User talk:AGSman61
March 2011
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Opération Harmattan, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Terrillja talk 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lybian state TV is not a reliable source. By any stretch of the imagination.--Terrillja talk 04:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I never said western media. I said something outside of Libya, which has been shown to be manipulating the media.--Terrillja talk 04:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
AGSman61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was contributing LEGITAMENT sources and information, and was cencored by Berak and Terrillja... the new wikipedia nazi movement, these two.
Decline reason:
Continued personal attacks is not likely to remedy a block for personal attacks. Kuru (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2011 (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.
- Note from blocking admin: I have had no involvement in the article content. The block was a direct result of your making repeated personal attacks, which you've repeated in your unblock request. Such requests are unlikely to result in your account being unblocked - but could potentially result in the block being extended and/or your talk page access being revoked. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
- --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
AGSman61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I provided legitament sources in relation to the current French operations in Libya. My sources were removed as being "unreliable" because of it being from Libya's government. And yet, they are SOURCED. That is called censorship! I demand my account to be unblocked in the name of the truth, and for the main reason: Certain users being biased and removing sourced information.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for making person attacks on other editors (eg, this and this. On the basis of your agressive comments in relation to your unblock requests (eg, [1], [2], [3] and [4]) it seems that you neither understand why you were blocked or intend to behave better, so I'm increasing the block duration to indefinite. Please take the time to review Wikipedia:Civility as you will need to explain how you intend to abide by it in the future if you request being unblocked. Please also note that any further attacks on editors here is likely to lead to your ability to edit this talk page being removed. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2011 (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.
Just an FYI: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/310436/france-denies-plane-shot-down-libya--Terrillja talk 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- And so because the French denied they lost a warplane, automatically makes it true. But if Libya denied losing the tanks the French claim to have destroyed, that would be "unreliable" wouldn't it, Terrillja? Biased, biased, biased. - AGSman61
- I never said if it was true or not. I didn't say you're wrong, see some web link. I said FYI. Information is power. Chill.--Terrillja talk 05:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- But it's okay for the French claim of destroyed tanks to stay up? You don't know if that claim is true or not. Libya has not admitted it. So therefore, you're logic is circular. You're being biased, and cencoring sourced information. - AGSman61
- I never said if it was true or not. I didn't say you're wrong, see some web link. I said FYI. Information is power. Chill.--Terrillja talk 05:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Terrillja, where is your evidence of the French or American claims? You claimed that the Libyan source lacks evidence and that it's an unreliable source. But you have no evidence to prove coalition claims. We use links as information... whether one is true or not is not up to you to decide. Wikipedia is supposed to be nutral and show both sides reports. Everything is a "report" not a fact that can be proven beyond doubt. All we have to go on with the French claims is a "report", a link... all we have to go on with the Libyan shot down claim is a "report", a link. So do tell me... whats the difference?? - AGSman61
{{unblock}}
- Since you don't seem able to move past personal attacks, I think we're done here. Kuru (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)