User talk:Universalsuffrage

Welcome!

Hello, Universalsuffrage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

You need to be aware of this:-

To avoid being sanctioned, carefully read the "five pillars" linked in the welcome message above, and take care to be polite and respectful to other editors. Bear in mind that on 9/11 related pages, we expect a higher standard of behaviour than elsewhere in Wikipedia, so it might be a good idea for you to get experience of the wiki process elsewhere before contributing to such high-profile pages. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be wise not to be the one to add variations of material that you originally added which is considered to be in violation of the 9/11 arbcom rulling. If consensus is estabilshed on the talk page, one of the editors who originally opposed insertion will take care of the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Barack Obama[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You've been warned about the ArbCom sanctions in effect at 9/11 articles. This edit is disruptive, unconstructive, violates WP:BLP, and suggests you don't understand WP:NOR. You are welcome to make constructive contributions in line with our Five pillars when the block expires. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:55, 11 November 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia because I've stated a rock solid fact. I'm requesting to be unblocked immediately. Administrators should note that I'm really not interested in that heavily disputed article and that I can contribute elsewhere. Here is the reference which shows the factual accuracy of the statement which led to a block. Many thanks. Universalsuffrage (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've already stated that you aren't interested in editing Wikipedia any longer, so an unblock seems pointless. Since the editing is so emotionally heated at September 11 attacks, editors who are rude or disruptive get blocked much, much more quickly, because multiple warnings for every disruptive user would result in constant conflict there. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:08, 12 November 2008 (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 source that you've offered indicates that you still don't quite understand no original research. Wikipedia uses secondary sources to report on what the best available secondary sources have concluded; Wikipedia doesn't put together information from primary sources to make a new argument. If you want to use primary sources to publish your ideas, Wikipedia isn't the place to do that; if secondary sources are available, feel free to share them. In this case, your argument seems to be that if one call wasn't made, then no calls were made, which doesn't seem reasonable, and I haven't been able to verify that basic premise because I don't feel like hunting through a lengthy sound file for it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, in this case my basic argument is that one shouldn’t be blocked for stating facts, I had not asked for insertion of that information, I've just commented on a talkpage, and stated what I've stated. I'd agree that it was done inappropriately, but if you review the recent discussions we had, you'll notice that I've met nothing but insolence, if not open insult which comes in company of such defamatory libels that editors involved like to spew there.

I've stated repeatedly that I'm not interested in conspiracy (beg your pardon) gibberish, certainly not as we discuss some disturbing issues that have absolutely nothing, I'll reiterate it again, absolutely nothing to do with label that seems to be so dear to editors involved. There is no decency there whatsoever; person tries to fuel decent discussion and ends up locked out with no valid argument whatsoever? That place is like a rabbit hole, honestly.

Well, I'm deeply thankful for the time you've invested into reviving request above, but you could clearly see what was written in the comment. It was stated 'some of the alleged calls were never made' (to turn such sentence into 'no phone calls were made' doesn’t seem reasonable either). I'm also puzzled by your interpretation of what was my intention since you seem to imply that I had an aim to add something to the article while it was nothing but a comment. Again, I'll admit, the edit was made with deep sarcasm, but such approach should be more understandable if you review those hostile and hastily closed discussions we had there. As per secondary sources, there are some, more than few actually, but they don’t meet high standards we have there and I have no desire to pursue that venue anyway.

Either way, it doesn’t affect factual accuracy of my statement and people should not be banned from editing because of factually accurate comments they make out of article main space. It's obvious that those well established editors there don't want any discussion and I'm not sure why would broader adminship accept such behavior which is, in my opinion, not only contra productive, but in direct contradiction with some of the very basic principles we have here, those welcoming five pillars included. Universalsuffrage (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't even sort of a reliable source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's the very same evidence you would get if you had time to download and review original reference. In other words, it comes directly from U.S.D.C. in Eastern District of Virginia; you can hardly go more reliable than that and just to let you know, that reference is in heavy usage elsewhere on Wikipedia. Universalsuffrage (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever wonder why people don’t know these things? Universalsuffrage (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the September 11 attacks have been widely reported upon. Therefore, if this is a significant detail that belongs in an encyclopedia article on the subject, you will have no trouble verifying it from a newspaper, not just a heavily biased web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BarbaraOlson.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BarbaraOlson.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]