Lwburwell
{
Lwburwell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock puppet, whatever that is. Some user named Acroterion blocked me for dishonest purposes Lwburwell (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Acroterion unblocked already ~ GB fan 01:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Who is this Acroterion user? He or someone else also removed a DIRECT QUOTE from the President I placed on the page about Charlottesville. Why would you erase DIRECT QUOTES from a page that is supposed to provide information? What would be more informative than a DIRECT QUOTE? How can we get Acroterion removed from having this ability to block for dishonest reasons and remove edits he doesn't like even though they are 100% accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwburwell (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, Acroterion is not going to be removed, and you need to focus on your own compliance with Wikipedia policies. The content you added to the article was completed unsourced. That by itself was more than enough reason for the reversion of your edit (which, as it happens, Acroterion did not perform). If you'd like to add content to this or any article here, you'll need to supply a citation of a reliable source that supports it. Also, please sign your comments on any Talk page, including this one. General Ization Talk 02:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not know how to post a citation. However, my edit was in quotes, which shows that it is a direct quote from the press conference, which was the subject of that section of the article. I did not think a direct quote would require a citation. Keep in mind that this same exact quote has been deleted repeatedly by a user named Greyfell, and they had citations. So if I add this edit again, and with a citation from a legitimate news source, can you guarantee user Greyfell or anyone else will not delete it for no reason?
- Your having put the edit in quotes means nothing except that you put it in quotes. Apologies, but we cannot take your word for what you claim the President may or may not have said. We require the citation of reliable sources here, and anything that is unsourced may potentially be removed. See the policies at the blue links in my message to you above for explanations of those policies. General Ization Talk 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, but instead of simply deleting it with no notification, why not indicate it needs a citation (and with instructions on how to do so)? I will post it again, with a reliable source as a citation. I will bet it will be deleted within a half hour. This has been going on for a while now and is now a joke online. I am sincerely trying to help Wikipedia. I want you to be considered a reliable source for information, but that is hard to do if someone is constantly deleting posts that are 100% accurate and were covered live by every newspaper and every news station in the country. EDIT: You seem like a good person who cares about Wikipedia, so I want to ask you, isn't it important to know that the President was not talking about the Nazis when he said there are good people on both sides? He explicitly said he was not talking about them, and yet, when someone adds that quote into the article, a user keeps deleting it. Do you see how this would make Wikipedia look bad? Don't you think it is in your best interests to not allow someone to keep deleting edits that are well sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwburwell (talk • contribs) 3:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- If someone removes content you add that is well sourced using citations that support the content being added, we'll talk then. So far that has not been the case. General Ization Talk 03:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I just added his exact quote, along with a citation from the New York Times. And not just the New York Times news page, but the full transcript and full video of the press conference. Do you consider that well sourced? It will be deleted. Here is the page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally In the section called President Trump's statements at end of first paragraph of Third Statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwburwell (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- In this case, the exact content you added, along with the source you cited, already appear in the article. As was suggested in reverting your edit, discuss on the article's Talk page. General Ization Talk 03:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- And will you please learn to sign your edits on any Talk page, including this one. There is no reason others should have to do this for you. General Ization Talk 03:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, you are incorrect. That content does not appear in the article. I did a full reading and a full search, and I found it nowhere. Furthermore, I did a complete search of the References and the New York Times article I cited appears nowhere as well. Why did you say "In this case, the exact content you added, along with the source you cited, already appear in the article." It is not true. Please undo the revert now that I have proven the reason for it being reverted was incorrect. I did not know I had to sign my edits on the talk page. I am sorry for not knowing. I assumed it would be automatic. I clicked Sign your posts twice to be sure this time Lwburwell (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Lwburwell (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have explained to you how to pursue this: that is, to use the Talk page of the article to discuss your reverted edits and why you feel they should be restored. If you choose not to do so, that is your prerogative, but no, I will not restore your edits. Thus far I have had no direct involvement in editing this particular article content, and I have no interest in starting to do so with your dispute. General Ization Talk 11:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but once again you are incorrect. You did not explain to me to use the Talk page on the article. I do not understand the hostility you have demonstrated. I posted an edit that was 100% factual and sourced, I was called names by an admin there for no reason, and then you falsely claimed it was already on the page, when you knew that was not true. I would kindly ask that you not respond to me anymore. Lwburwell (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome note edit
