User talk:Robheus
Welcome!
Hello, Robheus, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Robheus, a lot of editors are working very hard to create a neutral and complete article. You have made a number of comments that are counterproductive. Now, that article falls under discretionary sanctions, which means that admins have fairly broad latitude to prevent disruption, and blocking editors is one of our means. A quick look at your most recent comments is instructive: this is soapboxing, and this is just dumb--the age-old "I am being oppressed" line. Certainly, one more remark like this one, about the "fascist Kiev government" (and you made a similar remark here) and you will be blocked.
As for this "western intelligence" jive, I've already explained to you that Wikipedia does not report "intelligence", it reports reliable sources (the Russian media don't have much of a reputation for free press, so that's unfortunate for your position), and thus your entire critique is based on a false assumption. Continuing to harp on it is disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)- Robheus, after examining your edits, particularly that at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and that at User talk:Drmies made after the final warning above, I have revoked your editing rights indefinitely. Neutral point of view is one of our cardinal principles here, and the article in question is subject to discretionary sanctions by ruling of the Arbitration Committee. To be unblocked, you will need to convince another administrator that you will either suspend your political point of view in your edits here, or that you will avoid articles subject to the Arbcom ruling on Eastern European topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Robheus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
1. I did not edit any wiki page, only made edit requests on the Talk page about the downing of Malaysian MH17, so why am I being blocked? I did not disrupt anyone's editing, only made some comment in existing sections and added some new sections. Added sections were about the official US state dept. position (which was not mentioned at the time I made that section, and the wikipage only mentions 'anonymous' sources). TILL THIS MOMENT NEITHER THE UKRAIN GOVT. NOR THE US GOVT. HAVE SHOWN ANY PROOF OF THEIR ALLEGATIONS! They only appeal to 'blog entries' and 'audio tapes' but real evidence (satelite images, radar data, radio communication with the plane) are not released.
2 It's not only the russians which doubt the American/Ukranian version of the tragedy, but a dutch media outlet (RTL nieuws) shares the doubt too. Read this article: Waar blijven Amerika's bewijzen? (article in dutch). And a lot of other independend media have shared the same doubts. All they say is that there is not enough evidence for the accusations made by Ukrain govt. and US govt., and that they should reveal their evidence. I (nor other independend sources) claim something else. And please notice that a large part of world opinion shares these doubts about the incident and the "official version" created by the fascists Ukrain govt. and their US allies.
3. Regarding the Wiki policy of blocking my account. One of the reasons is supposedly my mention of the Kiev government as 'fascist'. Before I made that remark some other wikipedian however called Putin a fascist. THAT user did not get a warning. The difference is: wether you like Putin or not, he is not a fascist. The Ukrain govt. however is rightly labelled 'fascist' because they are backed up by notorious fascist groups (they call the russian speaking minority "subhumans" for example which they want to "exterminate" -- see: subhumans); they attacked communists and trade unions and burnt down their offices, they are targetting civilians in their military campaigns in eastern ukrain, the right-wing groups use nazi symbols, etc. So labelling the Kiev govt. as fascists is a factual thing. And by the way, this was done in a talk page comment, I never touched the article itself!
Why do you wiki authorities have something against labelling fascists as fascists? That is not a matter of opinion, but of fact.
And just after a week past this tragic incident, the Ukrain govt. all of a sudden resigns.
4. I protest against the policies of wiki editors to block users who go against the US dominated policies in these world affairs. The world has been mislead by so-called US intelligence before, and that is enough reason to be critical of such claims, when there is a lack of objective evidence. I only made remarks that show how biased the article really is. And added some relevant news sources (or requests for that) on the talk page.
One of my critic point is that the article cites unofficial US accounts, while the US state dept. already made an official account (which shows that their 'proof' is based on "sociale media" statements, not hard evidence!!) so, THAT should be mentioned, instead of "anonymous sources".
Wikipedia should be very critical indeed on that matters, and preferrably use the official sources, not anonymous ones! We know that the US is all to eager to wage another war and try to drag the europeans in fighting a war against russia over ukrain. That is one reason to be critical!
Robheus (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your unblock request is continuing the same behavior that got you blocked. If you wish to be unblocked, please first read our guide to appealing blocks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:35, 26 July 2014 (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.
Some additions to this:
While the dutch/international research team tries to visit the scene of the incident, the Kiev offensive in the neighourhood of this tragic incident blocks those attempts, causing increasing frustration amongst Dutch parliament members. They probably need to reconsider their trust in the Kiev fascist junta. See this dutch story in VN.
