Jester6482

February 2023

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"Disrupting Wikipedia" not "posting false information" interesting choice of words. So you admit this article is both a lie and genocide denial and Wikipedia is going on the record here as promoting genocide denial? Jester6482 (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be for unbiased information, I definitely wouldn't have donated any money to Wikipedia if I knew they were going to be in the business of pushing fascist apologism. Jester6482 (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Widr: would you be alright with me unblocking based off of the discussion here? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: You can of course unblock at your own discretion. Widr (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Also, any comment on this?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816 Jester6482 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Widr (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

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).

Jester6482 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All I did was give an article a more accurate title instead of a title that promotes fascist genocide denial Jester6482 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I'll be telling all my friends Wikipedia actively promotes fascist propaganda" You clearly don't want to be here. No need to unblock you, then. Yamla (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2023 (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.

• Hello Jester6482. The issue here is that you were repeatedly blanking and cutting and pasting an article without explanation or responding to talk page notifications, which is considered disruptive. If you talked to other users on the article's talk page about the issues with the article, or started a move request, you would not be blocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Examine the talk page, I did tell other users why I made the edit I did, you are lying right now: "Fully agree, this article is flirting with genocide denial. I removed "allegations of" from military support, but the entire article should be renamed given everything we know for sure about the CIA's sponsoring of Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. Jester6482 (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2023 " - Jester6482

Yes I saw that, the issue is you immediately started cutting and pasting the page after that. If you had waited for others to reply or started a move request there would have been no issue. Honestly I understand why you want the page moved and have no issue with that. The problem is that you're blanking the page with no discussion. If you commit to starting a move request instead of blanking the page than you have a good chance of getting unblocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

And that user's account no longer exists either (also blocked for "disrupting Wikipedia" I'm sure.) So that pretty much disproves your theory that if I had went about it in a nicer way it wouldn't have been a problem. I'll be telling all my friends Wikipedia actively promotes fascist propaganda. Jester6482 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"And that user's account no longer exists either" you mean Illyfifi2? You can see their edits here, they've never been blocked, they just haven't edited since 2015.

I am trying to help you, I don't think there's an issue with wanting the page name changed. The problem is how you are going about it. If you commit to changing your approach and formally requesting a move request on the talk page you have a good chance of being unblocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, why wasn't the title changed when lllyfifi2 DID go about it a better way in 2015? If you wouldn't do it for them in good faith, why would I believe you're going to treat me any differently? It's already been demonstrated you're willing to lie about what I did in order to justify a wrongful ban. Jester6482 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

They never formally requested a move, and others reverted them when they tried moving it. But it's been several years since then. If you go to the talk page and formally request a move and cite reliable sources supporting your position there is a good chance the article will be moved. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated we just want to protect Wikipedia's image here even if it means outright ignoring the facts. I would absolutely love to be here IF this weren't a space promoting fascist genocide denial, obviously if we can't provide that, we have no right to complain that I "don't want to be here" because I don't like genocide denial. Jester6482 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't look very good for Wikipedia, just saying. This isn't the only example either this is an ongoing issue of omitting information to provide a biased perspective and it's beyond shameful anyone is defending this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking Jester6482 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The way I see, it would not be "protecting Wikipedia's image" if you were blocked for saying something that was "true" but wasn't something people wanted to hear. I see your request for unblock was declined, and you probably have no more interest in Wikipedia anymore which is sad. But I will say this anyways. If you file another appeal where you commit to starting a move request and citing sources that back up your point, I will unblock you. If you're going to file an appeal where you accuse Wikipedia of coping for fascist genocide, well I personally don't mind but you won't be unblocked because it doesn't address the reason for why you were blocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I already did this and they cherrypicked that one part of my response as a self-fulfilling prophecy so they could pout sour grapes. If this is the response to challenging fascism at the tiniest scale, it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia. Jester6482 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

And to reiterate: I was blocked because I "was bold" like Wikipedia tells you to be and rejecting fascist genocide shouldn't be "controversial" but obviously it is in a crowd of open fascists. Jester6482 (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope you know there are real consequences to endorsing fascism. I know you guys must think it's a big joke but we're living in these consequences and if you don't smarten up soon, you're gonna have a Bolsonaro everywhere thanks to these childish games you're playing. Jester6482 (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Behold, your precious formal request all ready to go, so what's the magic excuse now?

