User talk:Mojito Paraiso

This is Mojito Paraiso's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philip Cross - Wikipedia Editor (May 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Philip Cross - Wikipedia Editor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Philip Cross - Wikipedia Editor, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mojito Paraiso! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Just requested a speedy delete. Please read WP policy documents before wasting your time. Philip Cross (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Scr★pIron^IV 21:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to be unblocked

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).

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

Request reason:

I am appealing to be unblocked. The recent incident which caused me to be blocked was an entry I posted regarding an individual called Philip Cross who I believe is abusing Wikileaks to target a variety of British anti-establishment academics, authors, journalists and bloggers with incessantly disparaging references. My entry was simply an attempt to highlight his activity. I now understand that the better way to achieve my objective is to appeal under the Wikipedia violation of NPOV guidelines regarding biographies of living persons which I have done successfully in the case of Tim Hayward. In recognition of this, I therefore respectfully request that the block against me be lifted. Thank you for your attention. Mojito Paraiso (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your article was absolutely inappropriate. It failed WP:BIO, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and possibly WP:NPA. You have given no grounds to believe you understand why your edits were so totally inappropriate, so there are no grounds to lift the block at this time. Yamla (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2018 (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.

Renewed request to be unblocked

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).

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

Request reason:

I am appealing Yamla's decline of my earlier request to be unblocked. To clarify, I understand the concerns raised by my entry regarding Philip Cross which was clearly misguided and wholly inappropriate. I assure the editors that going forward that my contributions will be in strict accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I am a relative newcomer to Wikileaks and have no history of disruptive behaviour. In the end, I am only motivated by the desire to see biographies of living persons people treated fairly and impartially which I think is a noble objective consistent with Wikipedia's aims. I also believe that everyone deserves a second chance. Thank you again for you consideration. With apologies. Mojito Paraiso (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to not quite realize what project you are contributing to. This isn't Wikileaks. Also, even beyond your inappropriate article, your only other contribution consisted of changing sourced content into something else without a source. That is disruptive. I don't see any "fair and impartial" treatment of biographies of living persons here. Huon (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2018 (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.

Farewell

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).

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

Request reason:

By now it is quite clear that Wikipedia has no intention of lifting the block it has placed on me. Blocks are not intended as punishment, according to its guidelines, but it is obvious that exactly what is happening here. So be it. If nothing else it has revealed the sadistic nature of the "editorial" process which appears geared towards revenge. As regards my so-called disruptive contribution to the biography of Llewellyn Thompson, there was absolutely no basis for the ludicrous and calculated claim that Llewellyn S. Thompson was "best known" for an incorrect opinion on Soviet intentions towards Czechoslovakia. Ambassador Thompson was a key advisor to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in some ways the crowning achievement of his career. His indispensable contribution to the peaceful resolution of that crisis was acknowledged by colleagues and is fully documented in his biography "The Kremlinologist". But at least it exposes the fundamental flaw at the heart of Wikipedia, namely how the worship of references is allowed to distort truth. Mojito Paraiso (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2018 (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.

Are you saying we misrepresent the book by Höhne and Zolling, or that Höhne and Zolling are wrong and you know better? Huon (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that if you knew anything about the life of US Ambassador Llewellyn S. Thompson, you would know that he was a distinguished diplomat who played key roles in the negotiation of the Treaty of Trieste, the Austria State Treaty and the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis - enormous diplomatic successes all of which are infinitely better known than some obscure remark attributed to him in an equally obscure book whose importance pales into gross insignificance when placed alongside Llewellyn Thompson's considerable career achievements. I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with Dean Rusk's and Robert McNamara's appraisal of Thompson to understand the malicious idiocy of the remark that I edited. ^[1] Still convinced that I am the guilty party? Mojito Paraiso (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cross has been suspended - Renewed appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Now that the serial bio distorter Philip Cross has been recognised for who he is and rightfully suspended (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_Cross) I respectfully request that my edit rights be restored. Please refer to earlier appeals. I pledge to stick to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Thank you Mojito Paraiso (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Philip Cross (talk · contribs) isn't blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2018 (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.

You were blocked for your strange fixation on Philip Cross, and for violating a whole slew of policies around that editor. And to prove you should be unblocked you... continue launching personal attacks on Philip Cross? You are either breathtakingly incompetent or trolling. Either way, I'm revoking your talk page access. Your behaviour has no place here. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/168072

[1] ttps://historynewsnetwork.org/article/168072

[1]