User talk:Wikkidd

Welcome!

Hello, Wikkidd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mark significant edits and reverts as minor and please use edit summaries. I would also suggest discussing your concerns on article pages rather than reverting with such comments as biogenic propaganda removed. You obviously have strong feelings on the subject, but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not our strong preferences. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert to the diamondoid article with the edit summary Factual error corrected was not as indicated. You removed sourced content - not a factual error - and replaced with some abiogenetic content based on a supposed blogspot source (the link didn't work). Any future edits of that nature will be treated as blatant vandalism. Vsmith (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Arafat

I have reverted your edit to Yasser Arafat since the source you used is clearly not reliable. Please avoid using this kind of "source" in the future. Thanks, Gwernol 00:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Yasser Arafat remains unsuitable. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. This sort of claim needs multiple reliable source from notable, independent, published sources. Your did not have a properly verifiable source and is simply a rewording of your earlier inappropriate edit. You may take this issue to the article's talk page, but you cannot add this information to the article unless you have a substantially better set of sources. Thanks, Gwernol 00:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making personal attacks on me or other editors. You charge that I have "something against homosexuals" is both unfounded and unnecessary. If you are unable to argue your case on its merits, then please don't bother to argue it at all. Descending to personal attacks degrades both your argument and your standing here at Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Ion Mihai Pacepa. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is quoting the author's own words disruptive editing?

You didn't "quote the author's own words": [1]. Note also that I did not say that Pacepa himself was dubious. I said the source was. Please do not misquote me. Gwernol 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My source is Red Horizons and the author is Mr. Pacepa. Mr. Pacepa is the source therefore you did indeed claim and you still believe now that Mr. Pacepa is dubious. Thanks for putting back the quote you tried to censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs)

I didn't censor anything, nor did I put back the quote - you did: [2]. Gwernol 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted it in attempt to vandalize and you put it back in the wrong paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs)

No, I removed it because it was inappropriate for that article and did not comply with Wikipedia's rules. That is not vandalism. I did not replace it in the article. You really should at least try to get your facts straight before making wild accusations. Gwernol 02:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a direct quote from the book and you vandalized it. I'm taking this up with the other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs)

You are of course, welcome to do that. However removing poorly sourced material and biased material from articles is not vandalism. Please take some time to read the basic policies of Wikipedia, in particular those on verifiability and maintaining a neutral point of view. Gwernol 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a direct quote from a book that is so well referenced it's a joke: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs)

The book is a primary source. Per our policy on original research: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis added for clarity). The secondary sources you have pointed to are heavily biased and unreliable. You would expect a major story like this to have received major mainstream press coverage, if it were well founded. Since there is no such mainstream coverage, at least as far as I am aware, it cannot be relied upon. If you can find multiple, independent, published reliable sources then the material can be included in the article. Until you do, it cannot. This is what separates Wikipedia from a blog, and is the core of what makes this an encyclopedia. Thanks, Gwernol 02:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided you with the direct quote from the book as well as numerous secondary sources quoting the book.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.aspx?GUID=69fe5954-49c7-4e60-b8a9-df2fd143c6b1&commentID=4c789b0a-b2b7-45eb-96e0-d5828dbcca45

http://davidfrum.com/archive_article.asp?YEAR=2004&ID=189

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQ2MWQ3M2I4ZTU1OTM3MjE3Zjc0NzkzMDQ3MmZhMzk=

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/4348.htm

As I mentioned above, those secondary sources are not reliable and the book is a primary source. You need secondary sources from the mainstream media to show reliability. Have Pacepa's allegations been discussed and reprinted in a newspaper like the New York Times, for example? That would be a reliable secondary source. Gwernol 02:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D91438F937A25753C1A961948260&scp=1&sq=arafat+pacepa&st=nyt

Clearly the New York Times believes Mr. Pacepa is credible. The New York Times also believes that Mr. Pacepa did in fact write Red Horizons. Obviously you don't.

Notice that the NYT piece makes no mention of the allegation that Arafat was gay, so it isn't a source for that particular allegation. What I believe is irrelevant, all that matters is what the secondary, published sources say. I have in fact already told you I believe that Pacepa wrote the book, please stop making yourself look ignorant by making strawman arguments. Please take the sources to the talk page of the article in question. If the editors there reach a consensus that you have adequate reliable sources, then the information can be included in the article. Gwernol 02:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times says that Mr. Pacepa wrote Red Horizons. I don't know why you are in denial about this quote.