Jester6482 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Move Request Content:

subst:requested move|UnitedStatesSupportForKhmerRouge|reason=In the 1980's the US's support for the Khmer rouge via CIA money funneled through Thailand. It is also shown that the United States voted for Pol Pot to have a UN seat. There is no "allegations of" when you have this clear of a paper trail. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/07/08/cia-covertly-aiding-pro-west-cambodians/819db513-b2a7-4518-9d69-1efa0b46381c/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/09/16/us-to-support-pol-pot-regime-for-un-seat/58b8b124-7dd7-448f-b4f7-80231683ec57/ Jester6482 (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Now there it is two sources how is wikipedia going to argue with the washington post? Just gotta do more bad faith cherrypicking of something I said out of frustration in dealing with this incredibly inefficient system when I gave you your formal request and did what you wanted. There's no pleasing folks who have a preconceived right wing agenda, sorry for being pessimistic. Jester6482 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Other users have asked for and tried to start move requests that were all obviously shot down. "Someone please move this article to "United States support for the Khmer Rouge", removing "Allegations of". This is undisputed in reliable independent sources. Illyfifi2 (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)". WAY BACK IN 2015, so don't tell me it could have been changed if I behaved better, the talk page history disproves that. There's documented proof others tried to go about it in a better way SINCE 2015, and the title still hasn't been changed, but surely if I waited for 5 more minutes for someone to reply, then it would have suddenly been considered for real? Sorry that's not very convincing to me.

I'm glad you're open to working through this, and I do want to help you because I think you're on to something. Alright, the issue is that the WaPo don't explicitly state that they supported the regime. That's the obvious conclusion to be drawn from them (the "paper trail")-- and they should be noted in an article-- but in an argument to change the title, a stronger source would be a more recent academic study or book written by expert in the field that explicitly claims the US supported. Doing a brief search, The Cambodian wars: clashing armies and CIA covert operations by Kenneth Conboy, and The United States and Cambodia, 1969-2000: A Troubled Relationship by Kenton Clymer could be helpful. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow looks like I called it 100% and we're pretending 2+2 doesn't equal 4 now, fantastic! Thank you for proving my point. Jester6482 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia "George Washington" article says "Washington has been called the "Father of his Country" for his manifold leadership in the nation's founding." but the actual source never says "his country" it says "Father of A Nation", so it looks like this is another cherrypicked invented excuse that holds no water in terms of consistency across the website it took me 2 seconds to find an example of Wikipedia making a statement that is never explicitly claimed by a source but implied well enough, okay looking forward to the name change, that's "US Support for Khmer Rouge", thanks. Jester6482 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

So, aside from further semantic games that are easily debunked in 5 seconds, what is the magic excuse now? Can Wikipedia put 2 and 2 together and reliably paraphrase information or not? Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. Jester6482 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia article for Henry Ford says "All his life, Ford was a conspiracy theorist, drawing on a long tradition of false allegations against Jews. Ford claimed that Jewish internationalism posed a threat to traditional American values, which he deeply believed were at risk in the modern world."

What does the actual source say? "Henry Ford was a visceral Jew-hater". Okay, so since we need to quote sources verbatim, I'm looking forward to nothing less than that exact sentence in the Henry Ford article, because Wikipedia only allows EXPLICIT claims from sources according to this arbitrary nonsense we enforce selectively with a right wing agenda. Jester6482 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Also the "1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning" article is also ignoring well-known information.

"A majority of academic sources accept naturally occurring ergot poisoning as the cause of the epidemic, while a few theorize other causes such as poisoning by mercury, mycotoxins, or nitrogen trichloride."

