User talk:NI4D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is a sock puppet of DavidYork71, and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to contributions for evidence.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71

[edit] So, what's going on?

Are you a Mike Gravel supporter who has today decided to flag all the Mormon founding fathers as belonging in category Racism? Just asking, and wondering. Or is this some kind of false flag operation? --CliffC 04:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Only the ones which actually were racist, or pandered to it. That would be pretty much all of them, wouldn't it now? Also please remember to shove any un-[WP:AGF]ing right back where it came from. I would do no less myself, bro :) NI4D 04:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot call someone racist at a time when slavery was legal. In context, none of the statements of Brigham Young at the time were considered racist at all. Context!!! Should you mark every biography pre-Civil War as racism? Bytebear 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You assuredly can and they bring it on themselves. A racist is a racist is a racist in any place or time. Self-manufactured poison. These are villains who weren't just thumbs-up on slavery, they were thumbs up on racism too with their notorious Mormon Negro doctrine. They abide in dishonour and it's helpful to appropriately tag them for propagandising such view. Yes, they sure kept the niggers down and there isn't scope in this project for divorcing them from the ownership of their professed thoughts and actions.NI4D 04:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Brigham Young. Kept the niggers ('scuse me) out from responsible office in the church he led and presided over. Clear racist pronouncements and upholding of racist doctrine. He earns the medal and he's rightly tagged. An open and notorious racist who will now be known for all time as such - and beneath contempt.NI4D 04:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to read up on your early Mormon history. Clearly you are pushing a POV. Bytebear 04:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend before continuing to assign articles to the racist category you take a spin through Wikipedia:Categorization, which says "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." Also check out Wikipedia:Overcategorization, which says "If it cannot be verified that X is a Y, then X doesn't belong in a cat with Y. But conversely, not every verifiable fact in an article requires an associated category." --TrustTruth 04:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding categories without consensus. To do so, after being warned, can constitute vandalism. --Haemo 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been warned numerous times. You have been reported. If you continue, you will be banned for 24 hours. See WP:3RR Bytebear

Yes, fear facts, run to mommy and don't join into discussion and appraisal. The telling demonstration of editorial style and essential character.NI4D 05:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. --Haemo 05:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for violating WP:3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Steve (Stephen) talk 05:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The complainant has deceived by alleging four reverts when the first cited edit was not a revert. This is obvious; just see the definition of what a reversion is and isn't in WP:3RR . It was a novel introduction (supply of new category, no deletion or amendment of a prior editor's contribution). The number of reversion was just 3 - the same number as the complainant! Next time take the care to check and be not so eagerly and readily pandering to efforts evocative of the most craven LGBT-style run-to-mommy crybabying - my advice.NI4D 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC))"

Decline reason: "I count one initial addition of the category and then four reverts. As for the other users User:Bytebear had three and User:TrustTruth had one — Selket Talk 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.


Although banned, this user continued to edit under the anonymous user 203.49.244.253. He has not been as agressive, however. Bytebear 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Because of your evasion with 203.49.244.253, I have reset your block and extended it to 31 hours. Metros232 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)