User talk:Doctor Franklin

Us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.172.38.32 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Doctor Franklin, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lihaas (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR rule

All articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are subject to a 1 revert rule, meaning that editors may not perform more than one revert in any 24 hour period. You made one revert while logged out and have now made another revert while logged in. If you do not self-revert you will most likely be brought up for sanctions.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poles are not Arabs. Polish-Israeli historical disputes are not covered by this rule.

The subject of the article was a Prime Minister of Israel so I would not be confident using that argument if I were you. Also, note, that edit warring, which is what you are doing, will most likely result in your block whether you break the rules in law or in spirit. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this could be construed as sockpupettry.Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if he had been shoe salesman. The man stated that Poles were natural antisemites. That is part of his legacy and it needs to be on the page. He said it. It was published. Deal with it.

Okey, well that comment shows you have no understaanding of how WP works And yu are mentioned here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Lihaas (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language is tricky

Your use of the word "libelous" could be interpreted as in some way a legal threat, which of course is not acceptable here. You might want to pick some other term in the future. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Hi Doctor Franklin. From my perspective it is clear that seanjsavage has a COI on certain matters on the Gary Hart page. However, you have demonstrated that you have a lot of emotion in this -- your own ax to grind, whatever that may be. WP:ADVOCACY (and please read that) is probably more damaging overall to Wikipedia than COI. So I suggest you take it easy and really aim for NPOV in everything you write in Wikipedia, be it on a Talk page or in an article. The Gary Hart article is now on my watch list. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I do mean what I wrote at COIN - if you continue to demonstrate WP:ADVOCACY-like behavior, by writing overheated comments and adding POV language to the article, I will bring you to ANI, where you will likely be topic-banned. I could probably do it now and succeed based on your track record to date alone. But in Wikipedia we give people a chance. This is your first warning. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit a lot here on WP. I try to focus my efforts on fixing pages were something is obviously wrong. You will note from my history that I faced a complaint to Arbitration after about 2 posts on Shamir's page for editing unsubstantiated claims of ethnic violence. You will also notice that what I disputed was proven correct. I don't appreciate threats or accusations.

It appears to me that others are editing the Gary Hart page to push a POV which wants to give undue credit to accusations against the man which were never properly substantiated in 1988 from limited sources of dubious reliability, and which are not verifiable now per Wiki RS. It is also clear that part of that lack of NPOV involves removing Hart's 1988 campaign from the historical context that the American media had previously not invaded a candidates personal life, and certainly not in the tabloid manner of the Miami Herald. People at the time considered that offensive, and some who lived through the times and remember it still find it offensive. Why that happened is now subject to debate, and recent contradiction by the Herald's Editor Tom Fiedler. It is not NPOV for WP to simply repeat the Herald's stories, and recently added "refreshed memory" as Wiki Facts when the apparent source of the Herald's accusations against Hart, doesn't agree with its prior published statement as to why it picked up investigating Hart's personal life.Doctor Franklin (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's a warning, not a threat. You can heed it or not! Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks / Let's work this out

Dear Doctor Franklin: First, thanks for educating me about COI policy. Back in the day when I corrected the misstated town where Carl Hiaasen grew up, I assumed that I was fully in line with Wikipedia policy and that using my real name and stating my relation to Carl up front on my user page would BOOST my credibility and make it clearer to anyone and everyone that my correction of that tiny fact was legit. Now I see the COI policy and understand the rationale behind it. And I see that, to fully comply with policy and avoid any misunderstandings, I could have stated my affiliation and the suggested change on Carl's Talk page as a request for edit. And the same goes moreso for the Gary Hart page because its content is controversial.

Any future contributions from me to the Gary Hart page will be in the form of edit requests on the Talk page, and perhaps citations on the article page. This is a controversial topic and, given the recent book and associated articles about Gary Hart and the coverage of him, and the various corrections and disputes regarding that, I see that claims that may not fall in line with your understanding and interpretations of this topic may initially strike you as lies and malfeasance. But please consider the possibility that I'm actually here trying to improve the article and see to it that the relevant facts from all sides are conveyed in a neutral, balanced, informative manner. And please examine the sources and facts yourself to validate those suspicions before acting upon them.