Meanwhile also more civilians have been killed due to Kiev military offensive in this region, and Kiev now also uses surface-to-surface missiles. This kind of attack on the population is more properly called genocide: See the story on Landdestroyer and this story.
More importantly, some experts point at the fact that the kind of holes visible in the debris of MH17 point to the use of ammunition of the kind SU-25 is able of carrying, and can not have been caused by an exploding BUK missile. See this article by a German expert. ((wether this expert is right or wrong, I do not know, but at least the kind of holes that were visible in the debris, DO provide a clue and possible IMPORTANT clue, to what kind of weapon system was in fact used or not used, so at least that kind of research IS important))
The official research team (which are still investigating, although hindered by the Kiev regime) and hope to be able to produce their conclusions within a month.
Another Dutch newspaper mentions the possibility that already american troops have been stationed in Ukrain. Read the story here.
Wiki policies.....
While I have not even been touching the article, just expressed disconsent about the suggestions the article makes (like the MSM does) framing russian and/or seperatist involvement without any proper investigation (also: citing anonymous sources and/or social media sources or sources that have a dubious source, like the fabricated tapes made by the Kiev fascist junta) and only proposed to add sources, for instance russian inteligence which show FACTS, which shed some other perspective in how this incident might have been caused.
Critizing a (possible) bias of Wikipedia article, without having touched the article, is no reason to ban or block someone.
Furthermore, the Wiki police leaves comments on the Talk page (like : Putin labelling as fascists) unpunished, while my comment, labeling the Kiev junta as fascists, was the main cause for a ban or block.
However, the Wiki polici should consider the multitude of factual evidence at the basis of which the Kiev regime can be rightly labelled fascists, because they happen to have significant back up from ultra right-wing groups, using neo-nazi symbols, burning down offices of labour unions and the communist party of ukrain (which now got banned from parliament too) and demolishing war/anti-fascist monument all over Ukrain.
So if you expose those attrocities and make the comment that the Kiev regime is fascist, and indiscriminately target the civilian population in eastern ukrain (which these nazi gangs want to "exterminate" and call the russian speaking minority "subhuman"), you get BANNED from wikipedia!!!
I DO PROTEST AGAINST THIS FASCISTS WIKIPEDIA POLICY!!!!! (at least the Wiki Editor police leaves labelling Putin as fascist un-punished, while in that case, there are no facts to back-ip such a claim!!! (the expression fascist is then unproperly used to show strong dislike, but not everything one dislikes is properly fascist - the Kiev regime on the other hand is murdering Ukrainians and has made clear that they intend to wipe out russian minorities from their soil, calling them "sub-human" !!!!! What more facts do Wikipedia need to label some govt. or group fascist????)
Please remember that 24 million russians were killed by the nazi's during WWII, and that Ukrain was (before WWII) one of the countries with the most severe persecution of jews!!!
(or does Wiki suggest, the 24 million russians killed in WWII was all Putin's fault????)
That same type of nazi-scum (still using their nazi-symbols!!) is now ruling the country, killing it's civilians (it is a FACT that the Ukrain military started the hostilities, not the seperatists!!! They had a REFERENDUM with a clear OUTCOME: 80% of the people rejected the nazi-coup!!!).
Wiki Neutrality at stake
So Wiki says they block me, because of their neutral policies. What is that neutrality?? Giving credibility to fascist junta in Kiev who fabricate so-called evidence and mislead the world (blaming it all on Russia....) Fact is that everybode made statements on that talk page that were very far from neutral, but only some got punished for that!!! The neutrality of the article is still at stake, because at least the article SUGGESTS that the causes direct to the seperatists having shot a BUK missile that downed the airplane.
AT THIS MOMENT THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE HAVE NOT SHOWED THEIR FINAL RESULTSTS!!! So anything that is being said or suggested, should be regarded with high suspicion, and most of all: UNCREDIBLE SOURCES SHOULD NOT EVEN BE MENTIONED!!
(that supposedly is WIKI POLICY right???)
The indisputable facts are amongst others, the number of victims, the place of the incident, the nationalities of the victims, and such like.
About CAUSES we simply do not know the full truth yet, and untill some more reliable investigation report has been presented, even the SUGGESTION as to what the causes were, should not even be in the article. Because ANY SUGGESTION always lead to a certain BIAS!!! (which gets exploited anyhow: the economic sanctions are already in place for instance, while we do not know any russian involvement!!)
SO MY CRITIQUE REMAINS THAT THE ARTICLE (not the whole article, but that specific section which speculates about possible causes) IS BIASED, HENCE VIOLATES WIKI'S NEUTRALITY POLICY!
