I removed those comments because it is not your user page to edit and the statements are controversial. You should not edit others User pages unless it is beneficial to the page (i.e. formatting). Adding content to someone else's page makes it look like they wrote it and is frowned upon here. Hope this helps. Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
You have not explained why this is "vandalism". I have just restored what user Cberlet has written and that another user reversed. They are Cberlet's words, not mine. Again, please explain why this is "vandalism", or why the charges are "controversial". They are backed up easily by mainstream, published sources, please see here [1] for some published on WikiPedia. --Hardindr02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Vandalism states that vandalism can be "[e]diting other users' comments to substantially change their meaning." This is why it is vandalism. Since the user has edited since my revert I will not pursue anything. Just watch out because adding content to other's user pages usually signifies vandalism. Good luck editing! Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs02:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I did not "substantially change" user Cberlet's page, that was done by another editor. I simply restored what user Cberlet had written about Lyndon LaRouche. The other user (User:Thatcher131) did the vandalism, not me. This can be seen by looking at the page's history [2]. If you are going to make accusations, please get your facts right. --Hardindr10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Blocked: Indefinitely for trolling. The policy on biographies of living people covers all Wikipedia space, not just articles. The portion of the statement that I removed violated the policy on unsourced statements that disparaged a living person. Since you have no obvious stake in the debate, I believe you are a single-purpose account set up for the purpose of trolling, and I have blocked your account indefintely. Thatcher13112:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I take umbrage at your description of me as a troll. I am not a troll, but someone who is interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Lyndon LaRouche is not being "disparaged" when he is descrbed as a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe", he is being described accurately with information taken from mainsteam, published sources. That administrators working in Wikipedia do not understand this is very sad. I intend to contest your indefinite block. --Hardindr21:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
You should be aware that there is a vast difference, both in law and in Wikipedia policies, between saying "Mr. Thatcher is a racist homophobe" and saying, "A 1989 New York Times article quoted two of Mr. Thatcher's former associates as saying they would never have worked for him had they known of his racist and antisemitic fews." One formula puts it in your words, the other formula reports what a reliable source said.
By your reasoning, Adolph Hitler could not be described on Wikipedia as an antisemite, nor Jerry Falwell as a homophobe, nor Bull Connor as a racist. Are you afraid that Lyndon LaRouche and his cronies will engage in a SLAPP against Wikipedia if he is described accurately? Have you no courage? --Hardindr22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
As far as contesting your block, be my guest. I'm certain that any admin who reviews it will give full consideration to the fact that your very first edit was to revert a change to Cberlet's user page at a time when very few people knew I had made the change, and will conclude as I have that you are either a sockpuppet of another user or you were recruited here by Mr. Berlet, and don't really have much interest in adding infomation about Mr. LARouche under the BLP, NPOV, and RS policies. Thatcher13121:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am not a troll, sockpuppet or proxy for anyone. I am editing wikipedia because I want it to contain accurate information. User:Gonzo_fan2007 is the one who has engaged in vandalism by removing User:Cberlet's accurate description of Lyndon LaRouche from his user page. If your condescending attitude is typical of administrators, that does not bode well for wikipedia. I have sent you an email asking to have my band lifted, as the Wikipedia:Block page instructed. Please tell me what I have to do now to move this to the next step. --Hardindr22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Contrary to User:Thatcher131's assertion [4], I am not a "recruit" of User:Cberlet or anyone else. I started editing wikipedia without any prompoting from other users to help make it better and ensure that it contains accurate information. I kindly ask that he retract his unfounded and baseless assertion immediately. --Hardindr12:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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).
I am not a troll, sockpuppet or proxy as alleged by User:Thatcher131. I am only interested in making sure that wikipedia contains accurate information. I have not engaged in vandalism on User:Cberlet's user page, that was done by User:Gonzo_fan2007 who removed Cberlet's accurate description of Lyndon LaRouche based on mainstream, published sources. --Hardindr 23:13, 12 October 2007 (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.
