User talk:DarlingDavid

I promise to follow citation and reference rules from now on

Proposed deletion of Belock Recording Studio
Hello, DarlingDavid. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Belock Recording Studio, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not explaining anything to you. If others who read the article wish to correct, support or add to it, they may of course. It is the basis of a collaboration which you obviously do not want to even start. You are really in censorship mode rather than improvement mode. If there are any factual errors or incorrect statements in my article please list them Ubiquity. If you cannot then shut up.

Everything I have stated here is based on personal research and primary sources.

I leave the floor open to other members with perhaps more knowledge than either of us to make such corrections as necessary.

Cheers

Nomination of Belock Recording Studio for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Belock Recording Studio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Belock Recording Studio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ubiquity (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't the time presently to give all the footnotes and citations I have in my files which are in storage anyway. I will include this article in the Everest Records article which could do with a complete rewrite, at a later stage.

August 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Belock Recording Studio. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. ubiquity (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. Thank you.  Super Mario  Man – Talk 16:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I left a comment on YOUR page and please read it. I will repost the article or include it in the Everest Records article which has a number of inaccuracies and is incomplete, so I will probably rewrite that at the same time. In the meantime. Let's not have another QWORTY!

October 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at RAF Croughton, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Those "sources" do not satisfy the requirements for verifiability. David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You state at the head of the article that much of this article has no reliable reference to sources. Much of the article seems a reiteration of standard official information contained in publications issued by the defence community and govetnment agencies. Even if it were primary evidence it would be unreliable to the extent it would be one sided. I therefire fail to see your picking and choosing attitude towards my update. I will supply the necessary citations and references in due course. DarlingDavid (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Political filtering in the editing process
Clearly, in articles on politically sensitive issues and events, where certain contributors have established an overall gloss on the information that projects a limited, one sided or even slightly unbalanced impression, I have noticed that attempts to edit, update with additional information, are being effectively sabotaged by seasoned practitioners in the Wikipedia community, using the "rules", in order to protect the existing tenor of basically inadequate biased articles.

When an update is made to an article which clearly requires improvement, often declared in the article itself, and the editor states they will add citations and reliable source based references in short time, the update should stand and Talk engaged.

What is unacceptable is arbitrary deletion of updates and edits before the person has had time to add the final polish of citations and references. DarlingDavid (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Its simple really, the addition was challenged a number of times and per normal practice a talk page discussion was opened to gain a consensus. All you need to do is discuss what you think should be added and get agreement from the others. Remember that we have rules around living persons and the need for reliable sourcing. As you have been reminded before, any further discussion needs to be on the article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's as as simple as this. I regard you as another troll with a oersonal interest in defence matters. You Sir have a military background and you do not want the shiny authorised version of RAF Croughton presented on Wikipedia, clearly not backed up by reliable independent primary sources, modified in any way by recent developments abd emerging facts in the case of the fugitive Anne Sacoolas and her husband a spy who worked at the base with undisclosed and therefore highly dubious legal immunity.

If the agreement conferring legal immunity on personnel stationed at RAF Croughton was not ratified in an Act of Parliament then Anne Sacoolas has no immunity and is simply a hit and run driver wanted in the UK to answer police questions about her driving and the accident.

It's as simple as this, I suspect you are even unaware of your own internal bias. You may even be put up to sweep clean any Wikipedia entries concerning USAF bases in the UK for all I know.

I will keep reposting and editing this article as I see fit and as stated in talk if you bothered to read it, I will citate and reference in good time.

In the meantime get back to your RAF magazines.

October 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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:. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocking contributors who do not comply with the Washington based neo conservative filters on Wikipedia
There's clearly old fashioned censorship at work. DarlingDavid (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not being censored, you are blocked for persistently adding unsourced information and, frankly, for your attacks on other editors which indicate a lack of willingness to collaborate in a civil manner. If you can address these points, you may make an unblock request that other administrators will review. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll review my postings and updates with regard to a fully cited and referenced update to the RAF Croughton article which is currently lackibg any independently sourced contributions outside the authorised version that has been gleaned and literally skimmed from Government and Defence based publications. There is a great deal of controversy now concerning the arrangements thar USAF / American Intelligence units occupy and can operate on British territory and there is a clear need to update and improve this article taking that into account.

I will get back to you.


 * I wish to appeal my blocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlingDavid (talk • contribs)
 * To appeal, please follow the instructions in the block notice. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite blocking without review is both against Human Rights and authoritarian and indicative of a propaganda based government sponsored organisation.
As above, I find my individual treatment is highly authoritarian and reveals a lack of any true transparency or democracy in the Wikipedia foundation. My initial suspicions that Wikipedia was essentially a right wing neo-conservative state sponsered tool set up to effectively shape and control the cultural legacy, and essentially revise the 20th Century history available on the web in particular, has been rather confirmed. DarlingDavid (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are not going to appeal your block, and just use this page to post your personal theories or opinions, your ability to edit this page will be removed. Just as you are able to determine what goes in within the four walls of your residence, Wikipedia has policies to guide its content. As Wikipedia is a private entity, it can do so. If you prefer to be told what you want to hear and what fits with your worldview, you are free to not visit or participate in Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * To appeal, please follow the instructions in the block notice above. No one will see your appeal otherwise. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)