Dear lord, I am not denying that Pacepa wrote Red Horizons, or that the quote you gave is from the book. I have said this three separate times now. The problem is that you need reliable secondary sources. The book is a primary source so cannot be used. The secondary sources you have listed above either aren't reliable or don't mention the specific accusation you are trying to include in the Yassir Arafat article. Now, go to the article's talk page and make your argument there. Note that another editor has already agreed with my position that Pacepa isn't reliable. Gwernol 02:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of Mr. Pacepa's reliability is irrelevant. A quote is a quote. He wrote it. Sorry to disappoint you. Whether it's reliable or not is another matter. There are all sorts of quotes on Wiki from unreliable people but you don't go censoring those. Or maybe you just only censor the quotes you disagree with.

If you have another editor who is in denial about this quote, that's irrelevant also, I am taking this up with a third party.

No, I'm afraid you are quite wrong about that. Please read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. These are core policies of Wikipedia. If you are not prepared to abide by these rules, just as all editors here must, then you should find somewhere else to edit. There are many free and cheap website and blogging providers who would be happy to accept your material. Wikipedia has a set of core rules that you are required to follow. Reliability of sources is a key part of those rules. Gwernol 02:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Mr. Pacepa wrote Red Horizons and the quote it contains has been verified over and over.

Furthermore the quote is not original research as Red Horizons was published by Regnery Publishing in 1990.

The reliable sources I have provided you with are Google Books and Amazon which both directly quote the book and the paragraph you wish to censor.

I saw your inappropriately titled post at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and I am in agreement with Gwernol's edits. No one is arguing that the book doesn't exist or that you are misquoting it. What is at issue is whether this edit belongs in the article. I can find incredible controversial quotes from lots of real published books about lots of different people and things. This does not mean this automatically gives me a license to include any such material I find in any article just because it exists. Our neutral point of view policy says that articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Plourde aka Thedagomar disagrees with you and says I "have met the burden of proof for inclusion." See Arafat discussion. As you say, you can find incredible and controversial quotes on Wikipedia, yet there are no thought police censoring those quotes. The fact that you seek to censor direct quotes from authors indicates exactly how seriously you take the "neutral point of view" policy. The goal here seems to be to censor significant points of view and biographical quotes published by reliable sources aka Regnery Publishing. The fact that you seek to censor minority views would be laughable if it wasn't so shameful.Wikkidd (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that trotting out the name of another editor who lent support, or insult ad hominem are effective arguments, as opposed to addressing the substance of an argument? I think you must. Your complete misinterpretation of what I said to refer to controversial material "on Wikipedia" is consistent with your prior arguments insisting that the quote was made when that was never at issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion discussion of this issue at Talk:Ion Mihai Pacepa#Third_opinion. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gwernol 02:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Petroleum, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just violated the neutral view policy by vandalizing my edit.Wikkidd (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abiotic oil is wp:fringe, and thus requires an abundance of wp:rs sources to show that it actually exists. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. NJGW (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is required for lies such as that. You have no citation. It's a lie.Wikkidd (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a peer reviewed paper published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2002, which states that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits the generation of hydrocarbons higher than methane from biological molecules. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=genesis+of+hydrocarbons+and+the+origin+of+petroleum&searchid=1085470440708_510&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0

Here is a peer reviewed paper published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) in 2007 showing ICP-MS analysis which proves petroleum has inorganic geochemistry. http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112905.htm

Here is a peer reviewed paper from the Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth - Russian Academy of Sciences dismissing a biological connection to petroleum. http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

The reality is that competent scientists have known petroleum has an abiogenic origin since the 19th century.Wikkidd (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The diff is here of NJGW's edit, the WP definition of vandalism is here. No match. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Petroleum. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What unsourced or original content did I add?Wikkidd (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please start using the Preview button and using edit summaries. NJGW (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning (non-templated)

Wikkidd,

Misuse of WP:AIV to settle a content dispute is a serious policy violation.[4] You have been reported at WP:AN/I by other concerned users.

