User talk:TheOminousDarkness

September 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at The Woman King. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But the information that is being supplied to the public is biased and untruthful. Every single critic on RottenTomatoes was compensated for their reviews. This indicates extreme bias.

IMDB includes reviews by the public. My apologies, I'm still not very experienced with editing, but I'm going to make it my mission to improve. It's not right or ethical to only show favorable information.

How does one indicate to the public that the movie has been panned by independent critics? TheOminousDarkness (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.

Sam Kuru (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am to be unblocked because I am not the one threatening legal action. I am merely speaking observationally and speculatively. TheOminousDarkness (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As per below. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Unlock this page at once, or prepare for a legal battle that you're neither intellectually or financially capable of defending against. Now." is a simple threat. You can clarify that you're retracting the problmatic statement and that you're prepared to address your concerns in a constructive and civil manner, if you'd like. Inflammatory rhetoric is incredibly unhelpful, especially on pages with very large warnings that the page is under our Contentious Topics restrictions. If you're not capable of understanding that this is unhelpful, then I don't see any reason to unblock this account. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Legal threats

"You can clarify that you're retracting the problmatic statement and that you're prepared to address your concerns in a constructive and civil manner, if you'd like. Inflammatory rhetoric is incredibly unhelpful, especially on pages with very large warnings that the page is under our Contentious Topics restrictions."

Let me clarify that I'd like to retract my problematic statement, and I'm eager to address my concerns in a constructive and civil manner.

Such as, how do we go about correcting the libelous and inherently false statements that we find on a wiki page?

It is more than apparent that Graham Hancock is being misrepresented on his wiki page. This needs to be corrected.

Pseudoscience in itself is not considered a legitimate field, therefore how can one be labeled as such?

Thank you! TheOminousDarkness (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've unblocked this account based on the above. As to your other question, you would need to start a comprehensive and civil discussion on the article's talk page; without threats, and with without hyperbole. Stick to facts. Unfortunately, there are a large number of reliable sources present which contradict your position - you'll need to discuss each of them and get other editors to agree to your position that this is something other than what is currently supported by the sources. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kuru Sam, this editor is claiming to be "'Jefferson Caldwell, senior physicist of research and development, NASA. ". There appears to be no such person and at TalK:Graham Hancock he's made it clear he doesn't know anything about the scientific method and is lying about Hancock with claims about him: "Yet, all science is theoretical until unequivocably proven to be 100% true. As of now, MIT, Harvard, Yale and dozens of other prestigious institutions have honored Hancock's contributions, yet I see that mentioned nowhere." Doug Weller talk 08:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Doug WellerI'll swing by your place sometime this week and provide you with my credentials in person, is that okay? TheOminousDarkness (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Doug WellerLet me clarify my previous statement: I'll be more than happy to meet you in a public setting, and provide you with any documentation you would like to see. Or, I can email or fax it to you. TheOminousDarkness (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@TheOminousDarkness You can email from my talk page, I'll respond here. I would like to know why you think you can come by my place so easily. That implies you know where I live and that puzzles me. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your own page provides enough information to give anyone an educated guess that you're probably in the States. As am I. TheOminousDarkness (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a pretty big country. I need to warn you about looking for anything that identifies me off wiki as that usually ends up with an indefinite block. See WP:DOXXING. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually this is a waste of time. If you are who you say you are there is no way you have no presence on the Internet. Link me to proof you exist and work for NASA. Link me to evidence of your PhD. Both should be easy. Post again without giving proof of your claims and I'll block you for WP:TROLLING. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Sam Kuru (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Standard notice is now given above. Despite the wording of the template and as per Mr. Weller's note above, there are indeed problems with your editing at Talk:Graham Hancock. I can see a typo in my warning above, now corrected, where I accidently said "with hyperbole" - clearly I meant without. If you're unable to discuss your concerns in a factual manner and by utilizing rock-solid sources, then a ban from the topic is likely. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment.

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 ~~~~}}.

Sam Kuru (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

With due respect to Mr. Weller's patience above, following up a serious legal threat with "I'll swing by your place sometime this week..." is way over the line. Your attempts to contribute at article's talk page do not appear to be serious despite the warning above. I won't be unblocking; you will need to convince another admin that you can contribute constructively and that your behavior is somehow acceptable. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)