79.98.159.114

March 2020

Hello, I'm Uncle Dick. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, March 15, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

explanation about day-of-year articles

Hi, I see that like many other editors you're annoyed by the change to the verifiability policy for entries on day-of-year articles. What's going on is that over the years, a lot of unverifiable claims have been added to these articles. So, a small group of editors are doing the tedious work of going through every entry on every day-of-year article and adding sources to each entry from the main articles, while removing entries that can't be verified. (Take a look at January 1!) While that clean up is going on, preventing new entries without a source helps to keep the endeavor achievable. As more and more of the entries become sourced, new editors will hopefully see that and imitate it. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you understand better now why a lot of edits to those types of articles are being reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you...

This case was different. They repeated deleting it even when I supplied the official citation. Thank you for upholding me in that. Your rewording it as "Germany occupies Czechoslovakia." is less precise than mine (copied from original deleted entry), which was "The German occupation of Czechoslovakia is completed", because it was two-step process, first they occupied Sudettenland (border parts of Czechoslovakia with predominantly ethnic German population at those times) due to Munich Agreement 1938-09-28, and then they occupied whole rest of Czech lands (Bohemia and Moravia) on 1939-03-15, with simultaneous forming of fascist Slovakia State and Subcarpathian Rus (renamed as Carpatho-Ukraine) seceded just to be annexed by fascist Hungary few days later... So the word "completed" much better describes that multi-step process... "Munich Agreement" was a treason by English and partly French, and there they convinced Hitler to expand toward the East, and they've given him Czechoslovakia intentionally to arm him for his war against Soviet Union... So this information is key proof against Mainstream Narrative of WWII, and attempts to slowly erase it from History are wrong, because consequences of that skewed narrative still persist.

But better stated that way than nothing, so thank you for Justice...

There is an ongoing political effort (probably by EU and Germany, also probably by England) to erase this date from people's conscience today, and there is ongoing political effort in some parts of Germany to rewrite history and to reconquer Sudettenland and to regain their former properties lost 70 years ago and now inhabited by Czech people, that is why I was reacting such stubbornly. Let's keep past in the past. But that who forgets his History is predestined to Repeat it...

There is a coincidence not merely random, that Armageddon (Aram Gideon) in Syria started on 2011-03-15, and that NewZealand Shooter Deception also occured on 2019-03-15, where Tarrant (speaker of a group, that was behind that shooting) expressly stated, that it was a precisely chosen date. (TGR page 11 of 74: "The best time .. was yesterday, the next best time is today." -- I know, who these two dates meant to address... ο εχων ωτα ακουειν ακουετω - kdo má uši slyš ...)

There is a similar censorship or sensitive omission, that August 6 is missing Feast of the Transfiguration and is missing "Christian Feast Day" header line altogether. It is missing raising of the Siege of Belgrade (1456), that was sufficiently notable, if the Christian feast of Transfiguration is commemorated in it's memory. (That saved Europe from Ottoman conquest in 1450s... Or why is it mentioned in that page on Transfiguration, if on the page on Siege of Belgrade is a different date?) It was probably not a pure coincidence, that August 6 was chosen for Hiroshima attack against the date of Transfiguration...

But seeing the complication to fix these pages I'll probably won't loose the time for vain effort...

79.98.159.114 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.A.S.

March 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:March 15. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Do not try to accuse me of Vandalism in a template. It is well documented, that my edit was Fair and Honest.

I am not new to Wikipedia. You are wrong, I did assume a good faith, was surprised by censorship, again assumed a good faith and supplied the text with a citation and as much neutral wording as possible. And I engaged in "Negotiation" as suggested by the Dispute resolve. I could not be more correct... First entry on Talk page was meeker, and three days passed without a help or reply, so the Negotiation on that Talk page needed to be sharper.

And it was very symptomatic of the very common Bias on political topics...

I realize that I should have had an account and now cannot create one for talks about that page, which would associate IP with my name for readers of that page... Maybe later...

