User talk:Chief Developer

March 2016
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 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:. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

All right... Let's try again. I saw a page about a movie. The movie tells the story of a CDC scientist turned whistleblower who claims the CDC destroyed data in order to hide the vaccine/autism link. This is what the movie is ABOUT. Its main theme. What the story of the movie IS. Right? Which the page about it did not say at the time.

Now, BTW it does - but not with a link to the source of the information, oh no... There is a link to *Snopes* instead which ridicules the story. Snopes, I ask you? A trusted source for Wikipedia while I was booted for quoting the President?

So, 1) I put a link to a newspaper article which said that President Obama's administration has given this person whistleblower status. Then, 2) There is a claim on the page that Wakefield's study "has been discredited"; now, this is NOT relevant to the film because the film is not about this, Wakefield directs the film but the story is not about him. However, since some articles were already cited on the topic I also listed another article giving an alternative view. Scientific article. Peer-reviewed. Which, on top of everything, also mentions the act of the CDC which the film is ABOUT. On a page about said film.

Again, which part of this does not help create an encyclopaedia of Wikipedia? A presidential act setting the beginning of story of the film, or a scientific publication exploring the topic of the film?

And, while we are at it... How many times do your administrators outright block someone indefinitely (including IP address) for just two (on-topic!) contributions? And, looking at the history of page edits, how many admins have you got that consistently boot out anyone who tries to show the other side of a story? How many admins have you got who work full-time creating pro-vaccine pages and booting out people off them who dare to say anything contrary?

Just look at the team work with this Gongwool person: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&action=history

Is the encyclopaedia you want?

BTW, just to make things clear. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT BEING BLOCKED. I do not care if you unblock me or not, I don't intend to use the account and do any edits in future. The point of the exercise is for you to look at your editorial policies and administrators and stop their abuse.

Chief Developer (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Unblock templates are for editors who wish to be unblocked only, not for soapboxing, so I've cleared this one. Further misuse of the unblock template will result the loss of your ability to edit this talk page. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)