User talk:64.183.36.19

November 2022
Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Dan Hicks (archaeologist) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Craig Murray. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You need to stop now. — kashmīrī  TALK  23:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There is nothing poorly referenced - there are several factual examples, by rock solid sources showing the false claims made by Murray. Facts are not defamatory and that you are trying to suppress them is not just odd, it is suspicious. I strongly suggest you are in fact in breach of wikipedia policy and bias to this account for some reason or another. Either you provide counter evidence to the multiple sources provided or YOU stop. 64.183.36.19 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are not sufficient to publish defamatory statements in Wikipedia voice. — kashmīrī  TALK  23:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are not opinion pieces. Murray made several factually incorrect comments about the Skripal poisonings alone which were entirely fabricated and false. The facts are in each of those sources. The fact you are attempting to pretend otherwise is extremely odd and counter ethical to the entire point of wiki. Your shilling for him is pathetic. 64.183.36.19 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Craig Murray. ''You're in violation of several Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP and WP:WAR. This is a final warning before your IP gets blocked.'' — kashmīrī  TALK  23:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * None of those were unsourced, and none of them were poorly sourced. They are public and open. READ them yourself rather than refusing to accept credible commentary. utterly obscene attempts to suppress factual commentary. 64.183.36.19 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. ZsinjTalk 23:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This is one of the more sinister things I have seen on Wikipedia. Murray, a man with a long documented history of making conspiracy claims, made very clear comments during the Skripal poisoning that this was a "false flag operation" - there is no other way to describe this than a conspiracy theory. He then promoted Russian propaganda over the explanation for the 2 assassins from Russia. He also attempted to make a link towards Israel (also false).
 * This is all well documented, well sourced and provided. There is no other way to describe someone who promotes conspiracy theories and a conspiracy theorist.
 * Attempts to edit this appalling haliograph of a wiki page were instantly shut down. Nothing addressing the content of the claims, merely immediate removal.
 * This is not only suspicious, unethical, but entirely counter to the point of wikipedia. 64.183.36.19 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bonkers. No political scientist is correct 100% of time. I venture to say that most turn out incorrect most of the time. If you want to publish slander because someone's proposition turned out incorrect, then you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it operates. No, it's not an indiscriminate collection of negative information about a subject you dislike. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Utter, utter nonsense. There is a clear pattern of behavior promoting conspiracy theories.
 * 1) Claiming Israel was behind Skripal poisoning: from his OWN blog "“While I am struggling to see a Russian motive for damaging its own international reputation so grievously, Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian reputation.” (note: zero evidence. Entirely opinion - conspiracy theory)
 * 2) Claiming the UK government might have been behind it, being a false flag. (utter drivel, zero evidence)
 * 3) Murray has also suggested that the West may have had a role in the death of James Le Mesurier, the former British Army captain who ran the Istanbul-based Mayday Rescue, because he had “lost his usefulness” to western security services after Turkey took control of most of northern Syria. (Objectively false, zero evidence for claim)
 * 4) He also said that the White Helmets, a volunteer organisation Le Mesurier co-founded that operates in parts of opposition-controlled Syria and in Turkey, “worked hand-in-glove” with “jihadist headchoppers”. (Objectively false, zero evidence, a notable and well known conspiracy theory)
 * All false. A clear pattern of promoting conspiracy theories. Objectively. It is not slander to call someone promoting conspiracy theories a conspiracy theorist if they repeatedly do so. This isnt a matter of being "incorrect" this is a case of promoting grossly inaccurate, wildly false stories without a shred of evidence.
 * The fact you are attempting to suppress his own words his hugely worrying, hugely unethical and a testament to your own bias.
 * To not include these caveats, and heliograph is work is false, inaccurate and prevents a fair contextualisation of any other view he presents. Falsely equivocating that political scientists often get things wrong is a cop out. This is not the same as falsely predicting an election, this is a clear pattern of dangerous conspiracy theories.
 * I would also ask you to retract your claim that this is "slander" - as nothing I said was inaccurate or false. I would also suggest you better understand the difference between slander and libel before throwing out such claims. It further suggests you havent a clue what you are talking about. 64.183.36.19 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One, I would suggest you better understand the difference between haven't and don't have. Two, speculating about the actors and motives behind this type of events is an everyday task of political analysts, and it is done before evidence is available. For a more recent example, you are welcome to read 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage – will you call any suggestions re. the perpetrator, promoting conspiracy theories? Three, your writing shows that your knowledge of Syria, the back story of the White Helmets or the ways that security services operate is negligible compared to, say, Murray's. So, all in all, you will excuse us but it will be other Wikipedia editors to decide whether something is a conspiracy theory or an entirely legitimate, even if sometimes biased, search for a plausible explanation. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:00, 29 January 2023 (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 is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Craig Murray, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Several worrying points to raise here.
 * 1) You fail to address the *pattern* of behaviour. It is not a one off - that is the point. So providing one off examples is irrelevant.
 * 2) I have no idea what your point is regarding Nord Stream is, because yes, obviously, if people are promoting false narratives about this, without evidence, calling them conspiracy theorists is entirely accurate.
 * 3) And this is the most concerning, are you genuinely trying to promote yourself a conspiracy theories around White Helmets in Syria? An organisation that Wikipedia itself calls "The organisation has been the target of a sustained disinformation campaign by supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian state-sponsored media organisations such as RT and Sputnik; the campaign has promoted false accusations connecting it with terrorist activities and other conspiracy theories"
 * So,
 * 1) why are you suppressing & removing legitimate descriptions of well documented false and baseless claims?
 * 2) Why are you refusing to label opinions *this very website* labels "conspiracy theories" as suvh?
 * 3) Why are you echoing disinformation campaigns by Russian state sponsored Media?
 * Your arguments are weak, baseless and your actions are that of an idealogical shill.
 * You have absolutely no right to be suppressing legitimate information and editing wikipedia to your idealogical bent.
 * Shame on you. 64.183.36.19 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Partial block; will be expanded to full block if you continue edit-warring
 You have been blocked from editing Craig Murray for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, I ask, why am I blocked for highlighting open conspiracy theories someone as written about, with legitimate sources and evidence? This is one of the most bizarre, clearly orchestrated, and sinister things I have seen on Wiki.
 * Utterly, utterly shameful. 64.183.36.19 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)