerest apologies for my rather unacceptable and at times hostile behavior. BoardOfEd (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This statement does not persuade me that you are capable of contributing constructively. Just a few days ago, you were calling people nazis, screaming about Wikipedia's far-left bias, quoting Larry Sanger and complaining about a conspiracy to stop you doing whatever it is you were trying to do. I don't believe that someone can so completely turn their head around in such a short space of time. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:03, 24 October 2021 (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.

Girth Summit _(blether) While the statements you mentioned like but not limited to the Nazi statement was unacceptable regardless), it happened March 2020, over one year ago if this foolish math minor still remembers arithmetic. As for the comments about the well known far-left bias on Wikipedia certainly it was not relevant to that discussion, and in fact the proper way I believe to handle bias in articles on the encyclopedia is to point out the anti-bias rules where and if they seem to be happening, rather than soapboxing about real or perceived biases. I was woefully unaware of the proper procedure in such matters. I linked to hundreds of examples of the bias I was "Screaming about" and the blatant anti-Semitism by again linking to hundreds of examples, when in fact the correct procedure would be to properly point out these biases or anti-semitic content in each and every article, instead of whining about it in an unrelated thread. So again I did not follow procedure, I did not handle these things right, and I have numerous reasons to be ashamed of my actions, but pointing out real biases with not one two or even 20 examples but rather 100's should not be taken as unhinged conspiracies, as the bias and antisemitism is there, but rather than fix it with the correct procedures people (including myself in the previous posts) complain without even the slightest attempt to properly flag such problems in the articles where they appear.