User talk:Damage868

vandalism of Foster Cummings' article[edit]

You have deleted my contribution regarding Cummings' corrupt dealings twice, despite my contribution's citation of a national newspaper article - in what way do you claim my contribution or the linked article to be untrue? Websurfer868 (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s define the yard stick for truth here because it seems quite definitive coming from someone citing an article, knowing how bias articles go. Let’s be more responsible and pursue due diligence and good journalistic practices.

You are casting aspersions against someone's character without any credible evidence. Damage868 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Millions in opaque gov contracts (FoI required to see contracts).

2. Has a bad credit history.

3. A bad credit history is grounds for loan refusal.

What do you dispute? Websurfer868 (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, so I'm on mobile right now and I want to say, why are you removing sourced content on the said page? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll repeat, you citing a newspaper article does not translate to Cummings is guilty. Likewise me citing another article in support does not absolve him. The media have no precedence over the Courts and Laws.

More importantly,assuming we're all upstanding, law respecting citizens, I'll remind,it's innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.

Until Cummings is arrested or charged all statements remains "speculation".

It is absolutely absurd to state "which would have been refused to any other applicant not in a position of power".

1. Reporting should be unbiased and adequately supported. Where is the evidence to support this claim?

2. "Position of power". Didn't this occur before he was appointed Minister? Again, speculation.

3. Nothing stated can be considered factual but rather an emotional personal perspective of events. You are implying,without any verification, VCU have and never will approve a loan to anyone with "poor credit". Damage868 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The national newspaper article remains unchallenged legally, and in the absence of a legal challenge it can be taken as truth, besides, more damning articles in this regard have been published.

1. Foster Cummings is a well known recipient of government contracts, as can be confirmed by many national newspaper articles, and regardless of guilt or not, he is a career politician and this is a gross conflict of interest.

2. He had a credit score of 365 which would have precluded any ordinary citizen from getting a loan of a fraction of that size.

3. Clarify if you want to refute anything specifically. Websurfer868 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have I commented on his guilt nor his innocence but I speak to his overt conduct which has been prolifically documented in our national newspapers without challenge.

1. According to the cited article among others, the sole revenue stream which supported his loan application was derived from government contracts.

2. Loan applicants seeking medium sized loas from the VCU require a minimum credit score of 400 - his score of 365 fell below the threshold. Also he is a career politician and has long been in a position of power.

3. This comes across as a glib criticism and it lacks substance. Websurfer868 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to continue this debate when clearly you have a personal bias.

Again, with the false statements, saying the article is uncontested when Cummings started legal proceedings immediately after it's publication. And really? Without a legal challenge it can be taken for truth? How gullible and delusional.

Regardless the section have violated Wikipedia's Notability Criminal Act which states "a person is innocent until convicted by the Court of Law." Notice it did not say until a newspaper article is published, lol. Hence my work here is done as it is permanently removed and rightfully so! Damage868 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His legal manoeuvres relate to the leak of his information - the facts are undisputed. Furthermore his misconduct is overt, and although he evades prosecution, so do many tyrants through judicial repression, but this doesn't stop us from criticising them. Websurfer868 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Foster Cummings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Foster Cummings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about edit warring until your 24h block, and I didn't edit anything since then so I don't understand why you blocked me for 1 week today.. Websurfer868 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the user talk page for Damage868. Is that your account? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no I was naively edit warring with damage868 because he keeps vandalising an article Websurfer868 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not blocked. You are responding to the block for a different user, Damage868. You should avoid edit warring, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I was not edit warring. I was simply removing false statements. The section have violated Wikipedia's Notability Criminal Act which states a person is innocent until convicted by the Court of Law. All statements under this section was purely speculation, lacking any credible evidence, fact or proof. The publishers are of the view that a newspaper article is enough to determine a person's guilt or innocence.

Citing a newspaper article, clearly bias btw, should not be sufficient or an excuse to allow for the publication of slanderous narrative. Damage868 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how many national newspaper articles should I cite? also in corrupt countries tyrants often evade prosecution but we still criticise them citing widespread evidence and newspaper articles Websurfer868 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damage868, you believing that the statements are false does not permit you to repeatedly override other editors. That is edit warring.

Again, during a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]