Looking over your edit history, you appear to be engaged in tendentious editing. This is blockable conduct. I am within my rights to block you right now for that spurious AIV, but I think you deserve one last chance to try to talk things over with your antagonists instead of just digging in your heels like you've been doing. Wikipedia is not about who wins. It's about editors working together. You can continue and be blocked, perhaps eventually indefinitely, and enter this dishonor roll, or you can try to talk things over. It's up to you. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been talking things over. For some reason people keep censoring me. The tendentious editing has been done by others. I am attempting to add a neutral point of view but others are vandalizing it. I therefore went to AIV to report it. Wikkidd (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Why was I blocked? You say I am welcome to make contributions but every time I edit something it gets vandalized and I get a warning. Even when other editors have agreed with me and I have editors agree with me in third party opinion my edits get vandalized

Decline reason:

Please review our list of policies. Despite being warned multiple times, it looks to me like you chose to continue down the path of resisting consensus-building in favor of edit warring, article ownership, and pushing a point of view as if the encyclopedia were a battleground or a soapbox— which it is not. Although we value your energetic eagerness to contribute, we must strongly urge you to have patience with other editors in the future and to try to work toward a common ground. I've found it helps to imagine that we're all sitting in one big room in our underwear. At least for me, that makes it easier to remind ourselves that we're all human. :) — slakr^\ talk / 06:31, 4 July 2008 (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.

Note to any other administrators: WP:ANI#Wikkid. seicer | talk | contribs 04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring can and does often lead to being blocked. This is hardly unusual. Is there some reason you can't resolve this through discussion? Some response to the AN/I thread Seicer's linked would be especially appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the edit warring rule only applies to people who have red the book Red Horizons and are aware that Ion Mihai Pacepa and others accused Yasser Arafat of being a homosexual who died of AIDS or who realize that complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can only be formed at pressures higher than 30 kilobar in the Earth's mantle. None of my opponents who engaged in vandalism and edit warring were warned or blocked.Wikkidd (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out where any of these other editors violated WP:3RR? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Vsmith. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamondoid&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Tiger_oil_field&action=history Wikkidd (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first VSmith reverts 3 times, which does not break WP:3RR. In the second example VSmith reverted once, so clearly does not break 3RR. Gwernol

Wikkidd, could you break of the more-than-three diffs in each case? For example for VSmith on July 3 on Diamondoid I see:

But each is different and there are not more than three. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page conduct

You recently removed my comment of July 5 from Talk:Petroleum. Don't do that. In addition your comments there contain personal attacks: Wikipedia is edited by unscientific censors who are afraid of abiogenic petroleum origin because it contradicts their religion. is a personal attack - I would advise that you remove it. Also you are mis-representing User:RockyMtnGuy's comments. Vsmith (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the provided sources before leaving edit summaries such as " No citation, complete bullshit"[5] NJGW (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for gross abuse of civility, compounding with prior events.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issues: [6], [7], [8]

Removal of talk page comments: [9] seicer | talk | contribs 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Abiogenic petroleum origin‎, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gwernol 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Petroleum has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. NJGW (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Human, you will be blocked from editing. You removed sourced material from the page, claiming it was unsourced, and then added your own unsourced material. I've added a third reference to the claim now, so please give it a break. Ben (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a summary of the article, so any material there should be referenced throughout the article. See my diff on that page to see where the refs are. There are now three. Ben (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the rhetoric. This is another warning. You will be blocked if you continue this less than constructive editing. David D. (Talk) 06:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

Following review of your block history, I find your recent talk page edits and edit summary to be unacceptable. You did not undo "vandalism". Vsmith (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Antarctica appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. dougweller (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Piri Reis map. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. It is clear in the article that the existence of Antarctica on the map can't be assumed, which your edits did. dougweller (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Atreus. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. dougweller (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your concerns on the article talk and refrain from mis-characterizing edits by experienced users. Describing edits you disagree with as vandalism is a personal attack. Vsmith (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. dougweller (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for no reason. I didn't harass anyone. This block in itself is harassment and totally unjustified. This is abuse. In my opinion user Dougweller is abusing his privileges poorly, for personal attack, or to play games and make a point. It is my opinion that he should be blocked for abusing these priveleges. See above for his harassment of me. When I make edits they vandalize my edits. When I call it such they accuse me of personal attacks. This is an abusive double standard and a blatant violation of the NPOV. The reason why I was blocked is because I said Velikovsky uses history e.g. Herodotus. Wikkidd (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that attack others are not granted; see WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 19:05, 15 March 2009 (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.

