User talk:GeorgeSorrows

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this account indefinitely as it seemed the user was only here to cause trouble. In spite of warnings there seemed no attempt to change behavior. More tellingly, I saw no evidence in any of the edits that the operator of this account was here to improve the encyclopedia. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --John (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Uh, well, last time I was posting here I saw a warning that read "if you continue to attack other users". Can you show me *any part* of that response I posted to "Mograg thE Warcraft Ogre" (or whatever) which shows me actually attacking him? I don't believe you can. and if you can't, you should unblock me and apologise because clearly I didn't break any rules. You may think I was being unpleasant about the person or people we were discussing, but that doesn't count as an attack on him. So clearly I didn't do anything wrong. You only said to stop attacking other users (which I only did once in the distant past) and I did stop. Obviously since I didn't attack anybody, I can only assume your actions must be motivated by dislike of my daring to disagree with the Anointed One. Being frank about a topic does not count as "attacking other editors", I'm afraid, unless it's actually about THEM. Which it wasn't, I was being frank about the topic I was discussing. It might hurt your feelings, but it's not an attack. You obviously misinterpret your own rules. I was in fact the one being attacked. I made a suggestion on the talk page of an article and it was roundly deleted by someone with no justification for doing so, and a foul mouth. And then later someone was attacking me with blatantly fatuous "complaints" about my username (which I've had for months without anyone complaining), which were obviously motivated by his inability to handle opposing views, and was clearly an hysterical and unhinged reaction to my daring to point out just one little example of the shriekingly liberal bias omnipresent on Wikipedia. Obviously none of thise constitutes an "attack" on other editors. I can only follow the rules you give me as they come to me.. I did stop attacking other editors (after the one time). ))

Decline reason:

"Being frank about a topic" means that you're using opinion, and not reliable sources. As an encyclopedia, we have no room for that. The only positive edit you have made was when you went back and signed a post that you had forgotten to sign. As you were already made aware of the administrators noticeboard for incidents discussion about you, you can personally see exactly what got you blocked - which was a combination of WP:BLP violations, and attitude. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 26 July 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

There are thousands of iterms on the Glenn Beck talk page (and practically every other page) that are merely suggestions that don't come with a "reliable source". So why does mine get deleted and how does that constitute a blocking offence? And there is someone at the bottom of the page calling him a "blithering idiot", and yet somehow that hasn't been deleted for being a "BLP violation". My comment about Soros was not on Soros' article, it was in a conversation with another editor, so I fail to see how that constitutes a "libellous" attack on him. Of course it doesn't, these are just trumped up charges.

Decline reason:

You appear to think that your block is related to a single inappropriate edit? I have reviewed your contribution history, and found that most of your edits were inappropriate- you appear to be here to promote your own opinions, and to make fun of and insult everyone who disagrees with you. That can be fun on an internet forum, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- what we do here is share verifiable facts, and get along in a reasonably friendly, collaborative way with people we disagree with. Since your contributions indicate that you want to be participating on a forum, and have simply accidentally chosen the wrong web site, the block will help you find your way to a web site that uses the writing style and interpersonal style you enjoy. Free Republic might be more to your taste. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:16, 26 July 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The previous responder did not answer either of my questions, they merely repeated their tedious "opinion" of my contributions to Wikipedia. They could not actually justify, based on the written rules, why I was blocked. Clearly because there is no justification.

Decline reason:

Block is justified; editor's attitude is clearly at variance with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP. We don't need editors who make contributions like "totalitarian scumbag"] and "his asshole tastes good"]; you should have been banned in March. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:36, 26 July 2010 (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.

Yes, the rules that you are breaking are WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Sorry; I thought you'd already been linked to them. Please note that continuing to make unblock requests that promise to edit in the same way in the future is never going to result in your being unblocked, but will eventually result in the disabling of your talk page, when admins get tired of responding to unproductive requests. Useful requests for unblock address the reason for your block, and include your plan for editing differently in the future. If you sincerely want to be a useful contributor, you might consider, after acknowledging the combative, point-of-view-pushing nature of your edits so far, a promise to avoid political topics and edit in some area in which you have less passionate feelings until you're more familiar with Wikipedia. List of Irish cheeses still needs research and writing, for example. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find WP:FIVE interesting reading- it's the fundamental principles that Wikipedia works by. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have still failed to explain how one suggestion that I made in a talk page, that is just like a million others that go unpunished, somehow warrants an indefinite ban. Instead you have repeated false charges of "Bias" when in fact I was trying to remove bias in articles from Wikipedia, specifically the Glenn Beck article. GeorgeSorrows (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just to clarify for the 99th time, I was asking you to clarify why this particular non-incident on the Glenn Beck talk page justifies any action at all. Not the ancient warning I received for "being uncivil" that pre-dates Charles Darwin, or any other "history" you might care to mention.

{{unblock|"Please note that continuing to make unblock requests that promise to edit in the same way in the future is never going to result in your being unblocked"

I didn't promise anything, now you are putting words in my mouth.

"the combative, point-of-view-pushing nature of your edits so far"

I was actually removing to work POV weasel words from articles, including Glenn Beck.

I'm so sorry, you clearly misunderstand the rules because you actually consider any attempt to restore neutrality is in fact an attempt to establish a "POV". That is not the case. Maybe you should read the rules again calmly, without allowing your politics to cloud your mind. You still have refused to answer my question, if you do so a third time it must simply be because you have no answer. I made a suggestion on a talk page that was just like millions of others which go unpunished, do you care to explain how that somehow should result in an indefinite block?

