User talk:Dunkmack9

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Drmies (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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).

Dunkmack9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Binksternet has been completely untruthful in his reasons for warnings, etc. Binksternet insists that Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett and published by Harper and Row in 2000 is ficticious garbage and has absolutely no redeeming merits, and therefore will not allow any--and I do mean any, positive additions to the article. Although I am a beginner at editing I know that references need to be cited and well documented, and the additions I have tried to add included some newspaper reviews and a magazine review for which I was able to not only find the exact hard copy date of publication along with the Author's name and his newspaper name, etc. Through a service I subscribe to I first was able to read these 13 year old reviews in their intirety, and found them to be well sourced, despite having found them on the books dustjacket. The crux of this dispute with Binksternet, and I assure whoever reads this that it is indeed sour grapes and lies by Binksternet. Lies, yes a big word, but entirely verifiable in this case. Liar Binksternet first refused to allow me to add that the author of Day of Deceit, Robert Stinnett was a newspaper reporter of a newspaper I read as a child and youth--The Oakland Tribune. Binksternet wants people to think that Robert Stinnett is some crackpot lunatic who is in the business of making up crap to write books about. Binky got really pissed off when I figured out that he originated the Joe Knowland article on WP. Since bink will not allow anything to be added in favor of Day of Deceit on its own article, I added to his Joe Knowland article (under his Oakland Tribune days section) the fact that around when Joe Knowland was running The Oakland Tribune, quite well, Joe Stinnett began working for the Oakland Tribune, then gave a brief description of Joe Stinnett's 17 years of research into Day of Deceit. The big lie Binkster used to get me cut off is his totally false claim that I engaged in a personal attack on Joe Knowland. Well it just so happens that my family has been friendly with the Knowland family for many years and over several generations. I will not go into detail, but I would never, and did not, write anything in the least bit negative to Binksters rather imflammatory and demeaning article on the Knowlands, Including Joe Knowland (jr). It also just so happens that father has known Joe Stinnett since the 1960's when he was a journalist at The Oakland Tribune. I am quite familiar with the type of pond scum that would defame Joe Stinnett and his work. Apparently Binkster is not only an Oakland Tribune, Bob Stinnett, Knowland Family, and Oakland Tribune Journalist hater, but he is not afraid of anybody at wikipedia to just out and out lie when he gets caught. Why is Binkster, who is obviously radically opposed to the truth getting out about the past, as exposed by Oakland Tribune veteran journalist Bob Stinnett's book Day of Deceit, in any position to have my editing blocked indefinitely? He also has no business being able to junk well cited sources that do not agree with his antique beliefs. Anyone such as Binkster who can lie openly to wikipedia to get someone blocked indefinitely by claiming I said something nasty about someone, when you can look on the Joe Knowland article and see what I wrote nothing nasty or even slightly not nice, does not deserve to have anyone take him in the least bit seriously. He is a liar who will not allow anyone to tough his diatribe against Day of Deceit--and that includes the talk pages, too, by the way. No talk alllowed on Day of Deceit talk page by binky. Dunkmack9 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declining unblock; user has been warned multiple times and didn't address the block in this request and chose not to respond to the ANI discussion. Bjelleklang - talk 09:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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=blocked for POV only, not as stated