Found on the talk page (way back from 2015 again, ignored and left incorrect for 8 years and counting): " CIA conspiracy theory proven true http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html --Hienafant (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)"

Wikipedia is clearly selectively choosing to ignore certain information to bolster CIA narratives, this is pretty unacceptable. Jester6482 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the George Washington example is anything but a minor inconsistency (of course they basically mean the same thing). On the other you're right about the source for Henry Ford (which is a book review of a book about his antisemitism? That should get an actual ref from the book...) in that the "All his life" part isn't in the source. Presumably, that detail is in the actual book. So I removed that and changed the sentence a little. But what does this specific example, relating to a dude who was buddies with the Nazis, prove about Wikipedia having a "right wing agenda"? I don't really think those examples have to do with the issue at hand. In one case the article has a different word that means the same thing. In the other the article says something not in the source at all. Please refer back to what I previously wrote.

"Wikipedia is clearly selectively choosing to ignore certain information to bolster CIA narratives" So I personally don't really care about the CIA. But I think you're attributing the fact that no one has written about (insert thing here) to a sort of enforced narrative or something. I won't deny that there are editors who have a "pro-insert-intelligence-agency-here" bias. But in reality I think it's mostly just inconsistency between articles, and also the fact that people like you, who want to change things, have difficulty understanding the rules and get caught up in them. And that's not really your fault, the rules are complicated.

I mean despite the fact that you've repeatedly insulted me and accused me of lying and that 99% of admins would give up trying to help you at this point I'm still trying to help you because we need people who have the will to discover issues. but if you don't want to listen to me thats ok. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I've been cooperating with you, wrote the formal request which amounted to nothing (but we want to complain that not enough people want to help Wikipedia? cry me a river) and giving my free time to trying to make this website more accurate and YOU'RE the one saying: "I don't care how hard you work or how much you try to cooperate with the rules, I will just move the goalpost and stubbornly insist it is okay for Wikipedia to infer and paraphrase in some articles but not others."

I was just choosing any two or more articles I could find to show you this "not explicitly stated" objection is so vague and ridiculous it can apply to literally any article/source. They don't have to be related for my point to be valid, but it is telling that you're attributing so much weight to that since you're trying to draw attention away from the fact that the two sources I cited are very much more than enough proof to demonstrate the United States' support of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Jester6482 (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If your mission really was to "help me", or ensure accurate information on Wikipedia, you would have unbanned me so I could add the formal request like you originally said you would (now you're not keeping your word and utterly FLABBERGASTED that I would call you a liar? I'm only going off of my lived experience here), of course it wouldn't have made a difference if I just did it that way from the start, all it would have changed was the order that you said "the source doesn't state it explicitly enough", I just would have got to that point sooner to still hit the same brick wall, well that doesn't incentivize people to follow your rules.

I honestly can't even believe we're having this conversation: "the source doesn't exactly say something is "true" per se, it just said it's absolutely not false beyond all shadow of a doubt and that's NOT the same thing!" so no encyclopedias allowed then, since apparently every sentence must be an exact quotation from a primary source, so in that case why not just go read primary sources then, why even have a Wikipedia, right?

The source I linked says: "Muskie said the U.S. decision "in no way implies any support or recognition of the Democratic Kampuchea regime. We abhor and condemn the regime's human rights record and would never support its return to power in Phnom Penh."

We can use our heads a little bit here: the policy vote is one way, and this is obviously a damage control PR statement being made specifically because the words and actions, or in this case political policy don't line up.

The policy decision was: "Pol Pot in the UN seat (because the US felt like it needed to oppose Vietnam)". Okay, that's fine, include the rationale but it's not "alleged" support of, period.

Just like we don't get to pretend the USSR "allegedly" had a non-aggression pact with Hitler and Nazi Germany, see? We totally disregard any rationale for why the USSR had this pact or whether Stalin really wanted it or not, and we manage to give the article a title sans the word "alleged". Jester6482 (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we know very well who's right here, no one is immune to bias and lies of omission ("oh we're not really sure who supported what brutally murderous regime or not") are definitely a thing. I don't care what the rules are if you're just going to bend them for the US government, fix it. Jester6482 (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

MUCH NICER COMMENT BELOW - SORRY

Ok I'll level with you for real now apparently I had to get that out of my system I'm sorry; you are absolutely right on tone, optics and manners. I definitely am going about things the wrong way and I really do deeply apologize for being so condescending, thinking about it more even if the edit I wanted to make is correct, I gotta stop being so rude no matter how right I think I am it's just not cool and it's a nasty habit I picked up recently. Believe it or not, there's a part of me that's not jaded which very much appreciates you doing your part here and not ignoring me for what it's worth.