We probably have different points of view about many things, but if we stick to the facts and to Wikipedia policy, those different drives and opinions can complement one another and produce great things. From your POV, is there anything further I can do to achieve that? Seanjsavage (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Polish census of 1931, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The anti-Polish sentiment expressed in your edit summary is not acceptable. If you have issues with the content of the article, take it to the article's talk page. Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have issues with the content of the article. It appears that you wish to impeach the results of the 1931 Polish Census, but you lack a consensus on the talk page. Please advise what "anti-Polish sentiment" you infer. Your tone is decidely WP: uncivil.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will just have to shot me for this.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Map of Sub-ethnoses of the Great Russian People.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Map of Sub-ethnoses of the Great Russian People.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Polish census of 1931 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please stop your slow edit warring. There are 5 other editors, aside from yourself, who are discussing your changes and have determined that you are WP:POV-pushing WP:OR, and are engaged in disruptive behaviour. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for your behavior.

Here: [1].Faustian (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Polish census of 1931. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:00, 19 October 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not violate the 3RR rule. I only made two reverts in the past day. See here page history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&action=history I have been discussing the matter on the talk page. The problem is that I tagged the article for lacking a NPOV, and according to that tag it should stay until the matter is resolved, and Faustian claims that a consensus is needed for the tag to remain. See what I posted here citing the tag itself: "Please see Template:POV which states, "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." Also note that it reads, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Since the dispute has not been resolved, why are people removing the tag? There is no consensus needed to post the tag. Report anything you want, to anyone you want." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#communist_era_propaganda_per_WP:EXCEPTIONAL I will agree to not edit the page itself for the period of the ban, but I request permission to edit the relevant discussion on the notice boards to address contentions of another editor. I believe that I am being censored here for simply engaging in discussion with other editors, which is the right way to resolve editing disputes. Please note that user Faustian was out of line to remove the NPOV tag. Doctor Franklin (talk)

Decline reason:

As noted in the edit summaries, you seemed to be the only editor in a discussion of at least five other editors that favored keeping the tag. You don't get to keep ugly tags up until someone joins the discussion who agrees with you. Future blocks for the same sort of behavior on this page will be for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:33, 19 October 2015 (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.

{{unblock|reason= So, if I am the only editor who thinks the page has a problem, why is the tag still on the page? The last editor must have seen my point, and other editors are working to address the issues that I raised. I honestly didn't realize that I had violated the 3RR. I am happy not to edit the page itself for the period of the ban. My only request is that I be able to edit the relevant discussion on the noticeboards to address contentions made by another editor. I thought that this was not intended to be punitive. I have been an editor here for some time, and I have a clean record. I am trying to improve WP and using discussion to resolve editing disputes. [Edit to note that another Editor placed the NPOV tag on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686453370 Why was I banned when another editor tagged the page?[[User:Doctor Franklin|Doctor Franklin]] ([[User talk:Doctor Franklin#top|talk]]) 00:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [Edit to note that the baseless removal of a tag is considered vandalism: "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags ... or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {{policy}} and related tags." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism Here tags were removed repeatedly by a user claiming that I lacked a consensus to have posted the tag. This required more than an expressed opinion of one or two editors for doing this. As such, I considered what I did justified. The NPOV tag should have better instructions than it does. I did this in good faith.[[User:Doctor Franklin|Doctor Franklin]] ([[User talk:Doctor Franklin#top|talk]]) 05:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[[User:Doctor Franklin|Doctor Franklin]] ([[User talk:Doctor Franklin#top|talk]]) 22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}}

I'm sure that the discussion will still be going on 10 hours from now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=So then this is punitive. I really didn't understand that I had done something wrong. I agree not to do put the POV tag on the page again (and it is still there), which is different than violating 3RR, which I didn't know that I had done. [Edit to note that another Editor placed the NPOV tag on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686453370 Why was I banned when another editor tagged the page?[[User:Doctor Franklin|Doctor Franklin]] ([[User talk:Doctor Franklin#top|talk]]) 00:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [Edit to note that the baseless removal of a tag is considered vandalism: "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags ... or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {{policy}} and related tags." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism Here tags were removed repeatedly by a user claiming that I lacked a consensus to have posted the tag. This required more than an expressed opinion of one or two editors for doing this. As such, I considered what I did justified. The NPOV tag should have better instructions than it does. I did this in good faith. [[User:Doctor Franklin|Doctor Franklin]] ([[User talk:Doctor Franklin#top|talk]]) 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}}