I would have problems with Wikipedia cookies, if I had an account, because I save and archive every page I read and it would display my name in top right corner.

I already had at least one or two accounts here. There were two email addresses in the field of email, and someone changed my password and the recovery email did not work... (Sometimes back in 2006...)

I've read about 10,000 articles in Wikipedia at least the heading. (Some of them I read multiple times in my archives...) I often use web.archive.org to access Wikipedia instead of direct access, because you spoiled math equations at 2016 and replaced PNG with incompatible ­‹math› elements, and my interpellation did not succeed... So since then for any scientifically oriented article I need to use archive.org and page versions from 2015...

And I know, how much is Wikipedia Biased in political topics. It's a problem, that too many people and search-engines rely on and trust your collective lies, but I understand, how hard it is to fight the interested groups...

And it's long since I've given up on correcting that, unless it is reaching to utmost highs, as this one was.

That is you who was extremely unpolite to dox my location. I doxxed anonymous Nicks for malevolence, after I was included in Uncle Dicks list where he collects IP-addresses of dissidents, but you tried to reveal my location publicly, albeit not correct, because geolocation for this IP-address is very vague for a good reason...

And I understand, that this omission of March 15 could be an intentional trap against political opposition...

79.98.159.114 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.A.S.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove templates to indicate other users share the same IP address, as you did at User talk:79.98.159.114, you may be blocked from editing. Please review WP:BLANKING. You may not remove templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses. Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

On Talk Page Guidelines is "users may freely remove comments from their own talk page", which I'm doing.

This is a private IP address and no one else is using it, but a possible Hacker cannot be ruled out, and there exists IP spoofing... (that's Plausible Deniability). Whatever I write on computer, there are stored previews and printscreens here and it is logged in browser history, so if there is a question, what have I read or written, it can be answered and proved...

You could have concluded it by my recent extensive reading activity using multiple computers from this address?

I have 8 computers here to use, 5 of which are physical and 3 virtual, 2 of them are Linux (one of web-servers and one is an embedded firewall on external web-server "puppy") and 1 of them I start various system as needed, including one for this writing... There's no one else here beside me and my last two cats... (I use 2 or 3 of those computers to access Wikipedia here, and there is some logging of network activity, should there be any hacker or dispute, it could be proved. On my MainFrame cannot run this new version of Firefox, because it is Unsecure, I use VirtualBox or Notebook to access Wikipedia by this version of Firefox, and use Wget-like Tool and unspecified old Html viewers on archived pages with all scripts removed on MainFrame... I disagree with onmouseover snooping and need to sanitize the pages before reading them. Having 30 years practice in programming I'm a sort of a computer security expert... You probably heard about cybershamans... Last few days I'm working almost round-the-clock with few hours sleeping in the morning and few hours in afternoon... But I'm Christian beside that Work and it's not a magic, it's craft, and it's vindicated by circumstances...)

(Some week ago there was a visit of my relatives here using my network for a week... It's still a single household...)

(Maybe there was a problem, that the Wget does not preserve cookies? I'll try to fix that, but I disagree with receiving a GeoIP cookie, it's a breach of privacy... Furthermore, the notebook had a GeoIP cookie from my last travel, it's even worse breach of privacy...)

(The increased reading activity in recent days is caused by me working on a sort of History Review Project, using calendar days and reading, what is relevant there... You will read that some day probably, if you survive that Crown Virus mentioned in Rev6... I've downloaded and read about 800 pages at least a heading since start of February, beside those stored earlier... And I'm not only reading those pages, but also archiving them...)

So Your accusation of network relaying is miscue or malevolence. (Quick check on port connections on Windows systems, no one is connected here...)

Furthermore, you struggle to publish a Blunder about my geo-location. It's a nearby district center, but there are multiple hilltop hops to my place.