I may be sick and tired of the world refusing to change for the better in even the smallest ways but I am definitely making a mountain out of a molehill with this thing I thought was a crystal clear example of that and while maybe it sort of is, it's still small potatoes especially if we can get it fixed, and following my logic to it's extreme would mean just angrily demanding everything on here be 100% accurate right NOW, which is totally impossible and irrational.

I am sorry for taking my frustration out on you/Wikipedia and I'm very sorry especially if I hurt your feelings, eh? I am not mad at you but I get if you're mad at me. Don't unban me for now, I can easily see how I am just plain too belligerent and irritable for the task, but please actually consider making fixes like this and say so to other admins if you really think I have a point or am "onto something" as you say..

Cause it sucks to give money to an encyclopedia as a young, naive teen only to grow up & see this, y'know? I'm not employed so my angry unusable Wikipedia volunteering is my true, honest effort. I am pretty much unemployable cause I have this issue where I stop cooperating and start being defiant if I feel something has crossed a certain threshold of unreasonableness as you can see, but I know it would have helped me and many other people like me if the US government spent actual money on mental health services, free college and unions instead of imperialist wars and MKUltra for example, but the CIA did MKUltra just to screw around and ruined innocent people's mental health, and here I am giving my little chump change from my paper route to Wikipedia hoping to better the world by spreading knowledge and it feels like Wikipedia turns around and does me dirty by trying to wash the CIA and US government clean of some of these crimes where they can get away with it, the CIA poisoned Pont Saint Espirit and Wikipedia won't admit it in the Pont Saint Espirit article when someone in good faith came forward in 2015 like come on, isn't it bad enough I'm jobless and even my volunteer work is rejected? From my perspective it's like: when is it enough for you guys? The neurotypical capitalist oppressors already won, autistic socialists like me are not seeing any money despite all this hard work, we're heavily struggling thanks to this system we *accidentally* let Milton Friedman convince us is amazing and then *accidentally* never woke up from said fever dream no matter how much evidence piled up. That's a severe level of alienation and I didn't get this way because I just always wanted to be a contrarian for no reason. We alienate someone until they become this jaded to the entire capitalist society and then convince them Wikipedia is for objective knowledge/science/history, take their money and use it to pull punches against the orgs that made clear historically documented decisions to direct our psychiatric institutions toward mind-control shenanigans when that money and intelligence manpower could have been put toward building infrastructure that offered people like me some actual opportunity doing something good for the world instead of only having the option of making things worse through capitalist means or being rejected on even the smallest attempts to at least clear up something we definitely know on a large platform with some influence over people's perceptions...

If you put all of that into perspective, I hope you can at least sort of understand why in my messed up headspace I felt like I was the one who should be telling YOU that I'm doing you a favor by continuing to be patient with you and the rest of the capitalist world despite being screwed over by this capitalist, ableist (not to mention racist) society all my life even though I'm clearly intelligent and useful enough and have great potential and know-how, all because I want to teach and build something socialist instead of make money for a random firm that already has enough money. US republican senators are trying to officially bring back child labor, we have paid scientists and "experts" making excuses for Norfolk Southern's clear incompetence, and we can't even admit the US supported Pol Pot... Makes you feel like you're fighting an infinitely uphill battle and I look back and see skeletons of people from 2015 who tried to fight the same battle. It's just depressing right? Again, I now recognize I took this line of thinking way too far off into a super delusional territory and maybe this bias isn't always intentional, but yea if you were wondering where the hell that all came from, that's where. Like I said there are big consequences to normalizing fascism and capitalism and neoliberalism and everything involved with that project; one major consequence being that it can very easily turn perfectly sane, smart people into paranoid, jaded versions of themselves when their earnest efforts to participate in a collaborative, honest world are repeatedly met with the rude awakening that they can't accomplish anything without feeding the profit machine. I just want to get this through to people so that they maybe question then reconsider helping to push a neoliberal capitalist hegemony by default, and giving legitimacy to these dangerous ideas and I've tried being nice about it for years and it feels like I'm constantly being infantalized when whoever is in authority gives me the same general runaround that goes like: "yea, you're right. Anyways, for [random, suspiciously vague reason] we still can't do anything about it". I am trying so hard to be reasonable but each time I get that runaround, I have to actively suppress my cynical disdain even more. I understand I gotta be better, but the world can also do like at least 2% of it's part too and actually fix some things when I'm right there willing to do the work instead of brushing me off, if I had that experience... like... ever, let alone more often, I promise I would be much nicer all the time, being nice is what comes naturally to me when the world isn't being stubborn about things that really shouldn't be this difficult to establish.

