The Discloser of Truth
October 2016
edit
Please do not add content or create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
My page has sources. Sometimes the truth hurts, but that doesn't make it na attack. You deleted under false pretenses. Plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Discloser of Truth (talk • contribs) 10:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The Discloser of Truth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My page was not a nonsense page or unsouced or an attack page. The administrator who deleted it and blocked me for these reasons is lying. My page had plenty of sources and documented a new important event, which he simply had not read about yet. Please have a look for yourself, and you will see the blocking admin's actions were wholly inappropriate. My page Donald Trump's taxes was extremely well sourced for a current event and the admin fabricated false pretenses for deletion and block without discussion, first saying it was "unsourced", then it was "attack page" (please, it's not an attack if it's merely repeating what the reliable sources like the ny times, politico, wapo, washington times, huffpo, etc. are saying, nearly verbatim from the sources) and then, that my page was "nonsense". Someone please look at my page, you will see that it exonerates me against these false charges. I think the blocking admin should be sanctioned for acting without even checking if the claims were sourced and making up phony reasons to justify his actions..
Decline reason:
Too bad that your sources didn't confirm what you wrote on Wikipedia. This is not a place for political smear jobs. Huon (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2016 (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.
The Discloser of Truth (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The Discloser of Truth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Excuse me. This was not a "smear job." Please go and actually read this source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&contentCollection=us&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article&version=newsevent&rref=collection%2Fnews-event%2Felection-2016. I was merely reporting a major political event. Trump's candidacy is likely over, and while you can plug up your ears and eyes and block me as many times as you want, that won't make the truth go away. I did nothing but factually report what the notable sources stated. You have not read the sources and are judging based on your biases. The Truth will prevail!.
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. See WP:TRUTH, too. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:48, 2 October 2016 (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.
- Fun fact: I did read the sources. They were not saying this was a scandal "comparable perhaps only to Watergate", they did not liken the subject to Hitler, and they certainly did not say there was any tax evasion going on. Not even the supposed quote about the "annihilated" campaign was based on the sources. I have revoked talk page access but will leave it to another administrator to close this unblock request. I rather doubt your sockpuppetry will help your cause. Huon (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
edit
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Discloser of Truth, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
NasssaNser (talk/edits) 12:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)