BranteFarrell
Joined 26 January 2020
Latest comment: 9 months ago by BranteFarrell in topic January 2024
January 2024
edit
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- My apologies if I did not follow a rule I was unaware of. I am a justice rights promoter and was actively assisting in this compendium by directly addressing improper editing on a public service data site (Wikipedia). I in no way was attempting to do anything but support this site through encouraging accountability, which is sorely lacking through the obvious biases being allowed. This will become a matter for the courts if as human beings at a ground level do not work together to hold each other accountable. I don't believe in lifetime bans as being assistive in a democratic society. Admins of site such as Wikipedia have no public oversight, have no accountability to the public and are directly effecting our society through filtering what facts are allowed to be viewed. This is concerning to me and I hope it's concerning to you. I have not attempted to censor or edit wiki pages myself. I am an election official and I believe in the facts being displayed for all to read and consider themselves. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. I don't see what reason a lifetime ban is considered reasonable, but if that's your ruling from considering your position to be, I don't mind and am happy to learn from you what rules I violated. Please let me know exactly what process I failed to follow, so I can file the paperwork regarding your assertion. Thank you. BranteFarrell (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a public service, it is a private company and thus not subject to some sort of public oversight. We are also a mainstream encyclopedia so present mainstream views, which you for some reason sees as filtering information (I'm not going to call it facts as I don't know what you specifically are considering to be facts although I assume it has to do with UFOs. I also don't understand your comment about filing paperwork - where? I'll have more to say when you answer that question. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am unable to locate any reference to Wikipedia as a private company. Can you please direct me to that? No I am not referring to UFO's (not sure what you mean by that). My concern is factual information such as credentials and such for individuals being removed from Wiki pages. I must acknowledge I am not well-versed in wiki editing myself. Not am a computer tech type. However, have noticed over the years a degree of editing which does not appear accurate, and any complaints entirely ignored. Imho, For instance, if a person has the credentials of a doctor, then their page should not be edited to remove "Dr" from their title. Would you agree? Yes you are correct that I have recently noted a string of articles critiquing Wikipedia, but I honestly have not read them to know what all the complaints are. As Wikipedia is a global and trusted source of information, I would propose that denying that it has any responsibility to the public is a strange statement to make. BranteFarrell (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- See MOS:HONORIFICS. That decision was arrived at by a discussion among editors (not a lot of our editors are computer tech types, by the way}.I misspoke when I used the word company as it's parent, WIkimedia, is a charitable foundation. A lot of right wingers don't like us because we are mainstream - ditto a lot of fringe writers such as Graham Hancock complain about us. If they didn't I'd worry. THere is absolutely no legal requirement for public oversight and I have no idea what you mean - what public? The UN? Some country? What you call filtering facts might be seen as not allowing fake news, pseudoscience, pseudoarchaeology, etc. As I said, mainstream. You and your colleagues were busy removing information you didn't like from this article , for instance. I don't have more time to bother with someone coming here with others to push fringe nonsense. If you want to be unblocked, appeal as shown above. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alright. Sorry for my slow reply, busy on the farm. I absolutely support Wikipedia only and thoroughly objective and unbiased facts. Removing facts is or certainly should be in opposition to the very foundation of the site. Losing credibility in these times is not something any of us can afford. I don't wish for any unfounded information to be displayed on Wikipedia. The concerns I mentioned have nothing to do with unproven fringe theories, lol. I wouldn't waste either of our time if it was. I am sorry I don't have a colleagues and have not to my recollection removed any information? Unless my account has been hacked…which due to the mass data leaks is always a possibility. I don't really like the idea of being blocked, but I have a lot of real-world work to attend to. If I have a chance I will look up the appeal process you're referring to. Thanks for your time. BranteFarrell (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- See MOS:HONORIFICS. That decision was arrived at by a discussion among editors (not a lot of our editors are computer tech types, by the way}.I misspoke when I used the word company as it's parent, WIkimedia, is a charitable foundation. A lot of right wingers don't like us because we are mainstream - ditto a lot of fringe writers such as Graham Hancock complain about us. If they didn't I'd worry. THere is absolutely no legal requirement for public oversight and I have no idea what you mean - what public? The UN? Some country? What you call filtering facts might be seen as not allowing fake news, pseudoscience, pseudoarchaeology, etc. As I said, mainstream. You and your colleagues were busy removing information you didn't like from this article , for instance. I don't have more time to bother with someone coming here with others to push fringe nonsense. If you want to be unblocked, appeal as shown above. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am unable to locate any reference to Wikipedia as a private company. Can you please direct me to that? No I am not referring to UFO's (not sure what you mean by that). My concern is factual information such as credentials and such for individuals being removed from Wiki pages. I must acknowledge I am not well-versed in wiki editing myself. Not am a computer tech type. However, have noticed over the years a degree of editing which does not appear accurate, and any complaints entirely ignored. Imho, For instance, if a person has the credentials of a doctor, then their page should not be edited to remove "Dr" from their title. Would you agree? Yes you are correct that I have recently noted a string of articles critiquing Wikipedia, but I honestly have not read them to know what all the complaints are. As Wikipedia is a global and trusted source of information, I would propose that denying that it has any responsibility to the public is a strange statement to make. BranteFarrell (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a public service, it is a private company and thus not subject to some sort of public oversight. We are also a mainstream encyclopedia so present mainstream views, which you for some reason sees as filtering information (I'm not going to call it facts as I don't know what you specifically are considering to be facts although I assume it has to do with UFOs. I also don't understand your comment about filing paperwork - where? I'll have more to say when you answer that question. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)