User talk:Hardindr

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 fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:53, 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. --Hardindr 02:03, 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 fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:44, 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. --Hardindr 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thatcher131 12:23, 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. --Hardindr 21:06, 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,

SLAPP against Wikipedia if he is described accurately? Have you no courage? --Hardindr 22:53, 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.
  Thatcher131 21:59, 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.

Wikipedia:Block page instructed. Please tell me what I have to do now to move this to the next step. --Hardindr 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Contrary to User:Marvin_Diode's assertion [3], I am not a sockpuppet of User:Cberlet. I kindly ask that he retract his unfounded and baseless assertion immediately. --Hardindr 00:53, 13 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. --Hardindr 12:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

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)

Decline reason:

Blatant violations of

WP:BLP. Have you read BLP? — Yamla 23:47, 12 October 2007 (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.

I am appealing this indefinite block to the Arbitration Committee. I am emailing clerk User:Newyorkbrad to make a formal request. --Hardindr 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text of my email request to clerk User:Newyorkbrad:

Sir:

I am writing you to request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee for an indefinite block that has been imposed on me by

Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche and Lyndon_LaRouche

). I contend that my banning was capricious and without any merit.

Thank you in advance for you time.

Sincerely,

Hardindr

--Hardindr 11:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have your appeal, please continue to communicate with the Arbitration Committee by email. Fred Bauder 01:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you here. Bytebear (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

This is in regards to this accusation [6] made by

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.

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?

Best regards,

hardindr

--Hardindr (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were not blocked yourself, you would be able to report ByteBear for edit-warring at

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 | contribs 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Will you be merging your sandbox version of

Moreover, I have added a section to Beck's article on Skousen. --->Glenn_Beck#Cleon_Skousen_and_The_5.2C000_Year_Leap. Some of your additions may be helpful.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:17, 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]

Effective immediately, I am suspending my involvement in wikipedia until mid-2010. See you then. --Hardindr (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement with Wikipedia will be suspended until at least mid-2011 due to work issues. See you then (maybe). --Hardindr (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am back on wikipedia, doing some minor edits now. Hardindr (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]