User talk:McCouchsky

Welcome!

Hello, McCouchsky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, I'm NeilN. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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. --SineBot (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Your contribution so far makes an impression that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Usually, such accounts get blocked very soon. If you want to avoid a block, would you please start making good contributions to the articles. The best is to stay away from contentious areas such as the conflict in Ukraine, where you may not have enough experience to contribute constructively. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAH! Wiki is not a neutral site, so please don't suggest it is a real encyclopedia. There have been numerous studies finding just how big of a joke this site can be. You should not take your work so seriously as it's regarded as trash anyway. I see article after article being changed by senior editors to reflect certain political stances, a few examples I see is that they may be liberal leaning sometimes, or anti-russian...even in the face of evidence backed posts I see senior editors making changes that are truly reflective of the inherent biases of senior editors. I knew before coming here that this site is not a legitimate source for anything even half polticial. Everyone from academics, mainstream media, the internet commnity to people in general have made both public and privae claims, citing evidence, that this site is so politically biased that it should only be used for the most objective topics. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to brainwash those that yet do not see that what you label as an encyopedia is a cleverly disguised tabloid. You're basically Alex Jones but at least he's transparent.

Here is an example. This is the type of source that wikipedia uses as an example of voter fraud in crimea: "Journalist voted at the Crimean referendum with Russian passport. Voting fraud. Scandal - YouTube". This is a legitimate source in wikiepdia? A source like this that would be pro russian would be deleted in seconds. It is a random man with a camera talking to a random woman, location unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:NeilN. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants to edit a pseudo-encyclopedia run by politically motivated, biased, nobodies with fragile egos anyway?

If you continue attacking editors with personal insults, you will face a block. If you have specific suggestions on reliable sources that can be incorporated into a Wikipedia article, suggest them on the article talk page. If you want to rant about how terrible Wikipedia is, I'm sure you can find message boards where you'd be more at home. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McCouchsky, you are invited to the Co-op!

Hi there! McCouchsky, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Susan Rice. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to ban editors that are vandalizing wiki?

I have noticed that some editors such as NeilN have been vandalizing wiki by editing out unfavourable facts and sources about their political affiliation. I have followed their edits for 2 years now and have seen that they are comitting such vandalism so frequently that i question if they actually are here to help wiki or if they may be paid political activists. How to highlight this to senior admins to have them removed forever? McCouchsky (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually read and understand the warnings given to you? If not, that would explain why you're having such difficulty here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how many reliable sources someone, not just myself, provide for edits that are do not fit your political bias you revert the edits and then try to lock the site. You do this in seconds too. Why do you think this website has such a poor reputation? People realize it is full of full time politically motivated editors. Anyway, I can't talk now. I have a real job that isn't politically editing wiki.

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all your contributions and I don't see a single one that's of any use: all you do is attack a) editors, and b) the encyclopedia itself. I can't fathom why you're still here, after remarking above "Who wants to edit a pseudo-encyclopedia run by politically motivated, biased, nobodies with fragile egos anyway?" Apparently you do. I'm leaving you access to this page, in the unlikely event that you want to request unblock; but if you merely use it to rant, this page will be locked too. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 4 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have tried to present a fair and balanced point of view to Wikipedia articles that I noticed are clearly skewed in a particular political stance. If my citations have not been proper, then I will fix them if it is brought up to me; however, you can imagine my frustration, and the frustration of millions of people I'm sure, when they realize that while some editors on Wikipedia claim poor citation they are merely violating Wikipedia policies by trying to eliminate opposing points of view, even if those views are well cited. What I think this site should do is allow all sides of the political spectrum equal opportunity to present known facts. At the moment it is pretty clear it does not. I'm sure you are all capable of googling the many hundreds of articles that have proven that Wikipedia is time and time again skewed to the far left. As far as I see if you want credibility then you need to turn this back into a balanced encyclopedia instead of a liberal farce. If you don't like the bluntness then I don't think the internet is for you..but deep down inside you know that this website is, unfortunately, being turned into a far left farce. If you truly wish to see it thrive maybe you should consider not blocking or editing in a way that skews this sight so far to the left? Anyway, if you have a problem with the structure of a citation by all means you should let people know...but right now you are finding illegitimate ways to silence opposing views, even those sited by many reliable (does not mean far left) sources, breaking the very mission statement of wikipedia. Perhaps try doing the right thing after truly being honest with yourself about the current direction of this site.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a battleground. As far as I can see, this is the only thing you've been doing. None of your three edits were cited and your unblock request makes it clear you are only here to carry on an ideological battle. It doesn't matter if your goal is to shift Wikipedia to the right or to the left, it's inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2017 (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.

Q

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).

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

Request reason:

Please explain how trying to add balance to articles is a problem. Please explain why you allow far left conspiracy theories to run rampant but deny non leftist views and accounts all the time. McCouchsky (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can create as much balance as you like provided only thar what you add is correctly sourced and does not contain your personal opinions. Clearly attacking other editors and admins does not help your case. For the record I am in the UK, uninterested in American politics and have no clear idea as to what would be called left-wing or right-wing on your side of the pond. Nor do I personally much care.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:19, 4 April 2017 (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.

And FYI, I'm not an American either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, nor am I. --Yamla (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then why..

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).

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

Request reason:

Okay so if this website is balanced then why have the uncited left leaning edits i made under another account not been removed after 3 days? 3 comments on 3 different pages..and no citations. In fact 2 of the edits were far left conspiracy theories. So please do tell why this account was banned for writing non conspiratorial points about ongoing investigations?

Decline reason:

So you just admitted to sockpuppetry and vandalism, deliberately harming the encyclopedia to prove a political point. That will not get you unblocked. Talk page access revoked, and I'll see whether I can get your other account blocked, too. Huon (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2017 (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.

McCouchsky (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: If you do figure out his second account please let me know as we should probably look at what he's been posting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/McCouchsky (but may plausibly not have done so correctly). --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]