Firstly, you clearly violated 3RR and were clearly engaged in a one man vs. all edit war on the article. Secondly, the other editor moved the tag lower down in the article, on one section, and initiated a discussion in which he stated that he did not understand why the tag was even necessary [2]. He called the section he started "what exactly is not neutral here?" Faustian (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the other editor: "I'd suggest removing the template, but I think User:Doctor Franklin has done a good job finding recent, reliable sources which do cite the original census results without observations, and while I wonder to what degree they do so simply out of lack of familiarity with the criticism of its methodology, I think it would be fair to modify the criticism section to say something like "The data has been used in a number of recent studies, ex. [cite, with quote]." I'd leave it to User:Doctor Franklin to draft a first version with wording that he thinks would address his concerns. In the end, my preferred solution has always been to add more information, rather than remove it. Shining more light, as we can poetically call it, is better than censorship. Plus, adding more content addresses any concerns." Which is to say that I was not being disruptive. My understanding was that the 3RR rule applied to editing content, and even so, I didn't realize that I had violated the rule by reverting 3 x in 24 hours. It was an honest mistake. That said, the NPOV tag does say that it shouldn't be removed by one or two editors, when other editors aren't agreeing with them. I consider that disruptive, and I noted that on their talk pages, etc. Someone is on a power trip and wants to play "gotcha". I get it.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add that much of my recent edits, and much effort on my part, have been sustained by other editors, and cannot reasonably be construed as "clearly engaged in a one man vs. all edit war on the article." Faustian and Iryna Harpy appear to follow each other around a bit here.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Franklin, if you wish to persist in using noticeboards for that which is explicitly not their purpose such as here at the NORN, and in order to further cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to the motivations of long standing editors (i.e., you are persisting in your WP:WITCHHUNT and WP:UNCIVIL behaviour), I suggest you take your 'suspicions' to the WP:ANI as I've previously suggested. Make certain that you are well armed with evidence because you will find that both Faustian and I work collaboratively with many, many other editors; have done so for years; have had less 'contact' in working on articles right across the board on Wikipedia than we have with other editors. If you have a case, make it. The fact is that you do not have a case. You are a WP:SPA, therefore your 'opinion' of other editors is skewed by your lack of interest in the project as a whole. Being aggressive and condescending - prefacing a comment to me with "Oh, Ma Chéri..." - is seriously inappropriate, particularly as you use it to launch into an unsubstantiated tirade accusing me of misrepresenting straight forward translations of source titles and the information imparted. Do you have a scrap of evidence for this? Even one diff where I have done this? Have fun finding one: you won't, simply because that is not what I do. I am WP:HERE. You, on the other hand, are WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked! Shocked! That Iryna Harpy has followed Faustian to my talk page.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the images at Commons

Hi Doctor Franklin, I left a message for you at Commons. You need to act quickly because they are going to delete them if you don't.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that they are deleted (as well as for future reference), a possible place for documents such as these is at our sister project Wikisource. There is a specific Polish Wikisource which has other documents similar to what you have uploaded at Commons. I see that your account is in order but has no contribs at the English Wikisource. I don't see an account at the Polish version.

English and Polish Wikisource note that the files already exist.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In articles, it is sometimes best to link to primary sources rather than displaying them in their entirety. This leaves it for the reader to chose to click through to examine the documents.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the WP page for this census, "The results of the census were being published in 39 volumes between 1936 and 1939 in a publishing series "Statistics of Poland"." The editors of the page have concluded, for the present at least until chart summaries might replace them, to use 23 images of population summaries to summarize the 39 volumes. It is hardly a data dump of all 39 volumes, and it summarizes the most important information, much as WP pages from the U.S. census do, without similar disruptive claims of OR. Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, admins at WikiCommons have deleted the images, and you've re-uploaded them into the same name space. If this is picked up on, you may get yourself in trouble on Commons. I'd say that Berean Hunter's suggestion makes sense. There has been discussion as to the presentation looking clumsy.