You are entitled to whatever opinion of my previous contributions your brain can muster, but I'm already tired of sitting through them, and no matter how many times you repeat lines you learned from The Daily Show, none of it explains how this non-offense warrants an indefinite block (or any action at all).}

As you're only allowed to have 1 active unblock request, which one would you like declined? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever one you can actually justify. (Which is none of them). GeorgeSorrows (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question. GeorgeSorrows (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I'm just going to leave this here, if I come back and see that you still haven't answered my question, I'm going to assume it's because you can't, and you are just brazen power whores who enjoy banning people in the hope that it'll make you feel better about the Democrats getting wiped out in November. You're free to prove me wrong of course by simply answering the question (but of course you can't).

Clearly there is nothing wrong with stating an opinion on the talk page of an article. Your vague accusations that I have been "uncivil" fail to point out specifically in what way I was uncivil, so how am I supposed to "promise I won't do it again" if you can't actually explain what I did wrong?

And your request for me to "stay away from political topics" shows an inherent and smug political bias, the fact that someone dares to disagree with a leftist circle jerk does not make someone "unqualified" to participate in a debate on Wikipedia, obviously the admins here are so used to their backslapping leftist culture, they think that disagreeing with His Obamaness, King Obama I constitutes "uncivil behaviour". GeorgeSorrows (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled your second unblock request, since you only need one open unblock request at a time. Please note that you've asked us to 'point out specifically in what way I was uncivil' in the same message in which you use the phrases 'leftist circle jerk' and 'brazen power whores.' If the problem is truly not that you are choosing to be rude, but that you don't understand what politeness is, then I don't think there are any rules you can read on Wikipedia that will help you- we tend to assume that you learned the basic rules of politeness from your parents while you were still a child, and don't take on the responsibility of teaching them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is answering your question about a specific edit at Talk:Glenn Beck because it isn't an important question. I'm not even sure which edit you are asking about, because you made several. You are blocked because a look at the full range of your edits shows that you are causing more disruption than good to the encyclopedia. You haven't acknowledged the disruption, choosing instead to continue making accusations based in US politics and to insult everyone with whom you come in contact. Your insults indicate that you don't understand that Wikipedia is an international project- there are many users here, including at least three who've talked with you here on your talk page, who are from countries other than the US, where US concepts of 'right' and 'left' are not meaningful, and where President Obama is just another foreign head of state. They aren't blocking you for your politics- your politics are not even particularly interesting to them, except to the extent that you're disrupting the encyclopedia with them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is unimportant, why did you indefinitely ban me for it? I had a short history of vandalism that occured 200 years ago, for which I was not banned. Then in the last 24 hours I put forward a reasonable opinion on the Glenn Beck talk page, and suddenly I am banned. Obviously that was why I was banned, not the "full range of this, full range of that" that you keep blathering on about while avoiding my main question. GeorgeSorrows (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that User:John probably noticed the combative tone of the comments at Talk:Glenn Beck and the combative tone of your response to the question about your username, and looked back at your edit history to see if you were just having a bad day, or if you always spoke so rudely to others. Noticing that you have a long history of rudeness, and haven't become more polite even after being told about the civility rule, it would have been reasonable for him to conclude that neither time at Wikipedia nor warnings about the rules would help you become more polite. However, I'm not User:John, so I could be wrong. He could have chosen a shorter block, of course, but it isn't unreasonable for him to block you until such a time as you demonstrate that you understand how to talk politely to others, and are likely to do so in the future. Instead, though, you've so far demonstrated that either you don't understand how to talk politely to others, or aren't willing to do so in the future- you haven't been able to talk politely even in this situation, where you're asking administrators who didn't block you and haven't encountered you before to lift your block. None of them have done anything to you, and yet you've been consistently hostile to every person who you've asked to review your block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the truth is that a left wing wannabe-dictator found the flimsiest excuse to ban me based on a gazillion year old "warning" that I got before the universe was even formed, while there are millions of comments describing Beck as an idiot or whatever on the talk page, and none of those are taken down for "incivility". Even a minus 3 year old unborn fetus that is still swimming around in testicles can see this is a case of harrassment by an insane bunch of Marxist zealots whose pitiful mangled brains suffer from decades of counter-intuitive pummeling by tweed jacketed morons who hold secret shrines to genocidal dictators, and if they had even a shred of a clue they would realise that fastidiously whitewashing Wikipedia won't make Obama's or the Democrat's problems go away. GeorgeSorrows (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific complaint against you is here. It doesn't mention Obama, the US Democrats, or tweed. I won't respond to you again, because the last comment you've made seems to make it clear that you will never be willing to interact peacefully with people with whom you disagree, nor will you be able to let go of your assumption that American politics are the most important motivators of everyone's actions. It's clear that there's nothing I can say to you that will be helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|"you should have been banned in March." then why didn't you? I know why, because back in March you still thought your precious Christbama was going to win the day in November. This harrassment of me is the kind of stuff that George Orwell was thinking of when he wrote 1984.}

Because you are continuing to make unblock requests which do not acknowledge the reason for your block, nor present a good plan for editing differently in the future, I have disabled your access to this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]