AT THAT POINT THE ARTICLE CLEARLY VIOLATES NEUTRALITY, BECAUSE THE ARTICLE DOES SUGGEST A PROBABLE CAUSE WITHOUT BACKING THAT CLAIM WITH FACTS!!
All kind of comments, that elaborate on that (possible or probably FALSE statements and FALSE accusations of russian and/or seperatist involvement) did not get punished by the Wiki police!!!!!
So, the POLICY of Wiki has been to ban people that make comments which were not in line with that fabricated (and still UNCONFORMED) story (a story clearly fabricated in advance by the fascist ukrain junta)!!!!!
While I never touched the article itself, I did not add, remove or update any entry in the Wiki article, only pleaded for some additions and removals IN ORDER FOR THE ARTICLE TO BE SOMEWHAT LESS BIASED, and if Wiki merely wants to eliminate all kind of remarks which were already in the article before I made any contribution'which show a strong bias (all my comments were REACTIONS to those biased points of view, merely showing the other side of that bias), it should simply eliminate all those entries which do not add anything to the article itself, without punishing some commentors and leave others unpunished!!!
THAT POLICY SHOWS THAT WIKI POLICIES HAVE NOT BEEN NEUTRAL!!!
Robheus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
'The wiki policies do not demonstrate any fairness or neutrality on that matter.
Let us review some facts: 1. The Talk page was already full of all kind of biased comments before I even started to make a comment. I only appealed to what can be called Wiki's own standard for neutrality. The article itself was clearly biased in the direction of blaming the russians/seperatists for downing MH17 (at a moment in time such could not be concluded).
2. Some commentor labeled Putin fascist. Was he punished? No! Why not? He clearly misused the word 'fascist' to express strong discontent with Putin, without that such can be factually stated. Putin never expressed any opinions which can be regarded as being 'fascist'. (and wether you 'strongly dislike Putin, does not give you the right to call him a fascist) The Ukrain govt. and the supporting groups (like Svoboda) clearly DO express fascists like mentality and policies (wanting to exterminate the russian minoroties, showing nazi symbols and being proud of a nazi collaborator, etc.), which makes laveling Kiev junta fascists something FACTUAL. They DO kill civilians in eastern Ukrain, and these fascists have made clear of why they are doing that: to "cleanse" the country from "subhumans"!!! Is that FACIST policy or not???
Punishing me for making such a comment on a talk page, while not punishing some other commentor, which makes unjustified and very biased comments, is (again) NOT NEUTRAL!!!!
Calling the beast by it's name, calling fascists fascists, and PUNISHING THAT is also clearly NOT NEUTRAL!!!
((and also please remember that Russia did have the highest civil casualties in WWII -- please review your history because you do not seem to know how sensitive such matter are for the russians!!))
3. So the WIKI police forbids me to even in a unblock request to make political comments? What are you guys? I can freely choose the kind of arguments I need to make to address the failure of Wiki in maintaining their oww - supposedly neutral - policies!!!! BECAUSE ALL THE WIKI POLICE USE TERMS WHICH CAN RIGHTLY LABEL THEM AS 'POLITICAL' (calling me stalinist, etc.)
Your policies are not neutral, because mentioning factual things becomes something you can be banned for (like calling the Kiev junta fascists, and that is not just a matter of opinion or something that is only expressed in words by these fascists, but is material reality, cause the Kiev fascists are massively killing civilians in eastern Ukrain!!!!) -- so I am NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS GENOCIDE AND LABEL THAT AS FASCIST????
Sorry guys you have no idea how distorted you perceive reality!!!!.
"Genocidal" has been misused in many instances by the US (or so-called "human rights organisations") itself, but then labelling something that IS FACTUAL GENOCIDAL, all at once is being punished based on Wikipedia NEUTRAL POLICIIES?????
(do you Wiki politicians also want to rewrite history, and punish people that call the nazi's fascist??)
4. Besides that I did not even touch the main article (about the MH17 downing, nor any other article as far as I know) and besides some comments which merely were only REACTIONS to biased comments made by others (did they got punished for that? No! Another proof that the Wiki police is not acting neutrally and only punishes SOME baises and not others.....) I only PLEADED for adding some sources or deleting some sources, in order for the article to become LESS biased!!!
These pleads are factual in line with WIKI's own proclaimed NEUTRALITY (but which they do not live up to), because the article had a strong anti-russian bias and already made false accusations against the seperatists/russians (citing them wrongly, what the way is the MSM distorts the truth which we seen before over and over again).
I have never made any claim on what the (likely or probable) cause of this tragic incident was, but only showed that what we have been told (and been told before in many previous instances of international conflict, while in many such cases research has proved that the initial accusations were FALSE -- please lookup Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi WMD, etc. etc.!!!!) might not be the truth!!!!