When checking "What links here" to IP-address page, there is just one entry, where I've been unjustly included in dangerandplay.com Spam Report by a COIBot Robot in 2017. They are listing some third-party web-pages I allegedly accessed? That would be snitching and it is probably illegal... It lists few URLs beside notes about my IP address, that were never even accessed from this IP, for example link to a TabletMag article about TrumpWatch and Twitter users, while I never had a Twitter account and if I ever accessed TabletMag, then only through archive.org ... Someone has been doxxing me for advocating for Trump in 2016 somewhere else ?

When checking "What links here" to this TalkPage, there are 9 entries, 6 of them are some TalkPages and 2 of them are a HelpDesk request, that I've all written, and 1 of them is that dangerandplay.com false report. It is missing, that I remember at least 2-3 cases, where I've been correcting typo errors in articles... Of cause it is missing talks before I've got this IP... There is absolutely no Vandalism...

...

Your action (with that Template) is probably illegal in European Union, I'm protected by GDPR from your publishing that information.

You should not revenge on me on MY talk page...

Your possible blocking of me would be considered a revenge for my acquiring Justice with "March 15" against your collective Injustice or a mere Lapse...

This your malevolent activity on my Talk Page is equivalent of blackmail and revenge.

It seems, that by this obstinacy to harm me you are trying to show me, who is a Master here, including on my own talk-page. Such editorial supremacism would be just abominable.

You know what? I do not engage in vain attempts to edit here often. If you'll ban me, it would be your (collective) Shame and not my Harm... I'm somehow used to get banned by Wrong People... (Should you ban me reading also, I'll need to implement a php-tunnel on some of my blogs, but that would be really a nuisance at this moment, I'll probably rather use archive.org to access Wikipedia... Despite you write "I am Wikipedia", no, you are not, that is a collective effort and you should not block a reader from their contributions.)

But it should be obvious, that I never engaged in vandalism of front pages of Wikipedia, made just few obvious typo corrections so far, and only occasionally talking on Talk Pages... שטנהך עד שוא Your Accusation of Me (of Vandalism and Relaying) is False Witness.

...

If you just feel a problem with what I've written on March 15 TalkPage about you, it was my defense against injustice of removing that March 15 1939 there, and a negotiation attempt. Since the dispute was resolved there and the page was corrected, let's agree, that I'll overwrite that talk-page with a simple notice, something like "the Dispute was settled and the Talk was a partial faux-pas"... It's enough to have it in Revision History and I do not insist on having it written there on Talk Page, if you have problem with linking that to your user-page, but there should be rather Me erasing my writing... I'm just not sure about Good Manners, if I may erase other-one's talks, and I do not want to be accused of vandalism... (just contemplating what leads you to that what I percieve as an attack on me... My writing was absolutely not meant as a personal attack, but as a symptomatic description of a wider problem with simple Reverting of dissenting opinions... But it was a fault to write there from IP address... But I disagree with having my name written in my archived web-pages and about possible building of personalized reading habbits log, there is "Not logged in" and it's right that way, should I create account here again, I'll be probably accessing it from a separate notebook, it's just on another desktop on my mainframe... Well, and there could be possibly a hacker connected here as anywhere else...)

79.98.159.114 (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC) P.A.S.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove templates to indicate other users share the same IP address, as you did at User talk:79.98.159.114. Please review WP:BLANKING. You may not remove templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:March 15, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [1] Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your accusation is a Lie. - You shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Dt5:20)

(This is not a shared IP address and you are misusing that banner as a tool of revenge.)

You are engaging in personal attack on my privacy, and extorting me with your harassment.

This is MY talk page and you are trying to unjustly revenge on me here. (On My Talk Page I may erase what I deem fit.)

Try to Ban me and I shall raise the dispute louder...