From my perspective I'm like "well hey, the actual source uses much more colorful language to drive home how antisemitic Ford really was, the source describes him as a 'visceral Jew-hater' while Wikipedia suspiciously uses much more calm, neutral language like 'he was obsessed with globalist conspiracy theories, some of an anti-semitic bent' or something like that, so the article should therefore state exactly what the source says 'visceral Jew-hater' so as to not be making any statements that aren't explicitly made by the source" and I see you coming back at me like "Ah yes, the source doesn't actually say "lifelong", so I removed that part, giving plausible deniability that Ford was LESS antisemitic than the article suggested before!" pretty much making the exact issue I was pointing out worse, and you don't see the bias? Like, yes it's true the source doesn't say his anti-Semitism was "lifelong", I don't think anyone comes out of the womb hating jews, but for whatever amount of his professional life he had influence, it's well known Ford was anti-Semitic for virtually all of it, never renouncing working for Hitler for example, so don't you see how from my perspective it seems like you are selectively deciding: "okay make sure we're being loyal to what the source DOESN'T say about how long Ford was anti-Semitic, so remove "lifelong" but be DISLOYAL to the source's delivery language, change the delivery so that it sounds more calm and less vitriolic, Ford simply dabbled in UFOs guys....... and sometimes hating Jews"? The original problem was that Ford was portrayed as more sophisticated and refined in his anti-Semitism than the source, and you took your *not bias* and turned the problem into "a true inference (that Ford was a lifelong anti-Semite) was made without the source explicitly stating such". That wasn't the problem. Jester6482 (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You should at least revert the Henry Ford edit, unless you can provide a clear example of Henry Ford not being anti-Semitic in professional life, right? Jester6482 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What's going on? Are you going to revert the erroneous Henry Ford edit you made out of anger? Jester6482 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to appeal or be unblocked, just revert the Henry Ford edit you made to spite me. Jester6482 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, the Gary Webb article still says his death was a suicide. Everyone knows that's not true. Jester6482 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have not meant to ignore you. I have been busy over the last few months due to the same forces you discuss above, and I had saw you wrote something very long but never got the chance to really sit down and read it. Truthfully I thought it was going to be some rant completely veering off topic as so many unblock requests go. Reading what you wrote was interesting and caused me to reflect on my own position. You say some things that very much remind me of myself, expect that I am on "the other side". Despite the constant mistreatment and setbacks in my life I have found some success. Yet when I wake up in the morning, I sometimes find myself unmotivated, because I know people like me are not meant to be successful or even be happy-- that was not what was intended. I get it, I really do. It's up to you if you want to believe that though.

The thing is though, we can't include things off of a "hunch". We can't include things by "reading between the lines" or by coming to some (sometimes obvious) conclusion. Those are vague rules, and can very much be used by the hateful crowd that is so interested in distorting Wikipedia to match their own ill-informed worldview. I don't really get angry at people, I really didn't make that edit to spite you. I made it for the reasons I said I did and stand by it. Of course Ford was a hateful person, and the rest of the article demonstrates that even if it's not said directly. I remember seeing someone complain that Epstein's article doesn't label him a "pedophile" directly, and how that "proved" something about wikipedia; but if you read Jeffrey Epstein his sex offences against children are upfront.

I want you to submit an appeal. After you are unblocked I want you to add the source supporting the wording you want at the Ford article, and start editing more from there. What do you think about that?

Also, I'm familiar with the "two gunshots back of the head" meme but I've never heard of Gary Webb. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey thanks for replying! I do believe you & I'm happy to hear things turned around for you & that you're doing relatively well!

