User talk:Polythesis

Speedy deletion nomination of The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control[edit]

Hello The wiki authority,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Cotton2 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand how you can see it that way, but the fact is, articles are actually supposed to be fully developed with references, etc when posted to main space. The article is supposed to be started in draft space, when completed it would be posted to main space. Cheers, Cotton2 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to add some references for the first paragraph right now. Would that suffice? I hope we can both agree that Wikipedia articles are never fully developed, they are always developing through the contributions of other users. My intent is to begin a conversation on the content of the article (not on whether or not the article should be allowed to exist) and to encourage others to contribute to it. Would that be alright with you?

Like you said you are starting a conversation about the subject, same with the maintenance tag. I am not the one who would delete the article, a consensus will develop in the community as to keep or delete it. Just don't delete the tag yourself, that starts a very different conversation. Cotton2 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control[edit]

(and The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control)

I'm not sure what you're attempting here, but it certainly appears that you are attempting to develop original research on this subject. I think you need to read Wikipedia:No original research and reconsider what you are attempting to do. Please, stop what you are doing and discuss this with us if you have questions. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: What I am trying to do is clearly stated in the introduction to the article. There have been thousands of years of research on this topic (see the references listed in the article for just a few examples of the existing research on this topic). For example, Aristotle's "The Constitution of Athens" and Stephen Halbrook's "How the Nazis Used Gun Control" both researched how the control of arms relates to tyranny. In Aristotle's case, he carefully describes the history of how the Peisistrata confiscated the weapons of all of the citizens of Athens through trickery and how that act resulted in the establishment of a short-lived tyranny, and he goes on to discuss how that tyranny was overthrown by violating the tyrant's arms control policies. Please do not attempt to delete this article on false grounds.

Wikipedia also has a neutral point of view policy which requires that articles not be deleted and editors' contributions not be reverted simply because an editor is opposed to the discussion of a certain topic due to their personal belies or political views on that topic. I'm not saying that is why you want to delete the article, but it is certainly a concern that I have whenever an article is about a controversial topic such as this one. -- The Wiki Authority

(I've removed the section you placed on my talk page, as we can keep the discussion in one place, here. Thanks) The article you have created so far is not an encyclopedia article. It reads as original research. If it were placed for deletion at WP:AFD, it is very likely it would be deleted. I strongly encourage you to develop the draft, and ignore the article for now. When you feel you are ready with the draft, you can place at {{AFC submission}} on it, and experienced editors will review the content to see if it is suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the AfD for the article, you continue to vociferously defend the existence of the article. Could you please tell me why you can't allow the article as is to be deleted and work on the draft for now and submit it for WP:AFC in the future when it is more complete? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding that, I recommend that you ask that the article be speedily deleted (short-circuiting the AFD process) as an author request and complete the article in userspace. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Response: The allegations that this article is either original research or not written from a neutral point of view are totally false. All research that either has been or will be presented in this article has been conducted by hundreds of respectable academics and historians over thousands of years. There is a relationship between arms control and tyranny. That is not a point of view, it is a fact, although there are many points of view on the subject. All of those points of view will be discussed in a balanced and neutral way. The article is about a relationship between two policies that have been debated and discussed throughout human history. This is not an essay, which according to Wikipedia is defined as, "a piece of writing that gives the author's own argument". This encyclopedic article will contain the arguments of philosophers, politicians, military leaders and human rights activists throughout history and their views on the relationship between arms control and tyranny. What the article will be is all conjecture at this point though. In its current form, I am baffled as to why anyone would consider this article to be either original or not neutral.RickinBaltimore apparently wants to delete the article, not because of what it contains, but because of what he thinks it might contain at some point in the future, which is a very strange argument indeed, unless for some reason he is ideologically opposed to the idea that any article on Wikipedia might be allowed to discuss and catalogue the relationship between tyranny and arms control and the various views on that relationship that have been held by scholars, academics and political leaders throughout history, regardless of what the article contains, or whether or not it is written from a neutral point of view, or whether or not the article contains existing or original research.