Hi @Lwburwell:, welcome to Wikipedia! The article Unite the Right rally is under WP:1RR, which means any edits that have been challenged via reversion (as has been done there) should to be discussed on the talk page and gain consensus before being reinstated. This policy is commonly applied to controversial articles to avoid Wikipedia:Edit wars, and it's a normal part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. There's already a discussion over at Talk:Unite the Right rally#Adding context to clarify Trump's "fine people" comment not allowed?, so let's discuss things there. (I already added some of my own comments there.) -- Ununseti (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome. There is not really anything to discuss. I edited the article by posting a DIRECT QUOTE of the President. I cited the New York Times transcript and video of the entire press briefing. I copied and pasted directly from the New York Times transcript. How can that possibly be challenged? The admin above said it was because the quote and reference I used were already on the page. He was incorrect. I did not add opinions of my own, or of anyone else. I only added facts, an EXACT QUOTE from the President. Why would I want to discuss it further? I just wanted TRUMP'S OWN WORDS to appear in the article. It is late here and time for me to retire, but I may feel like discussing it tomorrow. Not sure what there is to discuss - "should we allow the president's own words to appear? yes or no? No, we must not allow actual facts!" Please restore my edit right away since it is entirely the president's own words. Lwburwell (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)"
- Editors who have reverted similar previous additions explain their reasoning for why they did so over on the talk page. I think their argument is that this quote would be putting WP:UNDUE weight on the statement because it's really just a restatement of "very fine people on both sides". I don't necessarily agree with them, but... They're the ones who need to be convinced, not me. Wikipedia aims to try to make decisions by WP:Consensus, so we should take the discussion there to address their objections. (It's getting late where I am too, so no worries, there's no rush.) -- Ununseti (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your civility and explanation. It is actually an explanation of "very fine people on both sides" many in the media have claimed he was talking about the Nazis. He made sure he clarified it so they would know who he was talking about. How in the world is this a "discussion"? I am not calling for a different opinion to be posted. I am asking for a direct quote to be posted, which explains an earlier quote that has been misconstrued. The people objecting are not being serious (in my opinion). They just want to continue letting people think Trump called Nazis very fine people. Which makes no sense because his daughter, son in-law and grandchildren are all Jewish. It is also an important quote because it better helps explain who the very fine people are, normal people who are not racist but do not like statues being torn down. If I lived there I might be one of those people. I am not racist, I have no affection for the confederacy, but i do not want to see history whitewashed. That's what the Taliban does.Lwburwell (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Important Notice edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 08:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I have questions about your guidelines. I posted my first edit ever, and was immediately blocked and called a sock puppet in order to censor me. I then posted the edit again, using the NYT as a source, and was told my edit was already on the page (that was false). I was told my reference was already used (it was not). Are there guidelines about admins calling people names and removing edits under false pretenses? I am trying to improve Wikipedia. Right now it has a terrible reputation, and my experience so far has bolstered that terrible reputation. Being called names and being lied to has discouraged me, and made me feel as though anyone with views to the right of Lenin is not welcome. Lwburwell (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- A relevant reference here is Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility. I think the escalation hierarchy typically goes User talk page (see if it can be settled amicably between the two parties first) -> Third opinion -> Administrator's noticeboard -> Arbitration Committee (absolute last resort).
- I do think the block by Acroterion was unfortunate and in error. In defense, a new editor appeared on the page shortly after another editor was short-term blocked for edit-warring while trying to make similar edits, so this might have led the admin to suspect WP:Sock puppetry. I do think the immediate ban without any warning was a bit too heavyhanded, but at least they quickly realized their error and undid the block. -- Ununseti (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the response, but you have serious problems at Wikipedia. The reason I joined, and the reason I posted an edit, which contained the ACTUAL WORDS the president spoke, is because Wikipedia has constantly blocked others from posting DIRECT QUOTES in order to maintain a false narrative on this particular page. Highly opinionated and false statements on that page are allowed to remain, while DIRECT QUOTES of the president are censored within minutes. It is a running joke on the internet now, and I wanted to see for myself if there was blatant censorship at Wikipedia. And I found that it was true, there is blatant bias and censorship at Wikipedia. A user named General Ization blatantly lied to me at least 3 times, and was very hostile. It appears the goal has been to discourage me, and others like me, to post edits on Wikipedia pages. It took time and effort for me to post the second edit, because I wanted the DIRECT QUOTE I posted to be 100% accurate, and properly sourced. It was unique to the page, and highly relevant. And yet, it was removed almost immediately, just like countless other similar edits that only posted DIRECT QUOTES. If your goal was to discourage me from being involved with Wikipedia, you succeeded. My annual donations will end until something is done to end the hostility and censorship and extreme bias at Wikipedia. You are welcome to write me when this has been accomplished, but we both know it will never happen. The mission at Wikipedia seems to be to promote propaganda as opposed to presenting useful and accurate information. Which is truly a sad thing to see. Wikipedia was a brilliant idea, but just like Google and Facebook and Twitter, it has been turned into a weapon of censorship and silencing of anyone not on the far left. So congratulations, you succeeded in silencing another person who wants people to be able to access accurate information on Wikipedia. Hopefully if enough people stop donating, you will change your ways, but I doubt it. Lwburwell (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)