That wording "visceral Jew hater" was directly from a source in the existing footnotes of the Henry Ford article, I don't necessarily require the article to use that exact wording, I was just pointing out that we paraphrase and infer stuff and it's not always bias to put things like Henry Ford's antisemitism bluntly and use words like "lifelong" to describe it, that is an example of a reasonable & justified inference as far as I can tell, and was still more tame than some of the language in the source for that area of the article. Same would be the case in the "US support for Khmer Rouge" dispute. No reason to say "alleged", sure you can go in depth as much as you want in the article about how it was to oppose Vietnam, but the title shouldn't say "alleged" was my point there, I was trying to tie all that stuff in together.

But absolutely, if you do unban me I promise I'll try my best to rein in my conspiracy brain, not jump to conclusions based off of hunches such as the Gary Webb thing, and submit stuff like this formally, I was fed up at the time but I've had some time and space to chill out a bit. Jester6482 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've now unblocked you. If you have any questions, I'm available for answers. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have a question, what do you think of this? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816 Jester6482 (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My bad here is the more recent story, the co-founder of Wikipedia said CIA and FBI computers were used to edit wikipedia. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-claims-site-is-influenced-by-fbi-and-cia-obviously-biased-toward-the-left/

Of course from what I've seen, the "obviously biased towards the left" part doesn't really make sense to me, but that would definitely explain why we're having so much trouble getting "Allegations of" out of that title, wouldn't it? Jester6482 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I'm an administrator and functionary, so I've seen even higher profile conflict of interest/shady editing which isn't even widely known about. So yeah, the CIA/FBI/whatever editing is like, oh yeah, of course they'd do that. All the other government agencies have! No real comment on Larry Sanger though.

But no, I really doubt some US government agency is trying to keep the article titled "allegations of" here. It's not really worth spending resources on when people not associated with them can defend the title for free, for one. It'd be best not to make that accusation towards others on Wikipedia, people will take that pretty hard and you'll just wind up blocked again. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We have an extremely high bar for putting 2 and 2 together. Surely all of these can't be coincidences? Allegations of CIA drug trafficking

Again, just because the US lost to Vietnam and it was embarrassing to have assisted the Khmer Rouge for nothing doesn't mean we can be revisionist with known history. Regardless of motive, just like this article is not "Allegations of" Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

I can't take seriously the idea that we're getting this wrong for some innocuous reason. Jester6482 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyway I made the formal request on the talk page on "Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge" and someone is trying to argue against it on the basis of my not having made other edits with this account yet?

— Jester6482 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

How can they say that about my first edit??? You can say that about anybody's first edit. How is that an appropriate response to the discussion I started with the move request and the sources I shared? Is the discussion about why or why not the title should be moved or is it about my account being on trial in some McCarthyist courtroom? Jester6482 (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

So they decided not to change the article title just as I had predicted despite going through the "proper channel". I notice there is a double standard on Wikipedia as well where it's perfectly fine to cast aspersions on editors so long as they make anti-US edits, then it's fine to say they are entirely POV motivated, hate the US for no good reason and are making those edits to spite the US etc. Jester6482 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

A Welcome From Me

Hello, Jester6482, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I'm Asareel, your mentor. Each new Wikipedia account receives a mentor randomly taken from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! You can reach out to me on my talk page if you ever have any questions about editing. Here are some other links you may find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia — Wikipedia's core policies that holds everything together
• How to edit — Learn how to make more and even better contributions
• Your Homepage — Recommended articles for editing and how you can help improve them!
• The Manual of Style — A simplified overview of Wikipedia's formatting and grammar structure
• Creating your own article — Learn how to make your own article!

