User talk:TrueHistory39
October 2015
[edit]
Hello, I'm MrX. Your recent edit to the page Zyklon B appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - MrX 15:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zyklon B. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have or will be reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 
samtar {t} 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
TrueHistory39 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
your reason here
Decline reason:
One request at a time, please. Max Semenik (talk) 20:33, 26 October 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.
Dear Editors. I recieved a reply for editing a page about "Zyklon-B". This reply read as follows: "Please see the discussion taking place on the article's talk page before bothering me. It doesn't take much to work out what a user named "TrueHistory39" is going to try to achieve by discrediting facts to do with the Holocaust. samtar {t} 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)"
I found this reply to be rude and unhelpful, but the editor did apologise for it, which is appreciated. This is in response to me saying that the citation no. 18 on the page; "Hitler's Willing Executioners" is not a good, neutral, or peer-reviewed source for the information contained in the first line of the section "Use in the Holocaust". It is a poor source that is contested by other historians. Therefore I edited the page to read that the source is unreliable. I did not question anything else about the page, simply that one source, which I believe is not good enough and does not meet the standards set out by Wikipedia. It now appears I have been blocked for this. I do not feel that being blocked is justified for questioning a single source. Furthermore, judging from the reaction of one of your editors (above) I feel as though this block is punitive in nature. Thank you for your time.
TrueHistory39 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Editors. I recieved a reply for editing a page about "Zyklon-B". This reply read as follows: "Please see the discussion taking place on the article's talk page before bothering me. It doesn't take much to work out what a user named "TrueHistory39" is going to try to achieve by discrediting facts to do with the Holocaust. samtar {t} 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)" I found this reply to be rude and unhelpful, but the editor did apologise for it, which is appreciated. This is in response to me saying that the citation no. 18 on the page; "Hitler's Willing Executioners" is not a good, neutral, or peer-reviewed source for the information contained in the first line of the section "Use in the Holocaust". It is a poor source that is contested by other historians. Therefore I edited the page to read that the source is unreliable. I did not question anything else about the page, simply that one source, which I believe is not good enough and does not meet the standards set out by Wikipedia. It now appears I have been blocked for this. I do not feel that being blocked is justified for questioning a single source. Furthermore, judging from the reaction of one of your editors (above) I feel as though this block is punitive in nature. My apologies for re-writing this, as I am still getting use to how the editor works. Thank you for your time.TrueHistory39 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's painfully obvious that you're here to promote an agenda. Max Semenik (talk) 20:33, 26 October 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.