User talk:Doru001

Welcome...

Hello, Doru001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 06:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging accounts

It is entirely up to you wether or not you merge your accounts, you can find details at m:Help:Unified login. Technically speaking, it is not merging, it is unified login. I find it most useful when switching between wikis, when I go to the next wiki the unified login system has already logged me in without me having to bother. This is quite handy if you switch between wikis often. It also stops anyone else taking your username at wikis you haven't used yet. SpinningSpark 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:David Icke. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not asking you to lie

That's a ridiculous thing to suggest. Your post on my talk page doesn't absolve you from our expections of WP:CIVILITY. Please don't respond on my talk page again, the discussion should remain here. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Your recent edits to User talk:Doug Weller could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. I strongly suggest that you avoid the word libel in the future. Such comments can have a chilling affect on editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More legal threats

Maybe do not accuse me of libel[1] when you have already been warned about making legal threats? I have removed your comment more for your benefit than mine. I was trying to help you understand what it would take to make that Icke quote usable. I do not expect to be abused for trying to be helpful. You still have a chance to calm down and contribute to Wikipedia sensibly. Your own views being non-mainstream do not have to prevent this but you do need to be able to set your own opinions aside to write articles in a neutral way. Of course, Talk pages are not so rigidly constrained but even there we can't have people making bizarre and incoherent accusations. I genuinely have no idea what "I see that you carefully follow Big Pharma indications, too" is meant to mean but it seems to be an accusation of some sort. Maybe that is exactly what somebody who "follows Big Pharma indications" would say? I have no idea. If I were to accuse somebody of "carefully counting all the weasels on Planet X" I could probably make a show of construing their confusion as "the typical smokescreen of an alien weasel counter" but maybe I should not be too surprised if my fellow Wikipedians asked me to stop talking nonsense. This brings me to the silly allegation of "censorship". You are not being censored when you are expected to follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines when you are on Wikipedia. If we told you what you can publish on your own website then that would be censorship. Finally you accuse me of trying to confuse you. I really wasn't, and I'm not even sure if that would be possible. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for tendentious editing, personal attacks, and specifically posting this after all Doug Weller's warnings on this page: "I see that you carefully follow Big Pharma indications, too... this is direct censorship, manipulation and libel. You could have done better, but you did well enough given the circumstances.". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 | talk 17:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last Notice

DanielRigal:

I have never made any threats here on Wikipedia, legal or otherwise. People who get the impression that I may consider legal action against them or against Wikipedia are not in the right state of mind to contribute to an encyclopedia. People who are not responsible for their statements should not contribute to Wikipedia. We all live under the law, whether you mention it here on Wikipedia or not.

If you believe that I did not follow the proper channels for dispute resolution then maybe you care to explain why do you believe that.

I always comment on content. The content is libelous. Other "contributors" are busy psychoanalyzing me and David Icke, while they can't read simple statements, and they go on and imagine threats and who knows what else.

Maybe you don't know, because I was censored, but I did make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. The article is about David Icke's speeches, and I used a David Icke's speech as a reliable source. This has been rejected as unreliable. Only well established organizations' comments on David Icke's speeches are reliable. David Icke's speech is not reliable because it is made, recorded, and uploaded by David Icke himself, and he may be lying about what he actually says in his own speeches.

The word libel should very well have a chilling effect on ill intended editors.

I heard only once of a banned word, the word "freedom" in Greece under a military dictatorship. It is quite interesting.

DanielRigal:

I haven't seen the warnings until today, I apologize. I didn't realize that you can be so touchy about an innocent English word. Don't mention rope in the home of a hanged man.

However, I don't know how could you prevent libel if you ban the word:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced)

I have never made any threats on Wikipedia, legal or otherwise. You may want to verify such accusations before you join into libel again.

Censorship never serves anybody. Reason requires answers. When you censor you become irrational and you deceive yourself.

Listen to me carefully: the "David Icke" article is about what David Icke says, not about what you say that David Icke says. Maybe you have a theory which claims that David Icke's long, coherent, unchanged public speech is a smokescreen which hides his real public speech, and that this hidden real public speech denies the Holocaust. If this is the case, I would not censor you, I would only ask you the simple question of how have you got to this conclusion?

So I need to set aside my opinion that David Icke's videos on his own YouTube channel are genuine. Why? You suspect a big conspiracy which falsified hundreds of hours of video recordings?

You should learn to read my writing carefully before you try to read my feelings or my views.

Of course you follow Big Pharma carefully, they are the only reliable source. It is not an accusation.

I repeat to you that I did not make any accusation. I just stated facts, and I back these facts with reliable evidence. Of course, you can contradict my arguments, instead of censoring them.

I believe that I used the word "censorship" correctly:

"any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

an adverse critic; faultfinder."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/censor

Your censorship is effective, since Wikipedia (still) is an important site, and the libel on David Icke's page is effective, too.

I did not edit anything, I only commented myself on the Talk page under my own name, I did not attack anybody, and I did post after an unjustified warning only because I did not see the warning in that short time span. This is libel.

... and then you blocked me to show that you do not censor. Aren't you sweet?

Don't expect any further answers from me. You are the kind of person who answers before he blocks the person he denigrates. Your arguments are absurd, as I showed above. God may have mercy on you.

If you feel threatened by me in any way, legal or otherwise, you need to take a little time off. My statements are in writing, they only state evidence backed facts, I am open to discussion, and I do not threaten anyone. What would happen to you in the real world, where speech is not clear, and a smile could trigger your irrational anxiety? The only way to censor somebody in the real world is by physical violence, and you don't want to go down that antifa path.

Really guys, if you are so stressed that you can't contribute when you see the word "libel", just do your best to say the truth.

Oh yes, I genuinely believe that you are corrupt. Maybe you sincerely believe that David Icke's speeches are not a reliable source for his speeches, but I find this hard to believe.

And I'm not attacking you in any way. You are attacking me. You spread libel on me everywhere you can. I don't like that.

So thank you for your cooperation. Probably we will never hear from each other again. Doru001 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]