Most probable in this case history repeats, and while the world population is being withhold the real truth, the CIA and the Kiev regime push their fabricated lies as truth and finish their evil genocide in Ukrain, like the nazis did!
For instance the kind of damage on the debris might pretty well indicate the likely kind of ammunition or weapon system used, because they leave marks on the hull which enables identification with high accuracy, and which in any case is more credible sort of evidence then speculation on social media or fabricated tapes!!!!
Since we do not yet have an OBJECTIVE FULL INVESTIGATION (and perhaps never will have), this still holds of course!!!
Please also consider that dutch parliament is growingly dissatisfied with the Kiev policies that attack military the crash site!
Which merely proofs that the discontent is not just amongst "pro-russians" (i am not "pro-russian" but refuse to be "anti-russian" like the MSM campaigns for in their biased reports!!!)
5. Violations of Wiki's policies in the article.
Why does the article cite anonymous US spokesmen which do only speculate and add to the disinformation (when we HAVE already an official US statement, so there is no need to speculate!! The US state dept. declaration is clear enough: Russian involvement can not be proven!!!); why are blog/social media entries somehow a credible source of information (referring to posts on social media ascribed to seperatists statements on the downing of MH17) - again that is another source of bias in the article which make the article not neutral.
The whole point is of course that this whole bias already accused the russians and the seperatists, while no proof of what actually happened has been established!
Fact is also that Kiev and the US WITHOLD IMPORTANT INFORMATION (satelite images -- radio communcation with flight MH17)
The MSM already made their accusations, and indoctrinate the masses (all Mass media are CONTROLLED as we know, and can be proven to be not independend of control by corporations!!! some fact the wiki police does not want to hear, because they only accuse RT of being a propaganda instrument of the Kremlin (putin must be really busy controlling all the news articles RT brings...and at the same time busy shipping all those BUK missiles to seperatists...) -- seems like the Wiki police only wants to hear the corporate media brainwashing!!!)
6. Summary
WIKI's own proclaimed 'policies' are that they want to be a trustfull and credible source, independend of corporate or state interests.
In a highly controversial article, like the MH17 case, all sorts of biased conclusions and biased suggestions were ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE and all over the Talk page, before I made my plea for a more NEUTRAL and FACTUAL article.
What is wrong with that?
I did made some comments, which maybe also show some bias (but again: not ever in the article itself!) WHICH WERE ONLY REACTIONS TO BIASED COMMENTS OF OTHERS!!! If Wiki wants to punish that, then fine BUT THEN PUNISH ALL THOSE WHO MADE SIMILAR COMMENTS ( and MOST OVER: those that made such biased comments in the article itself!!!), and not arbitrarily only of those that very doubt the US/Kiev reading of the incident (which neither of them gave substantial proof of and/or are withholding information that are important for the independent research).
(and btw. it is not only the russians that put doubt on the US/Kiev point of view but numerous (independend) media have expressed serious doubt about what the US/Kiev claim!!!!! In Wiki police terms, all those media are then 'conspiracists' or 'propagandists' of the Kremlin????? How 'neutral' a comment is that???)
So if someone says: Putin is a fascists and I make the comment that the Kiev regime itself is fascist, then 1) WHY DO ONLY I GET PUNISHED and 2) WHAT IS FACTUAL WRONG WITH THAT STATEMENT (I can add loads of evidence for it!!!)
CLearly this to me means that Wiki's policies are NOT NEUTRAL and already has "buyed" into this framing tacticts of the CIA and the Kiev fascist junta for making it look like this whole tragedy was "all the fault of Putin".
(we already know that the real reason the US is against Putin/russia, and want to frame russia in all kind of provocations and incidents, because Russia, China, Brazil, India and South-africa are heading to a new world valuta system, independend of the dollar !!! )
Again as I mentioned, that is not what historical facts proof, since the Kiev regime started the shooting in the first place, not the seperatists, they were defending the civilian population! They have nothing to win by downing a civilian airplane, while the Kiev junta is trying to win NATO support for their genocidal campaing in eastern Ukrain !! Genocide performed with the help of NATO has occured before recently in the case of Libya-- please revisit how the Libyan rebels killed massively black Libyans and cleaned out whole cities of black population, under the falses spread lies and pretense that black libyans were recruited by khadaffi as insurgents.... That is how MSM lies work guys, that is how NAZI propaganda works (and that is how the nazi's started all their wars and attrocities)!!!!