unblock reason=because I'd like to request clemency, acknowledge my ill conduct and request a second chance. Despite the abrupt blocking of my account, I was not on a conspiracy theory tear. The topics that I was blocked for were 2. Day of Deceit, a book by Robert Stinnett claiming extensive recent (in terms of WW2) freedom of information act use resulting in never before published information he found, from recently declassified top-secret archives--some of which has since been removed by unknown hands. I have stated before, and been banned for stating that the article is a profound mischarachterization of what Stinnett claims in the book. For instance, without any cites from the actual book, it is claimed Stinnett said the Govt knew we would be attacked on Dec 7 at Pearl Harbor--in the Day of Deceit article. It is said he said the McCollum memo was written for the express purpose of starting a War with Japan. Any cites from the actual Stinnett book are out of context. All Stinnett says about the McCollum memo is that Roosevelt admin seems to have used it as a blueprint to aggravate Japan into committing the first overt act of War; not that McCollum wrote it for that purpose. Stinnett never claimed Dec 7 at Pearl Harbor was known ahead of time by the US Govt; all he stated was that by Roosevelt following the McCollum memo (which certainly seems to be the case) that Japan would attact a US military base somewhere in the South Pacific, and as December 1941 came around it loked like it was going to happen pretty soon. Certain editors Binksternet for certain, and Drmies believe that all discussion of US Govt/military foreknowledge of our aggravating Japan into War is lunatric fringe conspiracy theory. I am sorry, but these people have neither read the book nor are they aware of the vast public sentiment about this topic. It is not lunatic. I should have had more patience with these people who called me lunatic fringe conspiracy POV. They had lots of references that denied it, so I should have understood how obligated they felt to pursue that avenue of thought. However, I still think that I was treated unfairly. However, I can drop it until I get references even they cannot obliterate at lunatic conspiracy POV. That is exactly where the second cause of my block comes from---Rudolph Hess, and a book by Thomas, The Murder of Rudolph Hess. This book was written by a British military surgeon stationed at the Brit. Mil. Hosp. in Berlin in the 1970's. He was senior Brit. Med. Officer to Spandau Prison where Hess was. The Rud Hess page has repeatedly (thanks Diannaa) refused to acknowledge Thomas was a Doctor, or had ever even met Hess at Spandau. It was not until I recently found another cite being used on the article that I was able to force the article to admit he was a Military Surgeon who had treated Hess (at Spandau), and that Thomas claimed the Hess at Spandau did not have any scar. That same day I added that "Thomas was a Surgeon who had treated Hess at Spandau" I was blocked almost immediately. Aside from that, the Hess article once again totally misinterprets what the Thomas Book said. It sure as hell said a lot more about things Thomas found out while Senior Med Officer of the Berlin Mil Hospital atached to Spandau than that he did not see a scar. Also, It never said that Hess was Killed before he left for Scotland--as the article claims the conspiracy Thomas states. That was one scenario. Without being too wordy, would like a second chance to better wp cleaning up such blatently misinformed articles by adding "bulletproof" cite ref's. I think I can do so while ignoring the disparaging and unusually devisive comments by certain edit administrators. As I say, I know I can be more calm dealing with criticism and would like the opportunity to impress upon WP some "bulletproof" cite refs so much in need on certain articles. Give me a chance, I know you all will be watching me. How about it? Please? And, despite what Edjohnson may have said about me being notified of an ANI thread about me, I never was told of any ANI thread of any kind..Dunkmack9 (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dunkmack9. Since your were indefinitely blocked as the result of a community discussion, any unblock must come from the same route. I am therefore initiating a discussion at the main administrators noticeboard. Here is a link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Appeal of indefinite block by Dunkmack9. You are incorrect when you say you were never notified of the block discussion in January; the person who made the initial post advised you here on January 17, and I posted a second notice here on January 20. If you have any comments you wish to add to the new discussion, please post them on this page and one of us will copy them over for you.-- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa- I am so happy to get your input on the ANI page now that I know what it is, and cannot comment on that page. Your comment on the ANI board is typical of your snooty know it all behavior on your favorite Nazi Rudolf Hess article. I have read much more than just Thomahs book concerning Hess, and for you to claim that I feel I have "found the truth" after reading the Thomas book shows your ignorance, not mine. You should be ashamed of your rude and insulting behavior that has created a Nazi tribute page instead of a fair and balanced article on a very interesting Historical character (aside from being a murdering Nazi). Few Nazi's have achieved that status of interesting Historical character. You obviously have never read,or fear the book in question because you repeatedly mistate what it says. Why are you so afraid of what Dr. Hugh Thomas had to say after reading all of Hess's medical records, including all Spandau records, and examining Hess personally with his own eyes, and radiologically? Why will you not allow that Dr Thomas is an expert in high velocity (military rifle bullet) wounds to the thoracic region--and he found that the prisoner called Hess in Spandau Prison in the 1970's when he examined him had not been ever shot through the lung as Rudolph Hess had been in WW1? Now, Diannaa, have I said when or even if the real Hess was murdered? No I have not have I Diannaa? Neither did Dr Hugh Thomas. He did come up with several theories for what he observed personally and professionally as a highly trained Military thoracic surgeon. So what is the "truth" I have "found" by referencing the Thomas book except that you are absolutely horrified that someone or somebody will write an article at WP on the Thomas Book "The Murder of Rudolph Hess." Want to know what I really think about the whole Spandau/Hess affair? I think the Soviets got their hands on him in the 60's. There you have it Diannaa, ridicule me about that, at least you will be ridiculing something I actually said. BYW, Diannaa, I am very proud of you bringing up the Hess article to good status. I know you are pissed off that i used your own article references to add that Thomas (was not some random kook who wrote a book) was a military Doctor assigned to Spandau and and examined Hess. You were so upset with my (correct and indisputable reference) change to your article (that still stands) that you had me banned within 3 hours of making that little addition to your article--wow!! Good job. Dunkmack9 (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