While I've only ever used Wikisource to link to entire transcripts, in the next couple of days I'm going to take a look at whether it can be set up with anchors per separate page. In such a manner, smaller icons can be can be used per page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you clearly never wanted them on the page to begin with, be sure to take this discussion to the talk page first. No canvassing here please.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I was offering to help. There is no problem with having primary source material on Wikisource in lieu of a clumsy looking gallery set up! If they didn't exist there, I wouldn't need your permission to upload them there anyway, so what's this 'take it to the talk page first' nonsense about? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning for slow-edit-warring and making up things before longer block

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC) What are you talking about? Everything I write is TLDR for you. You clearly have an overt bias in the matter. This could go up to ARBCOM due to the ethnic issues.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This German map from 1930 clearly shows that the Polesians were not Belarussians as critics like Mauldin contended: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Lange_mitteleuropa_1930.jpg The census got this part right. The ethnic issues were disputed at the time. Different "experts" had different interpretations. The Germans clearly disagreed with Mauldin, whatever his academic credentials were. (We still don't know.) Perhaps you are a visual learner, but don't say the picture is TLDR for you. I won't have a problem taking this to ARBCOM. Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to take it to ArbCom. No one is stopping you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polish census of 1931 is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring other editor's own talk pages

What on earth is this about? You grabbed 'warnings' from edit warrior IPs and presented them as if there was some form of ongoing edit war on the Polish census of 1931, and adding your own 'comment' at the end: a complete misrepresentation of what has been established as a consensus version of the article (see WP:TPNO). All you're actually doing is 'recycling' other editor's unjustified attacks on me and appending your own in order to create the illusion that there have been ongoing discussions where I am the central disruptive character in your morality play. Are you both of those IPs, or they are WP:MEAT?

Even the placement of the message was consciously thought out. You know that new sections go at the bottom of a talk page, but you placed it in chronological order in order that it appear to be sequentially correct (first 'warning' dated 06:20, 27 December 2015, and the next message having been posted 06:40, 28 December 2015). Adding what appears to be yet another comment over the same subject matter was designed to make certain it did not get automatically archived by artificially keeping the thread current.

Over the months, you have established a behavioural editing pattern demonstrating that your WP:COMPETENCE is questionable, and that you have no qualms about using WP:CRUSH techniques in order to WP:WIN. You've argued with and attacked numerous editors working on the article: enough! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ma chère, that wasn't a new section. You constantly accuse other editors of vandalism, refuse to answer questions addressed to you on the talk page, while engaged in POV blanking and censorship of post-communist social scientists to forward your nationalist POV. Since you persist in assuming the bad faith of editors who can read and translate their own language, it is not surprising that you have attracted their ire with your neo-Stalinist view of history. You have been warned about this type of behavior before. If the shoe fits, you should wear it.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Franklin, I assume you're aware of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, both of which you have breached with the immediately previous comment. Regarding talk pages, the rule is clear: removal of talkpage messages by the user for which they were intended for signifies, at the very least, that the recipient has read them. No reinsertion should take place. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to continue to assume good faith when an editor demonstrates a continued pattern of bad faith behavior, constantly accusing other editors of vandalism, edit warring by citing and misrepresenting sources that she refused to read, etc. and has been warned about that behavior by Admins, but continues that behavior never-the-less. POV pushing of Stalinist history such as the forced assignment of ethnicity used as justification for the involuntary changes of citizenship and borders, and forced deportations and ethnic cleansing, and also including alleged "confessions" from the dead by communist party historians, while ignoring modern award winning publications from respected academics to the contrary of communist sources cannot be ignored as a personal attack. It is what it is. I don't edit my talk page. I stand by what I have done as an editor at WP, and my work speaks for itself.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I've been warned by admins? Who? Where? Stop your blatant lying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very clear warning here for you harassing IP's, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=683692541#Harassment_by_user_Iryna_Harpy Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Polish census of 1931. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Polish census of 1931 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

There is no consensus for your POV and OR refactoring of the content. This has been made clear by discussions on the talk page of the article, as well as by the fact that your additions have been reverted over and over by numerous editors. Accusing other editors of 'falsification' on a regular basis is bad faith editing, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Doctor_Franklin reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: ). Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You have been blocked for 1 week from editing for edit warring, as you did at Polish census of 1931. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:13, 13 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Since I was the editor who inadvertently introduced a false citation onto the page, I had a responsibility to correct it to the best of my ability. I stand by my decision to be accurate. Keeping order in the nursery is a poor reason to punish an editor for simply trying to correct his own mistake, which should be encouraged not punished.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly warned previously not to do this or risk being blocked for a longer duration. Had I been the blocking admin, I would've made it for longer than a week. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:18, 16 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.

