Small Arms Collector
Welcome!
Hello, Small Arms Collector, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Paul Helmke does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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 your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010 edit
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Paul Helmke. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Paul Helmke. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Jusdafax 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Paul Helmke. Jusdafax 09:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Small Arms Collector (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the edits I made on paul helmke are accurate in my opinion, I simply refereed to the group he belongs to (the brady campaign) as a hate group, a view which is solidly supported by 2 US Supreme Court decisions, and the very definition of the phrase hate group, as they actively discriminate against, and seek to deny Fundimental Civil Rights to other citizens, the same as other hate groups, hence my edits were adding factual information to the article. It should also be noted that my original edit added only one word-extremest before an existing edit, my further edits simply restored my previous one word edit, and the other one previous (correct) edit that referred to it as a hate group, so that it referred to the brady campaign as an extremist hate group, which is an accurate description of what they are according to settled US law, the dictionary, and even the Wikipedia definition. I believe the un-editing of my edits, and my subsequent block to be politically motivated as a way to silence decent. If I referred to the kkk as a hate group would it be edited out?, would I be blocked for doing it?, so how is referring to another group, which like the kkk, and other like groups who would also deny Fundamental Civil Rights as a hate group any different? I refer you to the ongoing debate on this topic on the brady campaign articles talk page.
Decline reason:
You know, I was almost with you until your accusations of "politically motivated" in order to "silence decent [sic]". Simple fact is that this is an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. The fact that Brady blah blah might or might not be a hate group never belongs in the lede of the article about its president ... perhaps later in the article, if properly sourced. Your continuous reversion of WP:CONSENSUS is contrary to all that is Wikipedia, and your statement "do you have any evidence that it is NOT a hate group" is the exact OPPOSITE of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 30 June 2010 (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.
Small Arms Collector (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wasn't suggesting that you were politically motivated, as I don't think that your the one responsible for the block. I was just getting a distinct feeling that there was politics involved, as I explained it seems pretty obvious to me that they are a hate group, and thus naming them as such would be correct, yet I get blocked for it, yet other hate groups like the kkk for example are called as such, and it remains, and there is no block, it just seemed to me to be a double standard, and I was left to guess what the reason for that may be, my guess was politics, that the ant-gun views of an editor clouded there view of Wikipedia policy, perhaps I was incorrect, but in the face of what appears to be clearly factual evidence that what I posted in the article was indeed correct, I didn't know what else to call it. If you believe that the information belongs further down in the article, I wouldn't be opposed to that, and in hind site that might be a better place for it, my concern was only that it be presented, but that alternative placement of the information was never even presented to me before as an option, I just felt like I was being stone walled. I would be happy to represent the information farther down the article complete with sources, and evidence if you'd like.
Decline reason:
Editing an article about a living person to read that they belong to an "extremist hate group", without further qualification or sources, violates our policies WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Since you do not understand this, you cannot be trusted to edit Wikipedia. Sandstein 19:37, 1 July 2010 (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.
- We use a system called WP:CONSENSUS. If you make an edit and it gets reverted, you're required to discuss and try to obtain consensus for it before ever trying to re-add it. This is called the WP:BRD cycle. We also have the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS document that suggests that just because it happens somewhere, that does not mean it belongs somewhere else. By adding things the way you were, it adds WP:WEIGHT, and violates the key Wikipedia consensus policy. You tried to ram your edits through, regardless of consensus, and THAT is why you're currently blocked. Until you show you understand this key policy, and will always follow it, you will not have anyone convinced to unblock you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Small Arms Collector (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I remind you that there was once consensus that the earth was flat, consensus does not necessarily equal fact, particularly when one group refuses to even consider there wrong, and ignores you when you post evidence that they are. A good example would be 2 wolves, and a sheep trying to reach consensus on what's for dinner. Or for another somewhat absurd example, lets take something that I would assume that we would both agree on, the sky is blue, lets say there was an article on that fact, and you had a large group of people with an agenda show up, and edit the article to say the sky is green, and they ignore all evidence to the contrary, this obviously is not true, but this group of people far out numbers those who would bother trying to correct the article, so consensus can not be reached, or more accurately the consensus would seem to be that the sky is in fact green. Sometimes it's easier to illustrate a point to illustrate absurdity, the point is that even though the consensus is that that the sky is green, it does not change the fact that as you, and I both know the sky is in fact blue. In this case you had a large group of people vehemently opposed to the idea that the brady campaign were in fact a hate group according to the definition, and would refuse to acknowledge any evidence that it is, in short they were unwilling to even try to discuss the issue, despite all attempts to do so, both on that page, and the brady campaign page.
Decline reason:
verifiability, not truth. Either way, the purpose of the unblock template is to request unblock according to the guide, not solicit discussion. decltype (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2010 (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.
Small Arms Collector (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So you're saying that TRUTH doesn't have to be verified?, how does that work?, it's only true if the mob says it is?, even if it's not?
Decline reason:
See WP:TRUTH. Verifiability + Consensus = Wikipedia. If this equation does not tickle your fancy, try another project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:34, 3 July 2010 (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.
So what your saying is if there's no consensus, even if it's imposible to reach it's not true even if it it's true, is that what your saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Small Arms Collector (talk • contribs)
- Truth needs to be backed by published, reliable sources. If not, it gets deleted. Full stop. Please read the articles that have been provided. Davtra (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
But it WAS backed by published, reliable sources, which were all completely ignored, despite my repeated attempts to show them, so I ask again if no one is willing to check your sources, and just deletes what you write without any kind of debate, or discussion of any sort, nor any attempt to disprove the sources, how can you be expected to introduce the truth, or reach any kind of consensus?
- I checked your contributions history and you never provided a published, reliable source to the article. Your first main edit was this. You added extremest and hate with no source to that at all. Earlier you mentioned the Ku Klux Klan; in this article it says, ... is widely considered a hate group and includes a published source right after this. Visit the Ku Klux Klan article and see it for yourself here. This is what you should have done. It's also best not to use the {{unblock}} tag for discussion otherwise you will lose access to your talk page. This tag is used for making only unblock requests. Davtra (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Let me clarify, I discussed it complete with sources, with Dmcq on his talk page since he specifically was the one who initially took issue, I also participated in the discussion on the main brady campaign talk page, as well as here in defending my actions. The space on the edit history page which I THINK is what you must be referring to only lets me type a line or so, little more than a description, no room to cite anything. I attempted to find the talk page for that article to discuss it more in depth there, but I was unable to find one, perhaps due to being relatively new at this. Perhaps your write, in the wording issue you brought up (in reference to the kkk), had that been suggested at the time instead of just deleting the edits, I probably would have done that way instead. Just for clarification are you saying that a wording of "the brady campaign is considered by many to be a hate group" followed directly by the information I have presented regarding the Supreme Court cases, the definition of hate group/discrimination, etc. it would then be OK? Would you like that in a separate heading?}}
Providing reliable sources (and their details) allow users to find where you got the information from and check if it is written correctly. Read Reliable sources and Citing sources. To help present the sources, use Citation templates. You have been presented with many links to other information above. Read them carefully. And read Simplified ruleset to familiarise yourself with the basic rules. To get yourself unblocked, read Guide to appealing blocks and follow the procedures. If you do get unblocked, I suggest you do not immediately add your proposed changes. Discuss it on the article's talk page first. Once editors have verified and agree to your proposed changes, they will add it. Davtra (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)