User talk:Anton88be

September 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated sockpuppetry and disruption. Your use of the account, User:12sorensen45 to continue with the disruption is unacceptable.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|reason= I Admit to have done it.There is no point in denying my actions. I promise that i will abide by wikipedia charts. I won't do it again. I am here to help to the development of the encyclopedia. Anton88be (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "won't do it again". What exactly won't you do again? If we take away the disruptive editing, dishonesty, accusations of bad faith, and so on, we are left with very little, so what kind of editing will you do if unblocked, and how will it it differ from what you have done in the past? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2012 (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).

Anton88be (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will negotiate with the users that systematically erase my edits for no reason. They think it is controversial to document where immigration comes from. All my edits are always well written and the sources are exact. But the same users keep searching the web for me and keep deleting and censoring my edits. This is why I created other accounts because I thought that these users had something personal against me for showing the truth. In Statistics the term no foreign background is used as an euphemism to the politically incorrect word of ethnicity. They always make imaginary reasons i.e. non valid reason to censor me, and they only do it for Scandinavia.

Decline reason:

Reading this request, I am not convinced that you have a good plan for dealing with disagreements with other users in the future. It sounds like your primary goal is to add your interpretation to Wikipedia, and that is different from Wikipedia's goal of providing only neutral, sourced information. It also sounds like you plan to continue assuming that other users who disagree with you are 'censors,' and that is different from Wikipedia's assumption that other users are trying to make the encyclopedia better in good faith. While I am sure that you are a good person, if your goals and plans are different than Wikipedias, you will be happier publishing your work elsewhere. If a time comes when your goals and plans are the same as Wikipedia's, and you are interested in participating in Wikipedia's mission, please feel free to request unblock. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 2 September 2012 (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.

I understand clearly your development. However,the way I was systematically deleted doesnt seem to be of good faith at all. Before any talk page was started , 2 users deleted 24/7 my edits that are simple copy pasting of national statistic agencies. And what is happening is that now they are searching for my history and deleting all my edits. These are cleary double standards.

-For example , a study about the relgious beliefs of 1000 individuals in Sweden by an unknown acadamic (that owns many biased websites on religion) , figures on the the main page of Sweden in the Religion section. There is no neutrality in this article, since this known person (Zuckerman) deliberality made this study to proove his point i.e. that Sweden is an atheist nation and church has only a cultural aspect. This study reflects the personal views of Zuckerman but shouldnt be on the main religion page. But it could figure on a specific religion in Sweden page. It relfects the view of the author, and maybe the reality of 1000 persons , but not of Sweden.

-For instance any study by similar academics on muslims in Sweden will be moderated in a few minutes. There is a deliberate double standard on information.

I believe my goals and plans are the same as Wikipedia's. I stated clearly that I will not use any other fake account since it violates wikipedia policy.

Anton88be (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what sources have the correct information? If your sources are more reliable than the ones being used, that'll be clear to all, and you won't have to argue at all in order to get the more accurate information into the article. As it is, since you aren't sharing better sources, and are making accusations, you're not helping very much. If you have the information, and can explain it clearly, Wikipedia needs your help. If you're not adding anything other than accusations and unsourced claims, you're adding nothing that Wikipedia can use. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote As it is, since you aren't sharing better sources

I am sharing the best sources available on this subject by Statbank.dk (Denmark) and Stats Norway (ssb.no). The best and most accurate information and numbers are on these websites. The reason there is such controversy is that the term ethnicity is never clearly used in order not to be discriminatory. Euphemism like Persons of Danish origin and non Western Immigrants are being used by governments. Everything has been explained many times. Some want to hide this information. If random studies on religion and culture are in main articles , why such important and official studies are deliberately moderated ?

On the Denmark article , I was forced to download a graphic from the agency were Persons of Danish origin clearly means ethnic Danes to end all controversy. The website link died after 48H for unknown reasons from the agency, so I simply found a way to have it permanently thus no more pretext to delete my edits.

Quote If you're not adding anything other than accusations and unsourced claims, you're adding nothing that Wikipedia can use.

My countributions show the long term direct relation between migration and demography. This is really important in a century where Nation-states and identities are in crisis. Demographic data is becoming more and more sought after.

I was blocked for having multiple accounts or for showing accurate data that are judged controversial (on ideological grounds) simply because they exist? Humanity has the right to neutral and accurate knowledge. This is the reason why I am here and I believe most users here feel the same. Anton88be (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]