Since you are an anti-polonist and are embarrassing WP, I am not surprised at your comments. Truth matters. [Edit to note that Ohnoitsjamie is not an uninvolved Admin who was commenting on sources for the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=686695034] Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am resubmitting this request as OhNoitsJamie is not an uninvolved Admin who was involved in commenting on sources for this page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=686695034 He has also falsely accused me of vandalism above on my talk page, which demonstrates clear bias on the issue, if not ethnic animus. Since I was the editor who inadvertently introduced a false citation onto the page, I had a responsibility to correct it to the best of my ability. I stand by my decision to be accurate. Keeping order in the nursery is a poor reason to punish an editor for simply trying to correct his own mistake, which should be encouraged not punished. Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at the 3RR report, you were sanctioned for making 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 16 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am resubmitting this request since PhilKnight read the the 3RR report wrong. That lists 4 edits in 31 hours, not 4 in 24. I did not violate 3RR Again, Since I was the editor who inadvertently introduced a false citation onto the page, I had a responsibility to correct it to the best of my ability. I stand by my decision to be accurate. Keeping order in the nursery is a poor reason to punish an editor for simply trying to correct his own mistake, which should be encouraged not punished.

Decline reason:

You were ultimately blocked for edit warring and while the warning was a general message, the heading contained the words "edit warring". This would be enough to satisfy criteria at AN3. I also see on the article talk page that there was concern in the past about some of your edits constituting original research. With this in mind, a reversion of your edits by two different editors in the span of about a day would indeed be considered edit warring and the proper course of action here would be to start a discussion at the talk page and/or request a third opinion. If the edits were done in order to correct past mistakes done by yourself then that's even more reason to bring up a new discussion on the talk page to try to clear things up. If an edit is seen as controversial (meaning that the edits were reverted repeatedly) then the worst thing you can do is edit war - and this is ultimately why you were blocked. The year long ban is an entirely different matter and something that you need to take up via this channel once your block is up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 19 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.

An anti-polonist? That's a new one. Apparently I'm an anti-a-lot-of-things to blocked editors. You also seem to be imagining new rules that an editor who comments once on a source is automatically "involved" and thus must forever recuse themselves from anything involving a topic. Good stuff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did accuse me of vandalism, and that is a serious matter. You are clearly biased and damaging WP.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used a standard final warning template which includes the word vandalism. The heading of that warning made it crystal clear what I was warning you for. You have accused me of anti-polonism (I had to look up what that was) and "ethnic animus" without providing a shred of evidence to back that assertion. Now tell me again which one is the "serious matter"? I'm still trying to figure out why you are only blocked for a week this time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to use smaller words so that you can understand me better. In standard English a "next time" requires that there was in fact a first time. So you plainly falsely accused me of vandalism. I certainly never made anything up either. However, if I admit that I made a mistake and corrected it you claim your "warning" has been violated. I wasn't the one making somehting up. I was correcting a false citation not in the cited source IN BLACK AND WHITE. To quote my favorite of Aesop's Fables, any excuse is sufficient for a tyrant.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation to you would be to just wait out the week quietly and then discuss changes on the article's talk page from here on out. Use this time to write out a clear argument that is backed up with reliable sources and does not include original research. Do not include material that could be seen as an attack or insult against other editors, as this will not reflect well on you - the best way to argue a point is by remaining calm. I'm saying this a completely uninvolved editor and admin - doing things like this always backfires and makes incoming editors (especially incoming admins) become more defensive, as we will then expect that you will make similar statements about and to us. One of the things we consider about unblocking (or about future blocks or bans) is whether or not a user can react to confrontations or problems in a calm manner and that you won't react poorly to other editors. Stuff like this tends to accrue over time and users have actually ended up getting blocked for behavioral reasons rather than anything relating to sanctions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously missed the point that there are clearly ethnic agendas present from a tag team of nationalist editors using arguments such as "original research" to block anything that they WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT including simple translation or noting that a phrase has been translated more than one way by their declared RS. Since you have failed to uphold the most minimal academic standards to address academic fraud and the blatant and willful falsification of sources and doing so to WP:Censor an editor from correcting his own erroneous citation, there is no reason to continue editing. It is now fair to discuss the WP phenomenon academically it terms of pages like this being used to forward a neo-Stalinist and anti-Polonist agenda. I will do so quite calmly, but bad faith editing by nationalist tag teams on WP is an embarrassment to anyone attempting to improve WP. You collectively are a farce of standards. You just lost an editor.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are hereby banned for 1 year from making any reversions to any pages relating to Eastern Europe, broadly construed, including the article Polish census of 1931 - as per WP:0RR.

