User talk:Hashi0707

Welcome!

Hello, Hashi0707, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Reference errors on 6 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Operation Barbarossa page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarossa article

I've reverted your edit regarding the Hoeppner quite once again. This time I've started a section on the talk page. In you wish to argue that your quote should stay in the article, please do so on the talk page and not add back in before a consensus is reached. Cheers, and good weekend, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation-English Patriot Man

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/English_Patriot_Man. Thank you. MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ user:MyMoloboaccount, as expected, you have ignored my discussion to speak to you rationally via the talk pages and have resorted to an ad hominem.--Hashi0707 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of English Patriot Man (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ludicrous to say the least. Just because I have challenged some material that user:MyMoloboaccount has attempted to add into an articles does not mean I'm a previous banned sockpuppet. I've behaved completely reasonable when reverting and have followed Wikipedia guidelines such as creating discussions on the talk page but to no avail. All what has happened has been an ad hominem against me as a previous sockpuppet and ignoring the actual challenged text within the article. For example, I've looked at the sources and no line citation is given in any of the sources to support the claim, you can see 1 and 2 and yet the only response I have received is this being simply ignored and a revert and edit to the actual article with a reasoning of "reverting from banned sock-the article was heavily distorted, this will be a long process" and "continuing cleanup, most of this information is falsely attributed, manipulated or taken out of context". Previous examples of such ignorance is me being accused of "distorting Nazi atrocities" who has now went to the Operation Barbarossa article and reverted previous material even though this was the complete opposite of distorting anything and was all agreed on by many contributors to the article a while ago in the talk page.

I've attempted to follow the guidelines as:

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

-- Wikipedia WP:CHALLENGE

Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

-- Wikipedia WP:VNT

It seems someone is not following the guidelines of Wikipedia and is simply adding their own agenda into articles and yet not a thing is being done about it. Personal attacks and false accusations is not how it's supposed to be, a rational discussion regarding the content in the article is what is to be expected, not this nonsense.--Hashi0707 (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]