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).

Dunkmack9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

on the ani ms board it is quite clear that Binksternet will not keep out of my unblock request, nor will Diannaa. Binksternet's biased Day of Deceit hit piece and Diannaa's bizarre bias on the Rudolph Hess article are the only instances of me loosing my cool at WP. 2 articles and it's all over 3 hours after sucsessfully editing the Hess article. Binksternet and Dianna have no business commenting on my unblock request and they know it. And as for loosing my cool, I used no foul language, and Binksternet obviously has no sense of humor and I will leave it at that. 2 articles, no threats, no foul language-- and unless Binksternet really thinks being called a "villian" is any reason for blocking, then he should, as I stated a long time ago-- dial 911 because he has lost his mind. Big deal, really! You people act as if my sole purpose in life is to pursue wacko conspiracy theories because I have read a book or pamphlet on some outrageous topic. Really? Is that what you administrators think? That is pathetic. Block people for good reason, not silly reasons that make you feel important for no reason. You administrators should know well that the reasons you have stated for my blocking are petty, arbitrary and capricious. Anyone that has become educated on the subject of America's entry into WW2 knows damn well that Roosevelt wanted the US involved in the War, and likely manipulated at least a few events to make it happen. Not a big leap, and even though I have never stated anywhere if I liked Roosevelt, I am glad he did get us into the war. This also relates to Hess's plane trip to Scotland. The Hess page infers he was trying to negotiate to keep Britain quiet so the Nazi's invasion of Russia (Mein Kampf)could go off without a hitch. Maybe so, maybe he knew Japan was about to attack the US and bring us into the war, so his interest in Britain quieting down so the US would not have to enter into the War to help the Brits would take on an even more vital importance that we could actually believe he would risk "it all." Hardly conspiracy crap WP administrators. When the people entrusted to be fair and balanced in running their articles have themselves bought into bizarre conspiracy theories thought to have been put to rest a long time ago, there is a problem--especially when other WP administrators cannot recognize the total bizarrity of the idea that by the US entering into the war it would somehow hurt Britain. Bizarre! And yet, a notion from both Diannaa and Binksternet. Drop the block. So what if I think you are a bunch of lazy turds. Maybe you are. That is no reason to block someone new to WP and force them to create another ID. And, yes, this is to be my last unblock request.Dunkmack9 (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your attitude towards some of Wikipedia's most-respected administrators is enough to convince me that you are not here with the intent to contribute constructively. Consider this unblock request declined. Further comments along the lines of what you've said above will result in the removal of your talk page privileges. m.o.p 23:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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.