To any reviewing Admin - the block was of course nothing to do with what he said about Velikovsky, it is about him using an edit summaries to call an editor a vandal [10] after being warned and blocked in the past. My blocks are always open to review and I have no problem with them being changed. dougweller (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009

I didn't call anyone a vandal. User Vsmith has accused me of vandalism but you didn't block him. If accusing someone of vandalism is a blockable offense then you should block those users above who accuse me. Again, see talk above where I was accused of vandalism.Wikkidd (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit the declined unblock request, this page may be protected. Sandstein 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you told me to edit it? Now you want to block me for editing it? Wikkidd (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for no reason. I didn't harass anyone. This block in itself is harassment and totally unjustified. A user has falsely accused me of harassment and blocked me. When I said that user was abusing me I was accused of personal attacks and the Admin threatened to block my history pageWikkidd (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

calling an editor a vandal without justification, as you did in an edit summary, is regarded as harassment, and is not acceptable in wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:00, 15 March 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason why I should be unblocked is I didn't call a user a vandal as claimed by those above. What I actually said was "please do not vandalize." That is not calling someone a vandal. If accusing someone of vandalism is a blockable offense, why haven't those who have accused others of vandalism in edits been blocked? I have been accused of vandalism in edits but the editor was not accused of harassment and blocked. See below for examples of editors who have accused others of vandalism in edits and haven't been blocked. Wikkidd (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A review of your contributions clearly shows that you have been edit-warring to insert unsourced material into this article, and accused those who reverted you of vandalism. Furthermore, this isn't the first time you have been blocked for editing in this manner. I therefore do not see any reason to undo this block. Black Kite 22:40, 15 March 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The Admin above says "A review of your contributions clearly shows that you have been edit-warring to insert unsourced material into this article" however the material was sourced from the exact same source as the opening paragraph. Fact: Velikovksy uses history in his writing. This is sourced. Period. It is sourced by the citations that were already in the article and it is sourced elsewhere. For example, one of Velikovsky's books has the title "Oedipus and Akhenaten: Myth and History." Obviously this is a history book, deals with historical material, and cites history. It even has history in the title for those who are confused. His book "Ages In Chaos" is a history book, deals with historical chronology, and lead to debates amongst historians to this day. However the Admin would lead us to believe this is unsourced. Footnote 3 says and I quote, "Perilous Planet Earth places our present concern about the threat to Earth from asteroids and comets within an historical context, looking at the evidence for past events within the geological and historical records." That's not history? That's unsourced? Here is a quote: "Dr. Velikovsky remains an obscure figure 20 years after his death, but in his time he developed stunning and controversial new theories about Earth and the history of humanity." Hmm I guess that means he doesn't use history. Herodotus is just one of the many historians Velikovsky cites in his work. It is sourced however I was blocked for "harassing" because I accused another user of vandalism on this point. When other users accuse others or me of vandalism they are not blocked for harassment i.e. double standard and violation of NPOV

Decline reason:

Yes, I agree with the other admins, you were edit warring. I agree you were making personal attacks. You've been blocked before for these issues. I care nothing for your points about the article: it is up to you to discuss these ideas with other editors and come to a consensus about them instead of making edits based on them without stating your reasons, then accusing everyone else of vandalism when they question you. I want to officially notify you about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: the article on Velikovsky falls under the broad topic of pseudoscience, and it has been the locus of a lot of disruption on Wikipedia. We expect users who contribute in that area to hold to the best standards of Wikipedia behavior. I'm happy to give you input if you have any questions, but consider yourself warned that further edit warring, and further personal attacks, will get you blocked for long periods. Mango juice^talk 15:02, 16 March 2009 (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.

}

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).

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

Request reason:

The Admin above falsely accuses me of "edit warring" when I only made 1 or 2 reversions. The definition of edit warring according to Wikipedia references the 3 reversion rule. If Admins are unfamililar with the 3 reversion rule and edit warring perhaps they should review Wikipedia polices regarding edit warring.

Decline reason:

Your request has already been denied by 4 separate admins (myself included, now 5) for harassment and personal attacks which you have already been blocked for three times. You only have a few days left in your block. Just wait it out. Valley2city^‽ 21:09, 18 March 2009 (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.

Blocked indef

I have blocked you indefinitely. All your activities here on Wikipedia appear to be concentrated on a relentless campaign of fringe-science tendentious editing. We don't need this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do to merit this?