User talk:The Best There Is 'Snikt!'

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Question

Iloveandrea--have you finally gotten permission for your return to Wikipedia?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say that you bear more than a passing resemblance to a banned sockpuppeteer. However, on closer examination it seems I may have jumped the gun.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contras

Hi, I just saw that you have been carrying out a major operation on the Contras page. While I appreciate your effort, I noticed that you made a change to the sourced statement from the Latin American Studies observer group. I did not wish to revert you, since you clearly put a lot of effort into your edit, but I was hoping you could either explain that, or reinsert it. Also, just as a quick note; it is probably more helpful in the long run to give book names and page numbers, rather than googlebooks links; it is more durable, and easier for editors to examine. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's only repeating that the elections were fair. It was borderline undue because the basic point that the elections were fair had already been made. And I believe you kind of have to include links on some issues that tend to inflame passions but I'll try it your way.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seems fair, but you should keep in mind that we are not only reporting that the elections were broadly fair, but that multiple groups saw it as such. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

Hey, great work on the Contras page; it seriously needed some cleanup. Since you've been doing such a great job there, might I point you to this page? It's in a very similar area, and is in urgent need of cleanup, which I don't have the time to do properly. Of course, you have absolutely no obligation to do any such, just thought I'd mention it. Once again, good job. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on several projects so I may get to it later. Thanks.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

For your attention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You again. Why do you keep coming here with this mess? First you accuse me of being Iloveandrea and now this. And also, wouldn't all kinds of thoughts being going through your mind right as to what is going on here?--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. From reviewing your contributions it is obvious that you are Horhey420 (talk · contribs) attempting to evade your block yet again. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2014 (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).

The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, there has been a mistake. I am not this person and I have already been checked by two different administrators and have been accused of being two blocked editors three times by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk). For some reason this administrator agreed with this user. What do I need to do to get unblocked? Thank you.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2014 (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.

So far, it is appearing as though this administrator and the user are accusing me of being Horhey420 (talk · contribs) because we both used similar sources on 2 pages. I don't know what to think here.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, for future reference, Nick-D (talk) dubbed a page I created "a POV pushing disaster area", though all I did was use studies by Amnesty International's Michael Mcclintock, the authoritative scholarly literature, the official truth commission report, and mainstream media reports. So since this administrator perceives this as 'POV disaster pushing', he will likely flag me for it in the future. In other words, I am confused as to how else I am supposed to edit in a way that does not offend him. I will just end up back here, appealing a block for POV pushing. Thanks.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2014 (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).

The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It cannot have been "confirmed" because I am not this user. This should be known because we cannot possibly share the same IP.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I am not a sock" is the argument 98% of sockpuppets make. Having looked over the contributions I agree that this is a quite cromulent block, and will require a much more convincing argument to overturn. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 2 June 2014 (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.

Is there an invisible line that I have crossed here? Did I bring the 'forbidden knowledge' or something? It's almost black comedy, just as the users "prime example" of "proof" of a sockppupet. Why is this happening again?--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "again"? Are you referring to all of the previous times you were blocked and had this exact same reaction (accusing Nick-D, Stumink, CJK, and I of forming a cabal to censor your "forbidden knowledge" on behalf of the US government)?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Again, as in I've already been wondering why this is happening. Why are you doing this, btw?--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to get caught using socks, you shouldn't be so quick to break character. Goodbye.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are ruthless and due driven. What am I supposed to think and say to you?--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question. What is driving you to do this?--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2014 (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).

The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That's interesting. Ok, well, as far as I can tell, and as pointed out by the above user, we both used Michael Mcclintock and Thomas Carothers as a source. The problem with banning someone for using these sources is that Mcclintock published the most authoritative studies on U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine until 1990. He's the go to guy for every academic that studies these issues. The Guatemalan truth commission report also used his work as a source. In other words, if you can't use Mcclintock, you got nothing because original research is prohibited here. Thomas Carothers is a former Reagan insider that worked in USAID on democracy promotion projects in Latin America. He's also one of the leading experts on democracy promotion around the world. He provided unique insight into the administration's policy planning. So again, if you can't use Thomas Carothers as source on this issue, you got nothing. There's nothing else, pretty much. So, you might as well just shut those pages down totally. Any user here that researches these particular issues will be directed toward these sources. That is where they will end up. And that is why I used them. So by banning me for using these sources, the administrator is effectively banning this history. The content itself is banned, more so than any user. I also noticed that Horhey apparently did not use Greg Grandin as a source at all but I used him extensively. Grandin's books were pretty much part of the core of my work. Moreover, much, if not most of Horhey's work looks to be undue, as he layed it on pretty thick and relied too much on quotes, rather than showing the basic point and moving on. No, sorry, that's not me. If I had been allowed to finish the U.S. in Guatemala civil war page that I transferred to another page (which was nowhere near finished), this would have been even more clearly shown. If there's something else I can do, please let me know.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have checked the editing history, and there are various pieces of evidence of sockpuppetry, of various different kinds, leaving no serious room for doubt. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2014 (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.

Horhey, there are a couple of dead giveaways in formatting style and page linking even in that unblock request. After all this time, you still can't Wikilink properly! (For the record, if you didn't use Grandin as Horhey, then I introduced you to the source...)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the suggestion that "United States intervention in Guatemalan civil war" would have demonstrated your contrasting editing style, bear in mind any admin can check the deleted article to see how it compares to Horhey's work.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new and just discovered the "Sandbox" the night before I got banned. I probably don't know a lot of other things. But I do know anything can be checked, thanks. And no, you did not introduce me to anything. You should relax more and go about your business. "You're too close to this", sir.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you claim to be such an avid reader of Greg Grandin's work, then you should have no problem adding this to the page:

"in Latin America the first sustained campaign of death-squad-executed “disappearances” of political dissidents occurred in Guatemala in 1966, carried out by a unit created and directly supervised by American security advisers."

You can't do it can you? You would see that in the book you supposedly own or have read and pretend you never saw it. I on the other hand am willing to add it to the page and yet, I am the one pushing POV, as you say.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this right here was part of what Nick-D (talk) dubbed "a POV pushing disaster area". The NPOV rule is not subjective. It is not in the eye of the beholder. It actually means something. It's very specific and straight forward. POV is not something you might find offensive. It is when the cited source is misrepresented or not adequately represented. Period. I'm sorry if it makes some people feel uncomfortable but it's not POV pushing. I'll check back in a few days.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To respond in brief to your claim of being a new user, your very first edits with this account suggest otherwise. I was referring more to some of Horhey's specific editing quirks, like including an unnecessary underline with every Wikilink (for example, Barack_Obama or Barack Obama), every single one of which you have displayed at one time or another.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]