MY LAST REMARK TO THIS:
The Wiki police is simply helping the Kiev fascist junta in "cleansing" the territory of Ukrain from russian speaking citizins (who are in their point of view "subhuman"), which made clear in a democratic referendum that they don't trust their Kiev govt. after the putsch and want to be independent, and so helping the nazi's to finish their job.... So the WIKI article about MH17 that already accuses the seperatists is STRONG SUPPORT for theit ethnic cleansing, while at the same time WITHOUT ANY PROOF!
Wiki should be ashamed of themselves helping spread fascists lies and misuse our dead bodies of the civilians that were killed in the tragic downing of MH17 to launch another military campaign, killing tens or hundreds of people, all based on lies!!!
Don't forget that 23 million russians died by the nazi regime, and they sure know better as anyone else what fascism is!!!
Decline reason:
One of the longest rants passed off as an unblock request I've seen in quite a while. Congratulations on that if nothing else, because you sure aren't going to get unblocked that way. You are lucky that WP:TLDR and WP:WALLS aren't valid reasons to deny unblock requests. However, WP:AGF, or rather the failure to do so, is, and the grand conspiracy theories and Godwin's law violations you end with take that to the level of personal attacks. Goodbye. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2014 (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.
Robheus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Which means in other words that the Wiki admins do in fact aid the fascists and helps them spreading their lies, since they are not blocking their wiki edits, but only of those that go against them!
All you guys do is adding some mumbo jumbo meaningless technical terms, to justify attacking a wikipedian, who only pleaded for some LESS bias in the article and for some more NEUTRALITY.
And that is a factual statement. Wiki admins have personally attacked me and calling me names for whatever reason, just showing their own personal bias. SO DON'T BLAME ME FOR DOING THE SAME (or at least that is what you accuse me of), STARTED BY YOU ADMINS!!
So, wikipedia is there for anyone to edit --- provided of course you buy into the Kiev/US or other western fabricated lies.......
I have given you guys some FACTS about the article (and how it is not conforming to neutrality) and my minimal contribution on the talk page, which already had massive bias on that page, for which others were not punished.
Which proofs that the Wiki admins show great biases themselves!
And for your information: conspiracies do exist, nazism is one of them (and they are still around). But probably you have been too blind to see that.
The administrators, besides coming up with all kind of technical mumbo jumbo to hide their own anti-russian/anti-putin bias, simply do not give ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT that justifies their actions for banning me for doing soething, that not only happened on a massive scale on that page before I made any contribution, BUT STILL GOES ON ON THAT SAME PAGE. All kind of edits that speculate on the possible causes, or expressing very biased opinions and interpretings prematurely all kind of "evidence" -- which in anyway show that "holding up neutrality" on that page, is not what Wikipedia administrators are doing!!!
For example, expressing the opinion that the kind of damage done to the airplane as visible to the damage we see on the debris, and expressing that only a BUK missile could have done that, is simply premature judgement.
We have to wait for the final report of the investigation commission, if that indeed is the only possible explenation, or else that is just a biased opinion.
Then why are the Wikipedia administrators do tolerate that sort of biased opinions on the talk page, while disallowing others?
One could for instance as well express the opinion that the kind of damage visible to the debris, must have been caused by air-to-air shooting by ammunition that could have only come from the SU-25 on board weapon system and not by a BUK missile. (and btw. some german specialist, has been saying exactly that, contradicting those that see in the debris the "proof" of a BUK missile. He also uses the argument that when a BUK missile was used, the plane would have exploded long before it had hit the ground, because of the high kinetic energy of the fragments hitting the airplane, which clearly DID NOT HAPPEN!!).
The first opinion is as arbitrary as the second and both are prematurely!!
Being neutral in that respect would not discriminate one opinion against the other, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE WIKI ADMINS DO! They think that some opinions are better then others, and ban the wikipedian that expresses THIS opinion and allow another wikipedian that has THAT opinion to continue adding their biased conclusions.
The only way the Wikipedia can be neutral in that circumstances is to indiscriminately allow OR disallow all such speculations and/or judgements. That would be fair policy.
What the Wiki admins are doing now is simply DISCRIMINATE some judgements and opinions over others!!!
And the discrimination is AGAINST those that do not buy into the Kiev/US lies, and PRO that do buy into those lies!!!
So you Wiki admins are simply unfaithfull and do not live up to your own standards.
So sending me a comment in which you refer to those standards, is NOT PROVIDING AN ANSWER OR ARGUMENT since my argument is that Wiki adinistrators how strong bias in applying those standards!!!!
Like I said, I did not plead for the article to become biased but then just in the reverse (showing anti-NATO/Kiev/US bias and/or pro-russian/seperatists bias) but I pleaded for APPLYING WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS FOR NEUTRALITY, but then applied RIGHTLY and without the BIAS the admin proofs to have.