And just as a psychological and symbolological dissection of your Nick-name: Is it Todt D/s 1 ...? (That popped up, when I tried to search, what does "DS" mean... "Tod" or "Todt" is in english wiktionary as a german word...) I shall not Submit to your Dominance attempt... Maybe I'll become tired and disgusted of trying... Or is it Tod ST eiN αδης και σαταν ? Or is it תודה שטן ? Or תעודה שטן ? If you have engaged in German-related context with a Biblical expert, than do not be surprised by the aim to be understood in German-related and Biblical contexts... Or is it σκοτος scottish? https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/tod_n1 #2 ... I'm just trying to understand, who is it harassing me and why... As formerly on that March 15 Talk I was just letting people to understand Censorship in Wikipedia on an exemplary case, one of many similar, after witnessing a censorship after a good-faith fixing of a lapse...

(About your Ban Attempt, it reminded me of Gospel of Nicodem, appendix V (XXI)... I didn't think much about this parable before today... And I didn't plan it, I was just correcting omission on March 15 page, beside doing that kind of a History Review of Saints and other Events (SC25), in a good-faith attempt to correct important omission, then needed to gradually intensify the attempt, and then this was just a fallout from that and a revenge attempt by a Senior Editor... Do you behave such to other proof-readers?)

...

And if your struggle is to send me to "Why create an account?" page. Then listen, Why NOT to Create an Account: Because then all your reading can be personalized and summarized for analysis... It's an even worse breach of reader's privacy than the GeoIP cookie. The bottom of this page links to "Cookie statement" and there is missing GeoIP cookie description, because it is not honest enough to be described openly, because readers could feel alarmed...? Because that GeoIP cookie is tracking, where does the reader move...

And a second reason, while I thought now it would be wise to at least reserve that account name against possible misuse before you would ban my IP, I cannot use it, because someone else reserved a similar name in advance without actually using it... The page says: "Please choose another username". No, sorry... (How many "Dead Souls" is here from the former Contributors? It would show, how much people abandoned struggle to fix things against predominance of censors, as I did long time ago...)

...

To other people I should state, that Wikipedia is tremendous effort, I'm thankful for that, and I use it to educate myself, and I sometimes point people here to read, what am I writing about. But then I need to balance it and warn them against overtrusting it, because it is unballanced and censored in some topics and too many people are just blindly trusting it without further searching for other side of the Truth. (While there are many topics of high quality that no one is struggling to censor any more... It's just that Blind Trust that is a problem... _Doubt Properly_ ...)

79.98.159.114 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC) P.A.S.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days 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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This Block is Gravely Unjust. You Black Kite didn't spend much time reviewing this case and sentenced me according to single False Witness, so please review this case... This Ban is just Retaliation against my Edits to March 15 list, fixing one important omission, which is specifically prohibited on WP:BP to use blocking as a retaliation. I did not engage in ANY Disruptive Editing and made NOTHING from "Banning Policy", as may be witnessed by my squeeky clean Contributions list, making only well-justified typo-corrections, few talks, and this March 15 fixing former deceptive removal. Defending against Targeted Harassment on My Own TalkPage is not "Disruptive Editing". There was dispute about March 15 editing, where I've been reverted twice and engaged in Negotiation according to guide-lines. When no reply and no action came after 4 days, I documented ONCE, who was it, who reverted me disruptively. (So it was not "repeated".) Then after replies just continuing on My Own Talk Page only... On the contrary, user Toddst1 engages in continued Targeted Harassment, repeated Personal Attack (on this Talk Page), makes Actions Placing other User (me) in Danger by his Lying Template, Discloses Other User's Personal Information - into which I include Location Information, and places Persistent Posts Defamatory about Living Persons (me), because the Geolocation is Wrong, and is Repeatedly Vandalising my Talk Page with that Template. That is 5 bannable offences beside that Targeted Harassment. Where should I appeal this case ?! 79.98.159.114 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; this is not a ruling on the merits of the request. Declined because this and below is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Please read WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request. Yamla (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2020 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This Block is unjust retaliation for negotiation after repeatedly reverted good-faith edit to March 15 page. There was no "Disruption", just a Defense against Targeted Harassment and Defamatory Lie, that is still ongoing, placing me in potential danger, I am a Victim and not a Perpetrator in this case. 79.98.159.114 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC) P.A.S.