Appeal of Indefinite Block to Arbitration Committee
I am writing you to request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee for an indefinite block that has been imposed on me by User:Thatcher131 and reaffirmed by User:Yamla for "vandalism" and "trolling". Please see my talk page for details. The issue centers around whether I committed vandalism and violated wikipedia's BLP policy by restoring a description of the political views held by Lyndon LaRouche that User:Cberlet put on his user page [5]. I contend that the description is an accurate one of Lyndon LaRouche's political views and that it is supported by mainstream, published sources, many of which are cited on wikipedia itself (i.e. Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche and Lyndon_LaRouche). I contend that my banning was capricious and without any merit.
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).
This is in regards to this accusation [6] made by Bytebear. Bytebear accuses me of edit waring, while all I have done is added properly cited material to both the Glenn Beck and Cleon Skousen entries, while refusing to allow Bytebear to remove it. Please see these examples for Beck [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and for Skousen [14], [15],[16], [17], [18], [19]. In his complaint, Bytebear claims that the consensus and "several editors" disagreed with me over the consesus on both Glenn Beck and Cleon Skousen, but only two did, Bytebear and Tom (for Tom's objections, see here[20] and [21]) . Bytebear accuses me of gaming the Cleon Skousen article solely in order to make Beck look like a "conspiracy theorist wacko", [22]. Skousen was a conspiracy theorist, as everyone who is familiar with his work and not in the John Birch Society knows. I've provided some cites to his article to reflect this (see here [23] ). The cites are from two experts of the American right wing whose books are published by respected presses. The other cite is a column by a prominent member of American hard right who supports Skousen's views on the "New World Order." I will get more when I have the time to go to a proper library [24], if for some reason these are not enough. I admit that the timing of my editing the Skousen article may look suspicious, but it is something that I had planned on doing irregardless of what happens to the Beck article. I don't know if Glenn Beck really believes in conspiracy theories and I haven't made the allegation that in his entry. However, the fact that Beck has provided support for one on a major, mainstream cable news network, and emphatically endorsed a book by a well-known conspiracist (see here [25]) seems noteworthy of inclusion in his article to me, at least. I've provided the necessary cites for this as well, one from a prominent conservative author objecting to Beck's handing out of Skousen's books [26] , one from a left-wing, but reputable, media watch group that notes Beck's promotion of the FEMA camp conspiracy theory and subsequent retraction [27] , and one from the book of a respected social scientist who notes that the FEMA camp room is believed primarily by those on the American hard right [28] . Thank you in advance for giving due consideration to my block appeal.
Decline reason:
Your appeal appears to be supporting your desired version of the article, but that is not relevant to your block. The three-revert rule applies to all of us, even when we are certain that we are right. When your block expires, you can try some of the solutions at WP:DISPUTE to establish consensus on the best version of this article without edit-warring. As you saw, edit-warring is not only disruptive but also pointless, as other users can revert just as well as you can. FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:25, 3 July 2009 (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.
FisherQueen:
I am confused. What constitutes a 3RR violation on wikipedia? Why was Bytebear not blocked as well for reverting the article back after I properly cited the changes, which he did 3 times in 24 hours? Aren't wiki editors supposed to "be bold?" Where does this "consensus" on the Skousen article come from, if only two editors say it exists?
If you were not blocked yourself, you would be able to report ByteBear for edit-warring at WP:AN3. That's why it's important not to participate in edit wars. WP:DISPUTE has more effective ways of dealing with content disagreements. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I did not want to go that route, but I will in the future. Thank you for this information. You have been very helpful. --Hardindr (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
A block here was wholly appropriate, however there was another editor edit warring (only to 3RR, but that hardly matters) and in my view it was a mistake on the blocking admin's part to not block that editor as well. Both of you were at fault here. Regardless, you should obviously avoid edit warring in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, can you not re-edit talk discussions, but instead discuss at the end of a topic. It makes it very difficult to find the new material you are presenting. Bytebear (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am a bit confused. How do I show the changes I'm making, without turning it into a marked up nightmare? Should I insert history URLs? The talk page is already really long. --Hardindr (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Will you be merging your sandbox version of Cleon Skousen with the main article anytime soon? I believe you have done some excellent work on the matter, and it would be a shame for it not to be contributed to the overall project. Hope life is well. Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have wrapped up some issues I have had in the real world and should return to the Skousen article soon. Next week will be very good for working o n the sand box more. --Hardindr (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Hardindr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Cberlet. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 
