User talk:207.207.79.202

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regarding edits made during July 15, 2006 (UTC) to Japanese American internment

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. ZsinjTalk 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism" in this case means anything you disagree with. I keep challenging you folks to point out any material I have added that is historically inaccurate and you cannot do so. I have cited my sources so that is a non issue.

Admit it. My additions don't gel with your activist revisionist history so you locked the article to the detriment of Wikipedia.

  • Comment. You're responding to a reversion from three days ago. And the reversion is technically correct--if a page is blanked out, that is vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Odds are the message was put here by one of the automated programs (such as VandalProof, which I'm currently using as well), and that the editor who placed it knew nothing about the current debate on that topic's content. -- H·G (words/works) 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The pro-reparations editors are blankin out my content as well. I had some guy named Will block me IP address which I can easily spoof if I so choose. I want my content included.

[edit] No nonsense

Please do not add nonsense to the Japanese American internment article. If you want to help with the article, you need to be constructive (not inflammatory), and bring sources and a neutral point of view. If you simply want to inflame people, please do not bother participating. Phidauex 14:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a load of crap. You guys have a blatantly pro-reparations pov article locked and now you lecture on flaming and a neutral point of few. What a joke.

"You guys"? This isn't a closed organization, I'm just a random editor. The nonsense I'm referring to is [this one], where you added a gigantic image to the top of the article, along with a clearly inflammatory caption without any reason or explanation. You were clearly just trying to yank people's chains, and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. The internment article needs some work, for sure, and there are POV problems with it on both sides. But intentionally disrupting the article is a violation of policy. Like I said, if you want to help, you can, but don't make a mess of things just to satisfy your anger. Phidauex 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a load of crap. The pro-reparations pov folks added the worst images they could find to satisfy the image of the history. Sure it was windy and dusty. Guess what. Fanatical Japanese Americans were also protesting for return to Japan to fight for Hirihito whom they worshiped as a living god. Too bad you find that inflammatory but it's also entirely true. Your definition of "reason and explanation" I can only imagine. I've read how you guys rationalize and explain away the importance of the MAGIC intercepts. I prefer to let readers decide for themselves.

Now if the truth yanks your chain that's your problem. Yea, reading blatently pro-reparations pov pass as history pisses me off and then having the article locked pisses me off. You guys are totally dishonest, you don't care about the historical truth of this history, you have an agenda and deliberately ignore facts contrary to your agenda.

[edit] AfD

We appear to have got off on the wrong foot. Don't think that I'm picking on your additions - the whole article is mostly uncited and perhaps your additions are the only cited parts, but the fact is if you've lifted the article wholesale and just re-jigged it then you've taken all those uncited 'facts' with it. From what I can see, your point of view is better represented by sources in the article, but I don't think a POV fork is the way to go, that's why I voted delete. Yomangani 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong. I have added citations to all my content. You keep saying that and then you provide no examples...

You guys are blatantly biased and not fooling any body.

I (and the rest of my 'guys') give up, although it would have been nice if you read what I wrote. Yomangani 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. I just don't believe you. P.S. Who deleted my Tom Kawakita addition yesterday? You?

Fair enough, and no, I had no idea the articles existed until the AfD (although I expect you won't believe that either you could always surprise me). Yomangani 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sign comments

Just a quick request--please start signing the comments you make on Talk pages and in other discussions. All you have to do is add four tildes (~~~~), and all the relevant info will be added automatically. It really helps to distinguish between who's saying what. Thanks! -- H·G (words/works) 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's real cute blocking my IP Will. I can easily spoof my IP if that's what this is coming to. I want my content included. Not surprising you have no concern with the pro-reparations activists undoing my edits repeatedly. Asking too much for you to tell me what content I have included that is inaccurate. You can't so you resort to blocking IPs.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "see above"

Decline reason: "Please see the 3RR article linked to above, the intent is to stop the disruption of edit warring and deal with disputes constructively, "being right" is not an excuse for edit warring. Threatening to evade your block is also unacceptable"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Oh yea? Too bad! Using Wikipedia to promote and agenda is also unacceptable. You activist reparations guys are a joke.