Decline reason:

The personal attacks below rule out accepting this unblock request. Talk page access removed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:30, 13 March 2020 (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.

...

If you are TL;DR (too lazy to read), you need not read the text below... 79.98.159.114 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC) P.A.S.

---

Just to document, who makes me such problems - user Toddst1 is repeatedly engaging in Disruptive Editing and Reverting other user's good-faith edits to Date pages (which is 78% of his activity there), and majority of the rest of his activity is supplying Refs to those Date pages, which is according to existing policy, which policy is Wrong. (The Refs should be in linked articles and not to obscure date-lists. Existing policy is Wrong.) So he is something like a charlady-man, according to his revengeful behaviour on this talk page I doubt, if it's He or rather She? Or a porter door-guard who witlessly and persistently blocks other's from Contributing... But that was according to existing albeit wrong rules. But user Uncle Dick, who's contribution to Date-Lists is Only Reverting other user's edits, reverted my edits absolutely Unjustly.

This is why Toddst1 tries to accuse me of a splinter of "Disruptive Editing", because it's a "Beam" in his eye crying that. (Lk6:41)

And after summoning on me an Admin the Black Kite, Toddst1 came a while later to cowardly and treacherously place here that Harassment Lying Template of his wicked Revenge, which is just Sordid...

Accusation of having proxy server or shared IP address here is a False Accusation and it is potentialy Harmful. Repeated Revengeful Obstinacy of user Toddst1 is Targeted Harassment.

Does "Kite" mean "Dragon" ? So this DoorKeeper nick-named "Todt D/S 1" has sent on me a Black Dragon to block me ? It's just Wonderful...

I'm not editing here often and you can keep your Ban if you like, but this is an Exemplary Case and it Shall Be Published. I'm not editing here, because about 90+% pages in Wikipedia are fine, and the rest, which parrots common establishment lies, can't be fixed anyway so it's not worth loosing a time...

As a fallout from that, user Toddst1 removed H.Clinton's quote from top place on his user-page (about "standing up to bullies" - that's you, toddst1, who is a "Bully" here...), and hurriedly cleaned up the March 15 Talk page, removing among else complaints of other users against Rms@...'s deletionism into Archive (which complaints are probably not obsolette, they are still meaningful to be mentioned), just to give my Talk a very prominent front place on that TalkPage, which he probably also considers a Retaliatory action? How naive...

As a side-note, if Toddst1 obstinately attracts alertness against this my IP: as a possible consequence of my intense reading here (a day before that "March 15" dispute, could it be random coincidence?), traffic into my hacker-trap web-server on this IP increased about 10x and persists, from sites including ddos.rocks, irc.servercentral.net, irccloud.com, amazonaws.com, evilnet.org and others... Should it increase yet 100x, you could match the scale of attack, that DDOS-Guard instigated against this Mountain Hut last year and persisted about a month, which bothered me enough to spend few minutes each day editing iptables to block attacking IP's ranges... I've explained to them, that I shall not buy their protection just to shield my boondoggle puppy web-server on Pluto, which is just collecting Log of random Hackers, but then I thought more and erased there everyone, who made less than 1000 requests onto a web-server that clearly states there is nothing of interest. The rest of the Log with Big Fishes will be reported to DDOS-Guard later... Don't even try to make it to the first place in the list, where one double-IP host made 100,000 requests against this boondoggle puppy hacker-trap web-server... The space for that Log is almost bottomless... (Mentioning this, because it's possible that this page attracted or will attract ddos attempt traffic against this IP, due to Toddst1 actions... It's almost worthless...)

79.98.159.114 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC) P.A.S.

Wikipedia has no place for antisemitism in discussions

Blaming Jews for your current predicament as you did in this now-deleted rant is not acceptable

Your talk page access has been revoked, but this is your only warning: When your block expires you will be immediately re-blocked if you resume any form of racist garbage in any discussions either from this IP address, your employers' or any other address/account.

Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

June 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Thought-terminating cliché. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

---