And lastly, here is some other information, which at least proofs that not all western countries buy into the Kiev/CIA lies.
Germany raises serious doubts about Kiev
Berlin zweifelt erstmals an Kiew: Ukrainische Armee beschießt Absturzstelle
neues deutschland: NVA-Raketenspezialist: MH17 nicht von Boden-Luft-Rakete abgeschossen
Media: MH17: Duitse experts wijzen naar Ukraïense gevechtsvliegtuigen!
Amerikaner werden nervös: Hat die Ukraine den Abschuss von MH17 ausgelöst?
And finally here is some story an (ukrainian/Canadian) investigator that was 10 days researching the crime site, tells
When asked what (at 5:45 approx.)) he thinks we know about the causes, he answers that some pieces look like they have been under heavy machine gun fire, and further he tells that no part of any missile has been found.
Now he says looks like which does not mean that one can be sure that the damage is done by a machine gun, but then again: can we really exclude the possibility that flight MH17 was downed by machine gun?
All I know is that we can not yet exclude that possibility, and if some marks can be found on the debris which can tell what kind of ammunition was used, and wether a Buk missile or a machine gun from a military plane was used, which for sure the investigation team will be looking for, only THEN we can say what really happened.
And untill then, all efforts to 'blame the russians' or 'blame the seperatists' are PREMATURE in my opinion.
IN DISPUTE THIS MEANS THAT ADMINS WHO WANT TO PRETEND THAT THEY APPLY NEUTRALITY STANDARDS ON THE ARTICLE ABOUT DOWNING MH17, SHOULD SIMPLY CUT OFF ALL THOSE SPECULATIONS (the talk page is full of it, and all kind of 'experts' who pretend to know what is or is not the case, without showing any proof, are still disrupting that page) AND BIAS AGAINST SEPERATISTS INVOLVEMENT OR RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT SINCE NO PROOF OF THAT UP TO TODAY EXISTS AND DIFFERENT SCENARIO'S ARE EQUALLY LIKELY (for instance: it was a buk missile, but fired by the ukranian military, or MH17 was downed by machine firing from SU-25).
And we should mention again: both Kiev and the US fail to provide real evidence. Where are the tapes of radio communication with MH17? Where are the satelite images? They are TOO BUSY escalating their false flag attack!!!!
Further I should mention we know enough and have enough evidence on how fascists and how the US performs "intelligence" and how they have started numerous wars before based on such massive scale deceptions, in order to be able to be justified to say that we should be very carefull here not to buy into that kind of deception again and not start another war on false evidence, and should wait a FULL OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATION before any party is to be blamed or judged.
And if you Wiki admins don't like that, and only punish people who show the bias in the article and which plead for the neutrality standards Wikipedia pretends to have, but which admins clearly are unable to withhold, then this is not my fault, and is no justification for banning me.
post edit remark: I searched on the Wikipedia article about MH17 for the name of the OSCE researcher (Michael Bociurkiw), and did not even find that name. Now that man has been looking at the crash site for 10 days as a delegate for the OSCE, but the article makes not even a mention of this! Of course: "kiev" sources and fabiracted evidence are "more credible" to the wiki admins. Is that man not a neutral source that should be added to the page? Or are the wiki-admins already too much brainwashed by the misleading disinfomation from Kiev and the CIA that they can only think about BUK as a probable cause for the downing of MH17 and exclude other possibilities?
Btw. also Global research (canadian independent research site has an article on this: [1]
Decline reason:
You have already been told that continuing with your political ranting is not going to get you unblocked. If the next unblock request, if any, is not at least reasonably short and free of political accusations you will lose your ability to edit this page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:17, 30 July 2014 (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.