If anyone has violated the neutral point of view policy, it is RickinBaltimore. What exactly are you alleging is so un-neutral or original about this article, RickinBaltimore? Are you suggesting that no article of any kind that is about the relationship between arms control and tyranny should be allowed on Wikipedia? Do you think that any article that could possibly be written about this topic would inevitably bolster some points of view while calling into question other points of view, because the fact that there is a relationship and that this relationship has been observed throughout history would? Well that may be the case, since facts do influence people's point of view (sometimes), but that does not mean that the article's point of view is not neutral just because there is in fact a relationship between tyranny and arms control and scholars throughout history have debated and discussed this relationship from many different perspectives. The discussion of a relationship between tyranny and arms control is neither my original work (as much as I would like to take credit for it) nor a fundamentally non-neutral topic, as should be plain to see for anyone who truly approaches the topic from a neutral point of view. -- The Wiki Authority

Your comments[edit]

Since you have been posting your messages on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control, the page looked tardy. Please post your replies and message on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control instead to avoid clutter and messiness. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, The wiki authority, could give a misleading impression of authority.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

polythesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

I've renamed and unblocked your account. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sro23 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. Thank you. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am apparently not allowed to comment on that thread. Why is that?

Please respond to my completely legitimate concerns in a respectful and thoughtful way, Iridescent. Explain to me how you define "unanimous delete consensus". Does my opinion not count? How can it be either unanimous or consensus if the author of the article was opposed to the deletion? How were the editors who voted to delete the page selected to participate in the debate? Why were no editors who are in favor of the inclusionist philosophy allowed to express their views and cast their vote? Do you honestly think that there are not many other editors who would oppose the deletion if they were aware that it had been proposed and they had the opportunity to participate in the AfD debate? Thank you for posting the original article where I can edit it and reference it. I am grateful for that, but obviously I strongly disagree with your decision to delete the article (which I believe was unethical and contrary to your responsibilities as an administrator), as well as with the decision making process, with the jury selection, and with what seems to be an attempt to unjustifiably censor an article on one of the most popular webpage's on earth, which was created specifically to allow and facilitate the free flow of information and the collection and dissemination of all human knowledge, including knowledge and information related to the article I created, which was my first article by the way. This experience has been very disappointing for me, and it has dramatically changed my views of wikipedia in a very negative way. (And by the way, I am a very well educated and respected political scientist, a political writer who and a military veteran who was responsible for health and safety for thousands of soldiers, not some crazy person conspiracy theorist as you have portrayed me in preceding comments.)Polythesis (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you the "confirmed" user right [1], so you should be able to edit ANI now. This would have automatically happened in a day or two, but it looks like you need to be able to edit ANI now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see someone else unprotected the page, so this wasn't necessary. Can't hurt, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control[edit]

User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

It is clear you are the same person editing as User:24.119.20.133, who was blocked for making legal threats. See WP:NLT, although this policy was linked on your IP's talk page. You cannot edit Wikipedia while such threats are unretracted, and you cannot simply make up a new username and keep editing as if nothing has happened. See WP:EVADE. If you wish to edit here, first unambiguously retract the legal threat. Second, agree to stop editing so disruptively. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea why you blocked me. I am a new user, I made no legal threats to anyone. I am not being disruptive, I am just trying to create my first page. I am astonished that people have been so aggressive in attempting to prevent me from making contributions. I thought other users would be helpful, respectful and constructive, rather just trying to delete everything I create. I certainly can't retract any threats I never made. I don't even know what threat you are referring to. How can you just randomly block someone for no reason without any evidence of any wrongdoing?

Decline reason:

Floquenbeam makes a completely persuasive point, you are clearly the IP editor he refers to (the identical sourcing inserted in both articlesmakes this obvious), and have not retracted the legal threat. As such, this unblock request is declined, and talk page access removed. You may appeal your block via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2016 (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.

The reviewing admin is encouraged to compare the sources added here to the list of references in the now-deleted page here. Also note the same talk page style, the same tendentious approach, the same apocalyptic claims that censoring him will destroy the world, etc, etc. Polythesis, we are not idiots. I suspect if you don't modify this unblock request into something more based in the real world (starting, non-negotiably, with retracting the legal threat you made as User:24.119.20.133), the declining admin is going to revoke your talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are commonly cited references, and the view that infringing on the right to bear arms is a threat to freedom and democracy is the view of millions of people. I did not write that Nazi gun control article. There are hundreds and hundreds of edits on that page by hundreds of users. I think you are trying to block me just because of my views on this topic, which are very common views.Polythesis (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]