You have been sanctioned for showing a continuous pattern of disruptive edit warring after being warned several times by other administrators to discontinue such behavior; you were also made aware that these articles are subject to arbitration enforcement prior to your last violation.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:36, 13 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Wow, so I have been banned for a year for correcting MY OWN ERRONEOUS EDIT? REALLY?

It was my edit at 06:40, 14 October 2015 that introduced Apolinary Hartglas into this discussion, and erroneously identified him as the source for the allegation that Edward Szturm de Sztrem had confessed to fixing the census returns: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&type=revision&diff=685666806&oldid=685657081 After an editor from an IP in Poland noted that no such mention of that exists in Hartglas' memoirs, (published posthumously by his estate), I ordered the books cited: Joseph Marcus, "Social and Political History of the Jews in Poland, 1919-1939" (Walter de Gruyter (1983), p. 17 (footnote 3) ISBN 978-90-279-3239-6. and Richard Blanke "Orphans of Versailles: The Germans in Western Poland, 1918-1939" (Univ. Press of Kentucky 1993). I have the books in front of me. Blanke makes no reference to Apolinary Hartglas in his book. Marcus thanks Hartglas' daughter in the introduction for allowing him to read the memoir before its publication. (pg. x, n. 3) He does not name him as the source that the census was fixed. That appears in Ch. 2, pg. 17, n. 3 where he cites Zbiniew Landau and Jerzy Tomaszewski. It is there in black and white without ambiguity. Based upon reading the actual sources in physical book format, I corrected my error here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&type=revision&diff=704177810&oldid=702585457

Several contentious editors, who clearly did not read the sources cited, began reverting my work WITHOUT COMMENT ON THE TALK PAGES. None of these editors claim to have read the source. I notified them on their talk pages to stop falsifying the sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FreeatlastChitchat#Your_Falsification_of_Sources_and_Contentious_Editing_of_Polish_census_of_1931 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=704564213#Your_Falsification_of_Sources_and_Contentious_Editing_of_Polish_census_of_1931 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=704714485#Your_Falsification_of_Sources_and_Contentious_Editing_of_Polish_census_of_1931 They continued reposting false information which was duly noted as such on the talk page, and with this malicious attempt to have me banned for reading the sources that they were misrepresenting. There should be a big-time WP:Boomerang for falsifying a source. The prime directive is to share our knowledge, not force our ignorance on others. Editors should read the books they are citing and edit-warring about. When they don't they should be punished. I think that you got it backwards here. WP:Verify is a central pillar of WP. I followed the rules here correctly and did not violate 3RR, etc. I have followed the spirit of WP. My edits were constructive and quite correct, in black and white. I will appeal this to ArbCom if needed. Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked (and topic-banned from reverting) for edit-warring. While 3RR is a bright line, you can (and did) edit-war without crossing that line. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 19:07, 13 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.

Comment: You are only "banned" (or blocked) from the whole website for a week. You are banned from reverting any edits made to any pages relating to Eastern Europe (including the article Polish census of 1931). Once the block expires, you are welcome to edit anywhere else as long as no other problems arise. I'm sure you'll be fine. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not fine. Since you collectively have chosen to condone academic fraud and the willful falsification of sources there is no reason to continue editing such a farce. However, it is fair game to write about the ethnic agendas of editors and Admins in WP for real academic publications, etc. You lost an editor by refusing to uphold minimal academic standards. Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cave

"And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death." -PlatoDoctor Franklin (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I have no doubt that other administrators would have indefinitely blocked you in this situation. This is a last chance. If you use multiple accounts to evade your 0RR restriction again, an indefinite block will follow. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob₁₃, he seems to be doing it again: [3].Faustian (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is now indefinite as a result of continued sockpuppetry using IPs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]