User talk:Heyjudek
Heyjudek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am being blocked by someone who still refuses to explain me what I did wrong. My edits were being reverted by someone who refused to explain the issue either on his or my talk pages. He deleted my requests on his talk page twice. Please let me know why this block is in place Heyjudek (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is going to be one of those "I think you know very well what you did wrong, but I'll explain it anyway just so you can't keep making this argument credibly" responses: It was clear from your sarcastic edit summary on your very first edit that you had an agenda and you didn't like Ms. Snell. And then you kept at it like a dog with a bit in its mouth. The fact that you cited her own tweet is an irrelevant distraction, as you seem smart enough that you would have to know that that tweet can be a source for nothing more than the fact that she made it ... it does not say anything about her "having vision problems" (that is subjective speculation more properly termed original research here). It cannot support the statement that she has made multiple tweets as it is only one such tweet.This is why you are blocked, and as someone who seems to have come to Wikipedia just to do this, I think we are clearly justified in blocking you indefinitely. You're clearly not here to edit an encyclopedia. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
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.
Hi Daniel. It is irrelevant whether I like her or not. Even if I called her having vision problems, I am 100% justified in saying that. You could see her fingers CLEARLY. Someone claiming it is a fascist gesture is either trolling or has serious vision complications. There is no third option here. As someone with integrity, I don't like her. No self-respecting person should. Someone who identifies with Neo-Nazis and spreads hate deserves to be disliked to full extent at the very least. In the end, I added her own tweet and sourced it properly. This is why I believe my ban is unjustified and at this point I have no doubt you are pretty aware of it. Also, what kind of accusation is it? Why should I be obligated to like her? Heyjudek
- Indeed it's irrelevant whether you like her or not. The point is that you're editing with an agenda, and you're not doing it particularly well.
There are a lot of BLPs where there are damaging facts about people that aren't mentioned in the article at all, or minimally, and honestly should be (The article about Scott Turow, for instance, mentions nothing about a highly controversial case he prosecuted where he got the target's lawyer to be an informant, one the Eleventh Circuit wanted to see him disciplined over, and RSes on this are out there). Perhaps this is something about Ms. Snell that is worthy of note ... if so, per policy we put it in only if a reliable source has made this observation. If that exists independently of her Twitter feed, by all means find it and share it here.
Your clinging to the fact that it is her own tweet is missing the point. No one doubts that it was her tweet, but it only tells us that it was her tweet, and the rest that you wanted to put in is a matter of interpretation that we don't add to articles just because someone named after a Beatles song thinks it should be, just as my observing that you seem interested in making her look bad says nothing about whether I think you should like her outside of your interpretation that I am saying that (Honestly, I had never heard of Lindsay Snell before I reviewed your unblock request).
I have an idea for you. Maybe instead of spending all this time here and emailing me, you should devote your efforts to getting a reliable third-party source to do an exposé on how Lindsay Snell is a closet fascist. If The New York Times runs it, it can go in the Wikipedia article. Daniel Case (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"with an agenda", you are right Daniel. I would like her to be represented how she is and I am willing to provide evidence for EVERY single thing I am thinking of saying about her. Given her past activities, you can't even call her a journalist so no one is really covering her. But there are certain points you would like to know. I will number them for you:
1. The person who was reversing my edits was Armenian, who specifically edits Armenian-related topics. This is the classic example of an agenda. Lindsey Snell is crusading for Armenia, that is why she is liked by them.
2. You told me you don't doubt that the tweet was hers but you HAVE removed the mention of her tweet, essentially saying that you don't like her own tweets representing her work.
3. It is pretty rude of you to call me participating in bad faith when I am trying to figure out what I did wrong. Honestly, if you told me how my edit was flawed, I would gladly take what you say into account. There is a picture in her tweet that CLEARLY shows a V-Sign, how about I cite the tweet along with the picture with the headline "The picture of a girl Lindsey claims to be showing a racist/fascist sign?
4. My agenda is integrity, I want her work representing her, nothing but her own work, not my interpretation or anything else. All I am expecting from you is a little bit of intellectual honesty here. It is possible that I may have unwittingly added my own interpretation. I am happy to admit that provided that you show me what that is.
5. Please consider your usage of the word clearly, the only thing clear here is that the picture showing a V-sign not a racist/fascist hand gesture. If you are making this claim, let me know what that sign is, preferably by New York Times which I guess is considered a reliable source by you? Heyjudek (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Heyjudek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I cited a tweet of a living person and was reported by her fan because they would pretend it didn't happen. He didn't react to my messages on his talk page or message me on mine MarshallBagramyan reverting my edits while also deleting my requests to discuss this at his or my talk page. I believe this is an extremely unfair treatment as I am merely sourcing a tweet. Some user not liking that tweet isn't a good reason to remove it
Decline reason:
Nope. Pretty much every one of your edits is a violation of WP:BLP. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
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.
