User talk:Baphy93

Baphy93, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The

Adventure

Hi Baphy93!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Microwave auditory effect has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Microwave auditory effect was changed by Baphy93 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.912696 on 2015-08-27T14:54:35+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Electronic harassment. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were in proportion to their prominence, these editors are choosing to omit the viewpoint of several thousands of people even when it is clearly stated as 'theory' and even sourced. Baphy93 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to copyright-violating material[edit]

I see that several of your edits have involved citations of material uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo. Please not that you must not under any circumstances cite material on such websites unless it has clearly been uploaded by the copyright holder - see WP:LINKVIO. Wikipedia takes copyright matters very seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and noted. Vimeo was the only case in which this would be applicable. Baphy93 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are risking a block for edit warring at Microwave auditory effect[edit]

You've previously been notified of Wikipedia's rules about edit waring. From a quick look, it appears you may already have broken the WP:3RR rule at Microwave auditory effect. To avoid a block, there may still be time for you to undo your last change to the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Location (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're desperate for control and grasping at straws. Baphy93 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Meatpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baphy93) and generally disruptive behavior.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 29 August 2015 (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).

Baphy93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. Just wanted to point out that this user is one of many banned or blocked for no wrong doing of their own. What Wikipedia is doing is banning anyone who attempts to add information about government that is seen as unfavorable. Such information that validates the use of electronic warfare, interferometry, and radiation weapons.

This user like many before him attempted to add back some of the stripped and missing information that validates such claims. For example, back in 2010 there was an article called "Synthetic Telepathy," government agents, paid editors, and users attempting to suppress the information edit warred the page to remove the information, causing Wikipedia to close it and ultimately delete it.

This same problem also happens on several related articles such as the psychotronics page, and the 9/11 conspiracy theory page. In the 9/11 page, any attempt to even discuss Dr. Judy Wood's work about the use of land, sea, and space based interferometry weapons - that are known to exist - owned by the United States military - get edited out.

There are users who are dedicated to keeping this information out. However, when they remove valid information about it, cited information, Wikipedia will protect them and ban the others who were in disagreement each time.

This is making for a one sided view-point being displayed on Wikipedia in all the articles on the matter. The current articles make it hard to understand what electronic harassment, psychotronic weapons, and electronic warfare weapons can do to people, despite the long history of development and testing on humans. There are also many expert witnesses who have published information on the matter including Dr. Robert Duncan, Dr. John Hall, Dr. Nick Begich, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Fred Bell, Alex Constantine, Dr. Colin Ross, Dr. Peter Breggin, .. Back in the 1960s and 1970s they tested weapons on people, for example the Eugene wavelength, where the US Navy was nuking Eugene Oregon residents from over 500 miles away with electronic warfare for months at a time. The CIA also had implanted and mutilated citizens back in the 1960s, such as Leonard Kille, who was featured in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner on the matter.

AndyTheGrump is one such protected user who keeps dominating all the pages on this, deleting valid information, and getting users banned, as he did again in this case.

By not banning AndyTheGrump, and banning Baphy93, you are helping to censor Wikipedia and create this lopsided inaccurate view on the matter at hand. 173.166.234.163 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A request not demonstrably added by the blocked editor is never evaluated or considered.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:35, 10 September 2015 (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.

Note: the IP above is clearly Baphy93 evading the block by editing while logged out - see their edit history. We can add block evasion to the many reasons not to unblock this account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get your tinfoil, User:AndyTheGrump. You're making unverifiable claims. (No, seriously. Prove it. You're wrong.) Baphy93 (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits, the style, the places the IP went and the likelihood of it being random user, I agree with AndyTheGrump's conclusion, that Baphy93 is evading his block either directly or by proxy, and as such, I have extended the block for one more week. If it happens again, I'm likely to just indef block the account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- That's complete bullshit. I actually know the last editor. It's a different person. The administrators on this website fucking suck. Literally bans for no reason other than "suspicion", what the fuck are you, the government? Baphy93 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't and shouldn't be held responsible for what other people do of their own free will. It merely goes to show that other editors disagree with your positions and your continuing efforts to silence them demonstrate the abuse of your power on this website. Baphy93 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been changed to indef[edit]

You keep bypassing your block with an IP and not just complaining, but editing. This is the second time. The first time, I was generous and only added one week, but it is not obvious that your obsession with the article combined with your inability to wait out a simple couple of weeks means you probably do not need to be editing here at all. You were warned, and unquestionably it was you. You are welcome to appeal this, of course, but I would be against you coming back. As your obsession is singular, it will be easy to spot you if you try to sockpuppet again, so I suggest you find another hobby. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did I bypass my IP block? I did no such thing. No question, as in, you're only making an assumption without any evidence. I didn't make any edits to any pages either, the only thing I did was make a complaint about the abuse of your admin status. Baphy93 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to my having forgot to log in before filing a complaint that is obviously ANOTHER bullshit abuse of your admin status User:Dennis Brown. Baphy93 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cite one instance with proof in which I edited after my ban. There is not one. I shouldn't be banned, you ought to be stripped of your status User:Dennis Brown. Baphy93 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unblock[edit]

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).

Baphy93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Beyond first accusation of WP:MEAT there was never any reason to ban me because I didn't do anything other than make a complaint while having forgotten to log in which I immediately admitted.

Decline reason:

I don't see anything that resembles a valid unblock request here. At least nothing that addresses the initial block issues. Lastly, I see a significant amount of incivility; the use of the word "bullshit" several times leaves me with reservations about whether you will continue to be a productive editor if unblocked. Further incivility will result in the loss of talk page privileges. Mkdw ^talk 23:11, 13 September 2015 (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 only reason I'm using strong language is because these admins, yourself included, apparently have no system of checks and balances, are apt to abuse your admin privilege, and there is little to no recourse for editors being singled out. Yeah, this is bullshit. I didn't have a reason to use such strong language before. Baphy93 (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears a number of admins have reviewed your situation and come to the same consensus. That suggests to me, it's not us, but rather you. There are ways to appeal a decision and request an unblock, but unfortunately you felt the need to either disregard those processes and resort to insults and general incivility. When adding all these factors together, you are in this situation with no one else to blame but yourself. As promised, your talk page privileges have been revoked. Your last and final means to request an unblock is at WP:UTRS. Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]