User talk:ManEatingDonut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ManEatingDonut, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  IZAK 10:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proven links (EAP)

I don't know if you are Swedish, and my earlier hypothesis on you living i Virginia is obviously wrong. But did you really study the source I gave for Gunnarssons proven links to EAP? It says (my translation)

The statement that the man was a member is probably correct in a formal sense. To achieve the number of members needed to get ballot papers printed and placed at the polling stations the EAP alledgedly used the signatures collected for other purposes at their card table shrines. People signed petitions against Palme, drugs <SNIP> Probably, the 33-year old signed one of these petitions, whereafter he became a registered member. There are also information that he was active in the Danish branch of the organisation.

Well. I won't revert, it's not worth it. If it makes your life happier not mentioning Gunnarssons provens links to the party in the LaRouche article, it's fine with me. It's funny that whenever you make an edit to a LaRouche topic you always encounter other wikipedians urging you to name sources for each statement you make. The demand for sources is so much higher in LaRouche articles than in other articles. I have seen that MO before... //Astor Piazzolla 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche publications

Regarding this edit, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors who repeatedly try to use LaRouche publications inappropriately (which means to use them as a source on anything other than the LaRouche organization) may be blocked from editing, as they are not regarded as reliable sources. This is particularly important when dealing with claims about living persons. See WP:BLP, which is policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Lyndon LaRouche) I received this message on my talk page from User:SlimVirgin:

"Regarding this edit, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors who repeatedly try to use LaRouche publications inappropriately (which means to use them as a source on anything other than the LaRouche organization) may be blocked from editing, as they are not regarded as reliable sources. This is particularly important when dealing with claims about living persons. See WP:BLP, which is policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

My questions are the following: first of all, how is this edit (which I restored from another person) covered by this policy? It is an external link, not a source for the article; and it does in fact provide information about the LaRouche organization, specifically their answer to the claims of Chip Berlet, which are so pervasive in the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. Secondly, am I being threatened with a block for restoring this edit? --ManEatingDonut 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to use LaRouche publications for anything other than LaRouche. Yes, you're in danger of being blocked if you add it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours for once again reinserting material emanating from the LaRouche movement into an article not related to it, namely restoring the article Eurasian Land-Bridge. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says: "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this account indefinitely following the recent request for clarification with the ArbCom, which you're aware of. You say elsewhere you weren't warned, but you were, in fact, warned last month; you were made aware of the ArbCom cases; you yourself initiated a previous ArbCom request for clarification; and you were edit-warring in trying to reinsert material that originated with the Larouche movement, despite being aware of the ArbCom rulings. I'm unsure how the situation could have been made clearer. If you feel this is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me to discuss it further. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "See explanation below"

Decline reason: "You were correctly blocked based on a directly applicable ArbCom decision and with the assent of arbitrators, see e.g. [1].-- Sandstein 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

On November 23 I placed this request on SlimVirgin's talk page, asking that she warn me if she thought I was doing anything wrong. I indicated that I desired to cooperate with all applicable arbcom decisions. On November 25 I discovered on the Requests for Arbitration page that she was proposing a permanent ban on me, and I responded, reminding all concerned that I desired to cooperate, and disputing SlimVirgin's allegation that I was somehow "promoting LaRouche." Then, on November the 25th, she left a note on my talk page announcing that she had banned me permanently. She claims that I was reinserting material that originated from LaRouche, referring to this edit. However, if you will examine that edit, you will see that the source cited in the article was the Asia Times, not any LaRouche publication. I was not the author of this article, and in fact did not edit it at all, other than to revert a redirect to another article that I thought was inappropriate.

Whether or not SlimVirgin's interpretation of my edit was correct, I have indicated that I am willing to cooperate. When she warned me on an earlier occasion, I complied with her warning. However, for the edit for which I was banned, I received no warning. Since I have made my intention to cooperate quite clear, I think that it is unreasonable to ban me permanently. However, in an exchange of email with SlimVirgin, she says she will not reconsider, so I am appealing her decision. I ask for a second chance, and to be warned in future disputes, since the arbcom decision seems unusual and has been subject to numerous requests for clarification. --ManEatingDonut 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As ManEatingDonut has referred to my e-mail to him, I'm copying it below. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

November 30, 2006. [ManEatingDonut], you did not comply the last time you were warned. You were asked not to add any more material to Wikipedia that originates with the LaRouche organization, unless the article is directly about Lyndon LaRouche and the movement, and even then with caution. You were told you might be blocked if you did. Yet you went ahead and reverted against two admins in order to restore the LaRouche version of a page from 2004, a page related to LaRouche only according to the LaRouche movement.

There is another factor that persuades me you are connected to the LaRouche movement, and perhaps specifically to accounts already banned from Wikipedia. I've shared this information with some of the other admins involved in the decision.

My advice to you, if you want to become a Wikipedian, is to sign up for a new account, start editing non-LaRouche articles without inserting material from the movement, and show your worth as an all-round good editor. Once you've done that for a few months, and have become familiar with the policies, you can return to the LaRouche pages and will be more likely to be accepted as a good-faith editor there. If you edit well, within our policies, and don't try to turn pages into platforms for LaRouche's ideas, no one will have any reason to suspect it's you, and you'll be free to edit.

I've also received mail from this user, and I decline to review my RfU response, as I've no indication that SlimVirgin's account is false. Sandstein 07:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/n/User_talk%7EManEatingDonut_d5be.html"