User talk:96.59.79.27

June 2024

Hello, I'm Rusty4321. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Julie Inman Grant seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 17:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rusty 4321 your assertion that my edits betray bias and yours a neutral point of view are as laughable as your primary funding coming from google-related entities and the Soros foundation.

Be advised, anybody who isn't brainwashed will call a censorship czar a censorship czar. And distinguish between work done for the regime controlling Australia and that people, when it has been denied fundamental human rights. 96.59.79.27 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We're all volunteers here. We work for free and the Foundation has little say in the content here.

I think that someone is referred mostly to as a "eSafety Commissioner" then the article should refer to her as that. Julie Inman Grant § Controversy already exists as a subsection in the article. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia is bought and paid for by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon--and people like you frequently monetize the position as a credential while seeking public employment. Besides, whether or not you are defending human rights abuses like the employment of regime censors out of misguided altruism, breathatking stupidity, or genuine ruthless evil is irrelevant to me.

The deployment of an unattributed assertion that anybody agrees to call her a commissioner of esafety in general rather than a eKaren or kommissar or censor is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. And the fact that she has an enormous budget to punish individuals who protest the regime, and has wrangled the right to be called that on mainstream platforms controlled by the government and CIA notwithstanding. 96.59.79.27 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I just reverted your change on the Julie Inman Grant article, just like @Rusty4321 did. This is because the claim didn't have a source - if you can find multiple reliable sources that calls her a "censorship czar" then it's arguably fine to mention that in the article. Wikipedia doesn't gain anything by pulling punches on people - if reliable sources say something negative about a person, then it probably belongs in the article (as long as it's relevant, notable, and well-sourced). But it needs to be from a reliable source and written in a neutral point of view. "Neutral point of view" doesn't mean "ignores anything negative", but it does mean the article can't cast judgement on the topic.

Regarding "people like you frequently monetize the position as a credential while seeking public employment" - I don't think saying "I waste my time editing Wikipedia for free" is a particularly good thing to have on a CV, and I don't think my boss would be happy about it either. BugGhost 🪲👻 10:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can criticize regime goons if the following newspapers run by regime allies agree.

Great system.

Muh npov.

Sure.

There's definitely no obvious analytical basis for thinking people to agree that a body which engages in obvious censorship is a censorship body. Let's say that's independent research or controversial and wait around with our hands up our butts waiting for The New York Times or some other MOCKINGBIRD infiltrated media organization with a well-documented history of distributing misinformation and intentional lies to burn obvious CIA assets.

This is totally a serious website run by altruistic thinkers who equally and evenly apply the rules. It's very impressive.

Also people totally apply to work for the CIA but decide not to work for the CIA because they "wouldn't be able to tell people that they work for the CIA if they worked for the CIA." That's a statement that makes sense and should be put uncritically in Ms Grant's article.

It's definitely no coincidence when they go to work for companies infiltrated by the CIA and in positions of political/social control for the governments of major US allies.

The appropriate thing would be refer to these people neutrally as public servants. 96.59.79.27 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just put statements like "Probably works for the CIA" on articles - surely you can understand why. We're trying to be accurate as possible here, and if there is no real, concrete, obvious evidence that has been published by a reliable source (no matter who owns it or operates it) then we can't include it in the article. You can have your own hunches and opinions on whatever you want - that's fine. But anything in the article needs to be backed by a reliable source - that's just how it works. I've just reverted your changes again, because it not in a neutral point of view, and it's not accurate (she's clearly not a "janitor"). Please stop changing the article just because you don't like the subject - that's not how this works. If you keep doing this, you'll probably get blocked for disruptive editing. BugGhost 🪲👻 12:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing simple, accurate statements.

Replacing them with obvious lies.

Complaining about disruption.

You've done everything but sip tea, bro.

Talking about reliable third-party sources in order to justify taking the self-report of someone with documented ties to the CIA.

Calling someone who uses men with guns to silence her political opponents.

Totally reasonable.

You should just report me to your goon overlords already, you were always going to do that.

You want to carry water for the regime, feel free. One day, maybe, you'll realize what you're doing is not only evil, it's really, really stupid. 96.59.79.27 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. _signed,Willondon (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. _signed,Willondon (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Also for violations of the biographies of living persons policy and sheer paranoid ranting. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Regime supporters demanding use of misleading positive language to label probable American CIA asset slash Australian censorship czar.

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:48, 13 June 2024 (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.

96.59.79.27 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Targeted harassment of pro-democracy edits by labour party goons 96.59.79.27 (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Requests with personal attacks are not considered. Requests with personal attacks when you are blocked for personal attacks is just not a smart thing to do, and are a reason to make the block longer, not remove it. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2024 (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.

July 2024

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Censorship in Australia, you may be blocked from editing. Martin^talk(sign) 18:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, it is not vandalism to remove irrelevant content like the private opinion of some self-appointed speech umpires. Do not impose a bunch of irrelevancies between the subject of the sentence and the verb. 96.59.79.27 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

RE:

Hi @96.59.79.27: First of all, don't leave something at the top of anyone's talk page. Second of all, you didn't specify why you deleted these things, so I thought that you were vandalizing. Next time when you think that some part of the article needs to be removed, just use the edit summary feature to tell other editors why these things need to be deleted. Third of all, that is not edit warring, because i thought it was vandalizing. Thanks.

Martin^talk(sign) 20:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rusty ^{talk contribs} 21:35, 4 July 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I complained about obvious vandalism and got banned by biased editors. 96.59.79.27 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your were blocked for abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox for your own opinions. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2024 (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.

It appears quite clear that I was banned for removing someone else's soapboxing and misuse of a non-reliable source as a normative source of truth on the topic of who has free speech. It is astonishing how quickly biased editors will pop out of the woodwork to c complain about someone citing "unreliable sources" for facts they don't like even when they include primary citations with videos of events that are being asserted--and yet you will allow qualitative assertions made by random ass parties to frame discourses on whether or not a country has free speech above the byline. Totally inconsistent and biased. 96.59.79.27 (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.