User talk:Dunkmack9

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

unblock reason=blocked for POV only, not as stated

unblock reason=because I'd like to request clemency, acknowledge my ill conduct and request a second chance. Despite the abrupt blocking of my account, I was not on a conspiracy theory tear. The topics that I was blocked for were 2. Day of Deceit, a book by Robert Stinnett claiming extensive recent (in terms of WW2) freedom of information act use resulting in never before published information he found, from recently declassified top-secret archives--some of which has since been removed by unknown hands. I have stated before, and been banned for stating that the article is a profound mischarachterization of what Stinnett claims in the book. For instance, without any cites from the actual book, it is claimed Stinnett said the Govt knew we would be attacked on Dec 7 at Pearl Harbor--in the Day of Deceit article. It is said he said the McCollum memo was written for the express purpose of starting a War with Japan. Any cites from the actual Stinnett book are out of context. All Stinnett says about the McCollum memo is that Roosevelt admin seems to have used it as a blueprint to aggravate Japan into committing the first overt act of War; not that McCollum wrote it for that purpose. Stinnett never claimed Dec 7 at Pearl Harbor was known ahead of time by the US Govt; all he stated was that by Roosevelt following the McCollum memo (which certainly seems to be the case) that Japan would attact a US military base somewhere in the South Pacific, and as December 1941 came around it loked like it was going to happen pretty soon. Certain editors Binksternet for certain, and Drmies believe that all discussion of US Govt/military foreknowledge of our aggravating Japan into War is lunatric fringe conspiracy theory. I am sorry, but these people have neither read the book nor are they aware of the vast public sentiment about this topic. It is not lunatic. I should have had more patience with these people who called me lunatic fringe conspiracy POV. They had lots of references that denied it, so I should have understood how obligated they felt to pursue that avenue of thought. However, I still think that I was treated unfairly. However, I can drop it until I get references even they cannot obliterate at lunatic conspiracy POV. That is exactly where the second cause of my block comes from---Rudolph Hess, and a book by Thomas, The Murder of Rudolph Hess. This book was written by a British military surgeon stationed at the Brit. Mil. Hosp. in Berlin in the 1970's. He was senior Brit. Med. Officer to Spandau Prison where Hess was. The Rud Hess page has repeatedly (thanks Diannaa) refused to acknowledge Thomas was a Doctor, or had ever even met Hess at Spandau. It was not until I recently found another cite being used on the article that I was able to force the article to admit he was a Military Surgeon who had treated Hess (at Spandau), and that Thomas claimed the Hess at Spandau did not have any scar. That same day I added that "Thomas was a Surgeon who had treated Hess at Spandau" I was blocked almost immediately. Aside from that, the Hess article once again totally misinterprets what the Thomas Book said. It sure as hell said a lot more about things Thomas found out while Senior Med Officer of the Berlin Mil Hospital atached to Spandau than that he did not see a scar. Also, It never said that Hess was Killed before he left for Scotland--as the article claims the conspiracy Thomas states. That was one scenario. Without being too wordy, would like a second chance to better wp cleaning up such blatently misinformed articles by adding "bulletproof" cite ref's.  I think I can do so while ignoring the disparaging and unusually devisive comments by certain edit administrators. As I say, I know I can be more calm dealing with criticism and would like the opportunity to impress upon WP some "bulletproof" cite refs so much in need on certain articles. Give me a chance, I know you all will be watching me. How about it? Please? And, despite what Edjohnson may have said about me being notified of an ANI thread about me, I never was told of any ANI thread of any kind..Dunkmack9 (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Dunkmack9. Since your were indefinitely blocked as the result of a community discussion, any unblock must come from the same route. I am therefore initiating a discussion at the main administrators noticeboard. Here is a link: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273.  You are incorrect when you say you were never notified of the block discussion in January; the person who made the initial post advised you  on January 17, and I posted a second notice  on January 20. If you have any comments you wish to add to the new discussion, please post them on this page and one of us will copy them over for you.-- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa- I am so happy to get your input on the ANI page now that I know what it is, and cannot comment on that page. Your comment on the ANI board is typical of your snooty know it all behavior on your favorite Nazi Rudolf Hess article. I have read much more than just Thomahs book concerning Hess, and for you to claim that I feel I have "found the truth" after reading the Thomas book shows your ignorance, not mine. You should be ashamed of your rude and insulting behavior that has created a Nazi tribute page instead of a fair and balanced article on a very interesting Historical character (aside from being a murdering Nazi). Few Nazi's have achieved that status of interesting Historical character. You obviously have never read,or fear the book in question because you repeatedly mistate what it says. Why are you so afraid of what Dr. Hugh Thomas had to say after reading all of Hess's medical records, including all Spandau records, and examining Hess personally with his own eyes, and radiologically? Why will you not allow that Dr Thomas is an expert in high velocity (military rifle bullet) wounds to the thoracic region--and he found that the prisoner called Hess in Spandau Prison in the 1970's when he examined him had not been ever shot through the lung as Rudolph Hess had been in WW1? Now, Diannaa, have I said when or even if the real Hess was murdered? No I have not have I Diannaa? Neither did Dr Hugh Thomas. He did come up with several theories for what he observed personally and professionally as a highly trained Military thoracic surgeon. So what is the "truth" I have "found" by referencing the Thomas book except that you are absolutely horrified that someone or somebody will write an article at WP on the Thomas Book "The Murder of Rudolph Hess." Want to know what I really think about the whole Spandau/Hess affair? I think the Soviets got their hands on him in the 60's. There you have it Diannaa, ridicule me about that, at least you will be ridiculing something I actually said. BYW, Diannaa, I am very proud of you bringing up the Hess article to good status. I know you are pissed off that i used your own article references to add that Thomas (was not some random kook who wrote a book) was a military Doctor assigned to Spandau and and examined Hess. You were so upset with my (correct and indisputable reference) change to your article (that still stands) that you had me banned within 3 hours of making that little addition to your article--wow!! Good job. Dunkmack9 (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)