Robheus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"You have already been told that continuing with your political ranting is not going to get you unblocked." Why do you admins not first do research who started that "political ranting" as you call it, and what is the cause of it? Of wait, we don't want that, we simply blame someone and then block him, while others can continue their rantings, but then they are on diffeerent side. I see. That is to be supposed "neutral politics" right? The "political ranting" was already going on for days on that page, and the admins were also culpit of that themselves calling me all kind of names for expressing "different ranting" then the page was already full of (and still has), so let's say that those who started it have the ability to stop that, right? I did not begin any such ranting, but was merely commenting on those "other ranters" who were not blocked. So either Wiki admins block all those ranters or none, if you wish to be neutral, but not blame the ranting on only one side or one person, which in this case happened. I SIMPLY PROTESTED AGAINST THE FACT THAT THE PAGE AT THAT TIME WAS FULL OF SUCH RANTING AND THE ARTICLE ITSELF RATHER BIASED TOWARDS ONE CONCLUSION, WHICH FOR ALL WE KNOW CAN NOT BE BACKED UP BY INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE RESEARCH CONCLUSION! I did not in any way add to that bias, since I never edited the article! Further I didn't make "political accusations" - I never made the request to add to the article any update for "accusing anyone" of the downing of MH17, and as far as I know, no basis for that exists because the researchers have not reached any conclusions as of yet, but hope to do so within a month. If I make a statement, and back the claim up that ONLY SOME type of comments were blocked, and others not, and call that a "political ranting" then you Wiki admins seem to live above any level of accountability, that is you can disriminately target and block some wikipedians, while others can go on. Why should I even make an unblock request, other then that the reason is that the blocking itself was a political and unjustified decession I protest against, and in which part of the reasoning is a political argument, if all such attempts are labelled "political ranting". Blocking someone is a political decission, right? So to argue against it, one makes political arguments right? So what problem do you have with expressing a political point on view on the admin actions? Wether the admins like it or not, these kind of issue like the downing of an airplane in a highly political laden context and conflict zone, is itself a subject full of politics. The problem is however, the admins don't know how to handle this kind of things, and make arbitrary judgements. That is: "some political forms of ranting" is acted against and leads to blocking people, while not applying the same standard to other sorts of political ranting. (and if you don't see that point, then you are just yourself rather biased in distinguishing a political bias). And wether you see that as a "personal attack" or not (which then is the same as the admins accusations and name callings that happened to me) is up to you, but it is simply the judgement that the admins was unable to fulfill the task of applying the Wikipedia standards to that article, and keeping the article and talk page within the wikpedia standards. I simply request wike admins to: 1. Do the research on how that talk page and article became so biased. Fact is that I did not have anything to do with it because I a) did not edit the page and b) that "political ranting" was already going on (and only later wike admins deleted most parts). And only blaming "some of the political ranters" is not a good politics. If you don't see that, then you are not worthy the task of being a wikipedia admin. 2. The bias still in the article is that it is based itself (as far as the section "causes" is concerned) on the "political ranting" of ONLY the Kiev (which are fascists in my opinion, and please be informed that that is something we can proof with loads of evidence!) regime point of view (even if backed up by the US and some european countries), which of course tries anything within their power to make the seperatists and russia look bad, and are even prepared to have a war break out over this. After all, the Kiev regime - not the seperatists - started the war! (that is an indisputed fact) Now the solution to this is rather obvious and simple: simple dismiss any statements about causes which are PREMATURE at this moment, that is, untill an independent international commission which the technical experts draw their conclusion. Untill then, all that we can say is that they are "speculations about the probable causes". ((of course a section about speculations about causes, citing different commentors about what they think is a probably cause, might be in, but then they are clearly speculations and is something entirely different, and not statements with any objectively verified truth)) THE PROBLEM IS THAT AS OF CURRENT ALL KIND OF WIKIPEDIA EDITORS EDITING THAT PAGE AND THE TALK PAGE SEEM TO THINK THEY CAN PUT IN PREMATURE STATEMENTS (showing their personal political bias) ABOUT THE CAUSE OF DOWNING MH17!! That is the root of the problem, and in addition the discrediting and punishment of other, equally likely but also premature alternative causes. (and, since such of course causes a dispute, ALL KIND OF POLITICAL RANTING is happening, because any conclusion you put in prematurely, is biased by definition!) - In other words the way wikiadmins judge about this is not being fair. Quite simply don't you think? Anything different then that, is political bias and is helping the Kiev fascists, who long for a war against the russians (which are "sub-humans" in their perspective, so it's their goal to fight the russian minority and try to eliminate them from the Ukrain, and neglecting their democratic stance for independence from the Ukrain regime). This tragedy already has been misused for a "political fight" and more bloodshed. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should add to that, as if not already enough blood was shed and innoncent people were killed.... It is of course not within the power of wiki admins to stop the ongoing fight and escalation of it, but it CAN BE DONE to stop the political bias of the article, as I have shown. I added a video in my last post about a man (Michael Bociurkiw) who does make neutral statements about the (probable) causes, since he has been investigating the crash site, although he is not the experts and should not be given expert status, but then that person is not even mentioned in the article! But as of yet, that is all we really know about the downing of MH17. From what that man tells, one would not jump so easily to the premature conclusion that a BUK missile hit the plane, more likely a machine gun from what he saw! His expertise is however not enough to make any judgements, but then no-one can make such judgements, besides the international investigation commission (it is NOT the task given to the wiki-admins, for fact, although it seems that the wiki admins themselves believe they have been appointed the task to add more credibility to some version of the incident over other - at this point in time - equally likely causes for the incident) What problem is it to wait their report before jumping to conclusions? Why must the article at this point in time even have to mention "causes" (and not just: speculations about possible causes) which can only cause problems, since no one is entitled on here to judge what "cause" is more probable then others. Who benefits from any premature conclusions, other then the Kiev regime that wants to go on fighting their war against the russian minority, and already caused immense suffering under the population? (and at the same time withholding part of the evidence, we are entitled to know!) And my last point is, as I have already stated, if the admins want to prevent the political ranting, then please be sure that no premature conclusions about the (probable) causes slip into the article, since that is the MAIN cause of such political rantings and debates to happen in the first place! (and if the admins are not able to see that, then they should not be entitled to have such admin rights in the first place!) Since I have nothing to do with any bias in the article itself, which I did not even touch, please be sure to attack the cause of the political rantings, which clearly are in the premature mention of "causes" which adds to the bias, and causes the political ranting (because some editors think that their political bias is "more credible" then some one else, and they happen to have a backup of some biased wikipedia admin, who bans the other side and accuse them of "political ranting", and so on). So my position is that wiki admins not doing enough to keep out all kinds of political bias out of the article is the true cause of the "political ranting" and not my sporadic edits. At my final remark is that if the wiki admin is unable of perceiving my point and see their own failure in keeping up their wikipedia standards, then that is not my fault. I have made clear arguments about what the cause is for the bias (putting in biased and premature statements about the cause, feeding those who seek to benefit over the dead bodies of those who died there) and what the wiki admins should do about it, which is NOT arbitrarily ban some commentors who make some biased remark while not doing the same to others who make exactly equal (but opposite side) remarks, because that just fires the dispute instead of resolving it, but attack the root cause, which are the biased statements themselves about the "cause" of the incident. Nobody is entitled to say anything definate about that, besides the appointed commision, so all statements that are still in there, should be rightly called "speculations". So there is no reason to believe at this point that the downing of MH17 was caused by a BUK, nor is there any credibility to the statement that the seperatists have been downing MH17, since whatever the real cause of the downing of MH17 is, is not known until the commision present their report. Why not simply wait till the commission present that report? Why do the admins give any credibility to "some" probable cause over "some other" probable cause, and thereby invoking and causing a fierce fight between those sides, and leading to the "political ranting" instead of preventing it? I think a very simple solution and which also prevents wiki admin policy of discriminating some points of view over others, and punishing some but not others, while the arbitrage over that is not given to wiki admins! And finally please present to me the argument why a comment like "putin is a fascist" is not punished by the wiki admins, even if such a comment can not be backed up by any statement by putin or any action by putin (other then that the person obviously has some "strong dislike" about putin, but that does not justify calling someone "fascist" !!) On the other hand the Kiev govt. and their links and ties to right-wing (neo)fascists, openly showing nazi symbols, expressing discriminating opinions against minorities and speak about cleansing ukrain from "sub-human" russian (and other) minorities, and all that, is clearly documented and can be stated with a basis of truth, but THAT comment gets punished by blocking me!!! (and if wiki admin dispute that, I can give you some links to material proving that!!) Wiki admins neutrality and objectivity in that kind of matters is already under dispute then!!!! If wiki admins fail to see how they fail there, again that is not my fault, and so far, wiki admins present no single argument here that contest my judgement of unfair and unbalanced wiki admin banning policies!! If a wikipedian no longer is entitled to call a fascist a fascist and gets banned for doing that, then free speech has been killed by wikipedia administrators!!! And I then am ENTITLED TO USE MY FREE SPEECH AGAINST THE MISUSAGE OF THAT WIKIPEDIA ADMIN AUTHORITY, WHICH PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF FASCISTS, AND AT THE SAME TIME DEMOLISHES THE RIGHTS OF ANTI-FASCISTS! So please be aware that I take such matters very seriously!! There is no reason why I should be blocked from calling a fascist a fascist, and if wiki admins keep blocking me for that reason, I call into question that those wiki admins are not entitled to make such judgements, and further that since they present no argument, simply act on "personal bias" and can not hide themselves against Wikipedia standards or ruling.
Decline reason:
For the reasons outlined above - these ranting unblock requests simply reinforce the validity of the original block. As the requests themselves are disruptive soapboxing, talk page access has also been revoked. Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2014 (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.
You are still ranting, which is why your previous unblock request was denied. It is very unlikely, with your current behavior that you will be unblock. If you continue to rant in your unblock requests, an administrator may block you from editing this talk page. As said before by an administrator, if you do not keep your unblock requests "reasonably short and free of political accusations" your talk page access may be revoked. This is just advice from a non administrator. 電子888說-TALK 03:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)