Reply: Hi again, I must say that unfortunately you are being very uncooperative. I literally did nothing more than quote a tweet and I quoted it according to the wiki rules (with the visual editor). If "everything" as you say constitutes a violation, would you please let me know exactly what that is? Is it not allowed to quote tweets or am I missing something? Thanks in advance Heyjudek (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Reported for edit warring[edit]
Please see here. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Chip3004 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
March 2022[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Hello again, I really don't appreciate this treatment. I was being reported by some ethno-nationalist because I sourced her unpleasant tweet that they would rather pretend never happened. I invited him to my talk page since he kept deleting my messages. The tweet is clearly sourced. Heyjudek (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Correction, I meant that I was editing the article of tje person which the editor considered to be "good". So, having an unpleasant fact about her was not acceptable to him. Heyjudek (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Heyjudek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Alright, at this point all I am expecting is anything resembling constructive criticism. If someone is claiming that any of my edit violates wikipedia rules, so be it. Please show me the statement that violates the wiki rules and I will gladly elaborate further and provide a better understanding of it. But repeating "nope it's a violation" without saying what it is and why doesn't give me any information to improve anything. Please consider a constructive response. Heyjudek (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your edits violated WP:BLP as poorly sourced. You don't seem to understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, not our own interpretations of tweeting. Tweets are a primary source and your interpretation of them is original research. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control say about a topic. You won't be unblocked until you demonstrate a better understanding of these policies and there is no way you will be unblocked to edit about Snell at this time, so you will need to tell us what other topics you might edit about. I am declining your request. You won't have too many more chances to request unblock, so make the next one count. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
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.
my response: Hi. Thanks for your response. I found your response a little more explanatory compared to the other admins who refused to provide any explanation. I am not claiming I haven't done anything wrong. I just want to clearly understand what it is so I can avoid it. If I understood this correctly, there shouldn't be anything that can be construed as my own interpretation, right? So, if I posted the picture in her tweet with the description of "the girl who she claims is making a racist-fascist gesture"? Would that be considered appropriate? Please let me know. I might edit a variety of topics but I assure you I am not intentionally planning to interpret my own opinions on anything. So, if there is a mistake and I am notified about it, I am more than happy correcting it. Heyjudek (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Tweets are usually not acceptable as a source, as they are primary sources. What you need is an independent reliable source like a news report that discusses any gestures she makes. You are free to go on social media and claim someone is making racist gestures, but you can't do that here, you can only tell about the reporting of someone making such gestures. In any event, as I said, you will have to find a different topic to edit about. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Wait, I am not allowed to edit a topic because I added a tweet as a source? I can still add non-tweet sources by the way. Also, you literally have neo-nazi website as a source there, added by very "good faith" people I can imagine. Your profile literally says " I can't promise I won't make mistakes along the way, but I will correct them when pointed out or feel free to do so and inform me afterwards." but somehow me citing a tweet is an unforgivable sin?
- I have a user page, not a profile. No one has said it is an "unforgivable sin", but you must provide sufficient assurance that you understand what has gone wrong and commit to not repeat it. You clearly have an agenda with regards to Snell and until you have a sufficient edit history that demonstrates such an agenda will not creep into your editing, you won't now be permitted to contribute about her. That is not necessarily permanent, but it certainly applies now. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. In my previous comment I have attempted to explain what I thought my mistake was, was that reasonable? Also, let me be clear again. I have NO agenda whatsoever regarding Snell. It is that the article is missing critical info about her and violates BLP guidelines:
1) The article is using self-published resources such as Lindsey Snell's own website: ishgal.com and another website that uses her website to drive their point.
2) The article is also using a website owned by a neo-nazi - greekcitytimes.com
3) The article also uses an Armenian website (unverifiable) that cites her own website
How is it that no one noticed this until me?
In short, I don't appreciate you implying that I have some intention of malice regarding her. [removed BLP violation] and anything I would add about her would 100% comply with wikipedia guidelines. I can absolutely assure you about that. If you have doubts regarding anything I have said above, feel free to ask and I will be happy to elaborate. I will reiterate again that my ban is absolutely unwarranted. If someone just explained to me what went wrong, I would have applied that immediately. I hope I made my position clearer.
- I have removed your latest BLP violation above and revoked Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
is closed. User needs to avail themselves of the standard offer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)