On the off-chance where I'm unavailable, you can ask further questions at the Teahouse, a friendly environment where new users can receive answers from experienced editors. You may also want to check out our public sandbox, where you can make test edits of any kind. Always remember to sign your posts with your username; you do so by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Once again, welcome! --ARoseWolf 18:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated welcome but I was away for some time and I'm just getting back to welcoming mentees. The only time you will hear from me going forward is if you ask for my assistance. --ARoseWolf 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey I need your help, I had 2 to 1 support on this discussion and it was just closed due to me not being "extended-confirmed". Seems like these editors are gaming the system to me. Talk:Hamas#Hamas No Longer Anti-Communist? - Contd. Jester6482 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I also found more evidence Hamas is indeed anti-communist. Here is the link:

"Hamas is descended from the clerical-fascistic Muslim Brotherhood, which became particularly prominent in Egypt in the late 1940s. Under the slogan "communism = atheism = liberation of women," the Muslim Brotherhood mobilized a terror campaign against Communists and other secular forces."

Here is the link (quote on page 29): https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/w&r/WR_039_1991.pdf Jester6482 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

Talk:Main Page is not the place to discuss the content of individual articles. Please direct discussion to the talk page for the relevant article instead. Remsense留 00:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

What is this pertaining to? Jester6482 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion you were trying to start about the characterization of Hamas on Talk:Main page Remsense留 00:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a link to the talk page I am supposed to be using? I went to the article then to the Talk page, what are you asking me to do that's different? Jester6482 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You were concerned about the content of a specific article, I don't know which one that is. Remsense留 00:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The one where I actually posted it, which was here Talk:Hamas That's where I posted my topic, not here: Talk:Main page

Why are you saying I used Wikipedia's main Talk:Main page when I posted the topic here on the hamas Talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas Jester6482 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

In that case, you may have posted this to Talk:Main Page by accident. Remsense留 00:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If that were the case, the notification would read "2 topics were archived or removed from ‪Talk:Main page" as I've just said.

Here is the proof that it was initially removed from the correct place:

https://imgur.com/aPafpLP Jester6482 (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Read your own edit history. Remsense留 01:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The notification even says

"2 topics were archived or removed from ‪Talk:Hamas"

not "2 topics were archived or removed from ‪Talk:Main page" like you're claiming. Jester6482 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history: a thread was seemingly posted on Talk:Hamas, removed per WP:NOTAFORUM, and then you reposted it on Talk:Main Page. I recommend reading over WP:NOTAFORUM to get a sense of why it was originally deleted. Remsense留 00:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh really? That's interesting because according to that link: NOTAFORUM doesn't apply to talk pages, but the articles themselves.

"Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles."

Again I didn't take the discussion into the article, here is the proof again that it was removed from the Hamas Talk Page: https://imgur.com/aPafpLP so you can't stand on Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM here. Jester6482 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

One sentence later: In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, Remsense留 01:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, and we are not improving the article by omitting Hamas' anticommunist ideology based on a temporary alliance with the PFLP. Jester6482 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not the Main Page's problem, and it's not my problem. Remsense留 01:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Well that's fine because that's not where I posted it. Again here is the proof: https://imgur.com/aPafpLP Jester6482 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(tps) Those notifications are for the Hamas talk thread, which you must have "subscribed" to at one point; you weren't subscribed to the main page one, which is why you didn't get a notification when it was removed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You get automatically "subscribed" to talk pages where you actually post, so if I actually posted this on the Main Talk page initially, I would be "subscribed" all the same to that page and that's where the notification would come from. Jester6482 (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh no wait, I may have indeed done this by mistake, my bad. I think what it is, you get notifications for replies so when the topic was just removed from Main page, yea I never got any notifications because it was removed before anyone replied to that, whoops.

But it still is kindaaaa.... Wikipedia's fault in an indirect way for just abruptly deleting my discussion as per usual instead of letting any of my discussions follow through to a consensus, they're always just straight up removed and when that happened this time I was probably disoriented and flooded with emotions trying to make a follow-up and clicked the wrong tab and hit "Main Page" that's possible, but again no good reason for deleting my initial discussion 2 support 1 oppose putting "anticommunist" back under "ideologies" for the Hamas Article.

I most recently found this quote: "Under the slogan "communism = atheism = liberation of women," the Muslim Brotherhood mobilized a terror campaign against Communists and other secular forces." and Hamas descended from the Muslim Brotherhood similarly to how Al Qaeda descended from the Mujaheddin, right? https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/w&r/WR_039_1991.pdf Jester6482 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Alas, I do not have 500 edits. Sorry! Jester6482 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)