User talk:Aspencork

Welcome!
Hello, Aspencork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! S.G.(GH) ping! 13:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Benghazi edits.
Hey, sorry, I was unavailable for many days there. Sometimes life goes like that. See my reply re: your request on my talk page.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be absurd
It's hard to imagine you could add that material to Planned Parenthood in good faith; the sentence you wrote gives an impression directly at odds with the source. Just embarrassing. Also, FYI, abortion-related articles are under sanctions and in particular a 1RR restriction. --JBL (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Nazism, you may be blocked from editing. DanielRigal (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are an any doubt as to why you have received this warning then please read the discussion of previous attempts to censor the simple fact that the Nazis are regarded as right wing by all reputable historians. You can find this on Talk:Nazism and its archives. We are aware that there are fringe groups who argue otherwise presumably for reasons of self-interest, and that a few exceptionally uninformed or gullible people may actually believe their line, but this fringe viewpoint is not welcome here and has been removed many times before. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nazism. DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Friedrich Engels. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * What edit war? My first attempt to add relevant information was deleted and I was told the sources I cited were "questionable."  I reedited my post and cited sources already cited -- and apparently already accepted as "credible" -- within the article to substantiate an actual quote by Engels.  Hence, I directly addressed the "pretense" behind my first edit being deleted in a manner that should have satisfied the individual who deleted my edit.  My second edit was deleted by a second individual without any substantive comment to justify his reversal.  And what's controversial about quoting Engels in an article about Engels?Aspencork (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am only going to remind you once that you are already on a final warning and that it applies to all articles. You can't just step away from one article where you have been warned and start causing similar trouble somewhere else. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have posted can be considered "vandalism" as you so preposterously and superciliously claim, and everything I've posted has been supported with substantive citations. You should heed your own warnings.Aspencork (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page comments
Please sign your comments using four tildes ~ 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an honest omission, and I'm making an effort to not forget to do that. Aspencork (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Random Edits
Hi Aspencork,

Thanks for editing.

I agree with you on your comments in Nazism.

The problem is we have to prove it. I'm working on that at the moment.

Would you be able to help me ?

Thanks

91.151.6.202 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've ordered two of the books they are citing to verify their citations, and one or both might be used to turn this argument against them.  I've posted historical examples that prove their biased statements false, but they 'deflect' and introduce vagaries such as changing the definition of 'credible', 'mainstream', etc., for sources to reject my sources but simultaneously do not apply the same standards to their own.  I've discovered that 'facts' and 'truth' do not matter to some of these people.

February 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being incapable of working on a collaborative project and wasting too much of other editors' time and patience. This is exemplified in this ANI thread, this archived discussion, and not least by your edits to Nazism and its talkpage passim. Compare also the warnings and advice you have received on this page. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Drakkar is the building the French were using for a barracks, 1983.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Drakkar is the building the French were using for a barracks, 1983.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)