User talk:Rokko308
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Nick-D, I still fail to understand why people want to use Wikipedia as a platform to through stones at other people instead of just including history with all its facts arguments and counter arguments. If we start to do that we are no better than mainstream media. Its been 70 years do we really still have to do that to Eva and Adolf Hitler? When describing someone you don`t like at least be so descent as to include all the facts about the person so that the reader can decide for themselves and put it in perspective. I am NOT a NEO-NAZI supporter by the way. But there is things about pre-WW2 Germany that need to be included and explored to understand why it happened and only then can be DV prevent it in the future. Just badmouthing Nazi-Germany is not the answer, we need to look at facts that led to that highly dangerous situation and they include more than just Nazi-Germany. Thank you for reposing on my talk page though, I appreciate it.(Rokko308 (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
Rokko308 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Really necessary?
Decline reason:
Yes, I think so. Arguing, against the eye-witness evidence, that the holocaust did not occur is not a positive move in building the encyclopedia. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:02, 12 May 2015 (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.
- Nick-D blocked you because he felt that you were here to argue that the Holocaust never happened, not to build an encyclopedia. You could take the WP:STANDARDOFFER; it's been long enough. However, you'd have to agree to build the encyclopedia, not to argue about the Holocaust. (And by the way? There is more evidence for the holocaust than the moon landing.) Origamiteⓣⓒ 13:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Rokko308: Thank you for the feedback, will refrain from editing anything on the Holocaust in Wikipedia, clearly a sensitive subject and apparently the best way to explain something (by some people) is to block the one asking the questions. I`ll look for answers somewhere else on the Holocaust and will contribute in my field of expertise.
By the way it emerged from research that most of the “eye witnesses” accounts are fraudulent, were confessions obtained under torture, got some sort of payment, ect. (there are even Israelis who claim it to be out of proportion and “story telling”). Remember I have nothing to gain by “arguing the holocaust to be fake” Israel were some of the few friends my people had and I have great respect for them, I just want the truth. I was once also convinced but every account I find can be proved fake or blown out of proportion, It drives me crazy not knowing. Very often when one try to validate sources you get a backhand and then this person Nick-D (who wrote wonderful articles) blocks me, it was like being thrown out of class by you favourite teacher..we can go on but If Wikipedia choose to behave like mainstream media on the subject let it be like that, I`ll look somewhere else on the subject.
Origamite I would like to have a look at some of that documentation (especially the 6M gets me, they seem to be changing it all the time), can you post or send me a link please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokko308 (talk • contribs)
- This is not an argument on the Holocaust. I will just point out that:
- Yes, generally genocide is sensitive. NickD likely blocked you because your only edits were arguing against the scientific consensus with no evidence, and you seemed to be here to argue instead of build the encyclopedia.
- Most of the eyewitness accounts were fraudulent? I don't think that that's true. My question for you is why didn't any German commanders deny the Holocaust during the Nuremberg trials? Some knew that they were headed towards a likely death sentence, and therefore had nothing to lose by denying the Holocaust.
there are even Israelis who claim it to be out of proportion and “story telling”
[citation needed]- I'm sorry that you felt hurt due to Nick-D's actions, but he was just protecting the encyclopedia in the manner he felt was best.
- A quick Google search gives me a whole bunch of resources, and the exact number killed is difficult to discern because records were destroyed during Kristallnacht and during the war. Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Rokko308: User:Origamite thank you for the links I`ll go check it out, one book that really "shook my world" on the subject was "The Six Million, Fact or Fiction" by Peter Winter (it is available on Kindle) and the fact that doing research on the subject is outlawed in so many countries (let the facts do the talking not the law). Also the fact that most (if not all) the accounts of the event is post-war that seem to be more propaganda based than actual facts. Most of the information on the Nuremberg trials is fairly useless and full of impossible scenarios the trails seem to have been nothing more than show trials to kill the Nazi Elite like you mentioned.
I merely wanted to add comments on the page to indicate that some of the "facts" can be disproved and needs more research, like the 6M dead, I cannot see how its possible to kill so many people with the resources and time available (and without pre-war reporting on it, except for Russian Propaganda). In my opinion Holocaust Story telling breaks down on the actual event and makes a mockery of it. But I`ll leave the subject now, and please tell me what you think of the book.
Rokko308 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think it is unfair to keep the block after I declared that I will not edit anything on the holocaust again nor will I participate on its page. I clearly struck a nerve with the editing and will refrain from doing so in future. The block is surely not to punish me like most EU countries do when arguing on the subject, and the editors clearly just follow this trend, in-bedded for 70 years. I cannot see how it (the block) will prevent me from doing further research on the issue or quench my curiosity in it and therefore think it served its purpose in removing me from the subject (in Wikipedia at least)
Decline reason:
You make a post in which you say that you "will refrain from editing anything on the Holocaust in Wikipedia", and then in the same post go on to post a load of holocaust denial, and then you go on to post another holocaust denial message to the same page, and following that we are supposed to unblock you on the basis of your undertaking not to edit about the holocaust???? (The really depressing thing is that I get the impression that you did not intend doing that to be taken as a joke.) Nothing in your editing history, including your posts to this talk page, gives me the impression that you are likely to suddenly start constructive editing, so unblocking you would not be likely to benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (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.
- I went off-topic above, but this is the core of the matter; you were blocked because Nick-D felt that you were here to argue against the Holocaust, not to build the encyclopedia. Just talk about what you want to edit productively, and I'd say you have a good chance of being unblocked. Saying that you won't edit on the Holocaust is good, though. Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:JamesBWatson I don't think you are using the word "denial" correctly but that aside (or is this like one of the "power words" the communists are so fond of using to discredit someone?). I am glad I`m not European and don`t have to sweep parts of my history under the carpet, I was not trying to argue against the holocaust, just some information about it (it is like explaining the Bible, if you misuse it (or over do it) many people cannot believe it, i.e. keep it realistic at least).
I want to (and look forward to) contribute on the page on Explosion protection there are very little information on it, I am a specialist on the subject (I do consultation work, help with developing (local) standards and give training in 8 countries on the subject). There are over 32 IEC/EN standards on Explosion Protection/Prevention and a detailed page can be very useful to a lot of people (and can contribute to plant safety). The page contains only small amounts of information on Explosion Protection with almost none on the Explosion Prevention Techniques (there are over 13 of them, each requiring rather complex testing and certification by a verification Laboratory). So please stop abusing the encyclopedia to "punish" me and please stop the name calling I don't appreciate it and it is uncalled for. I undertook not to edit or work on the page on the holocaust as you requested (even though I disagree with propaganda in a encyclopedia), what more do you require from me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokko308 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 14 May 2015
- I don't know whether it is possible to make this any clearer than I have already done, but I will make one more attempt. You said that you would not edit about the "holocaust", but you actually did continue to edit about it, both in the post in which you said you wouldn't and in a subsequent post. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Will you unblock me then to do what I intend?