User talk:Festermunk

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

November 2012
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent edit-warring, battleground behavior, and WP:IDHT. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. In examining the events that led up to this block, this recent discussion at WP:ANI may be useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft
I have moved the draft you have created to your user space as User:Festermunk/RT (TV network); subsequently, I have deleted the page (and its talk page) because your account is blocked. In the event you are ever unblocked, please e-mail me or request its undeletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

April 2013

 * Furhter to the above, thanks for the advice. At this point, I'm not sure how to approach your suggestion on whether or not to take it to WP:AN: I think I've been honest and perceptive in identifying the mistakes I've made and I think I've laid out a credible proposal on how to deal with it, which is (as per WP:NOTHERE) to not try to circumvent the block through puppet-sockery and a restructuring (or at least revision) of my editing philosophy, which has always placed a higher premium on confrontation over collaboration. The problem is that I have issues with sock-puppetry and don't know how strong my arguments would be to people reviewing early Standard Offer requests, so any help from you on this would be greatly appreciated.Festermunk (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally don't have any issue with early Standard Offers, but the last time I helped someone forward their request to the community, it went down in flames, partly due to the time interval. So I would wait I were you. But it's all up to you. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Selective review of your edits
I performed a highly selective and random review of your edits, only to find a pattern of problems. These include the following:


 * 27 April 2011
 * William Kunstler
 * User erroneously adds a fact tag to a quote made by Kunstler sourced directly to The New York Times (1970).
 * User is reverted by User:Savidan who notes, "there is already a citation"


 * 28 April 2011
 * Sinophobia ‎
 * User erroneously adds a verification tag to a properly cited image from the Library of Congress. Strangely, the user claims "the advertisement does not mention the caption provided, additional info. is needed on this"
 * Two years later, User:Viriditas reverts the edit with "Disruption reverted. Clearly it is verified on the LOC site as the image page shows"
 * User erroneously removes "Larry McCarthy...who is most famous for his Willie Horton ad" which is directly cited to Smith 2010.
 * Added back two years later by User:Viriditas with additional material from source.


 * 30 May 2011
 * Chinese people in Germany
 * User erroneously adds a "fact" tag to a properly cited statement in Christiansen 2003, p. 35.
 * Fact tag is finally removed more than a month later by User:CaliforniaAliBaba who notes "remove . this is stated in the source at the location specified: "This migration ... gained a political dimension when Radio Liberty began to employ Uighur staff", etc.)


 * 5 June 2011
 * David Brooks (journalist)
 * User erroneously adds a "fact" tag to a properly cited statement in The New Republic (2009).
 * Fact tag finally removed a year later by with the edit summary "Removed the 'citation needed tag' to the first sentence of the second to last paragraph. The sentences that follow are examples of this point and they posses citiations. The initial statement is merely a summary of what follows"


 * 5 June 2011
 * Molly Ivins
 * User labels Ivins a "liberal" in the lead section and misrepresents a source that does not use the word "liberal" at all
 * The word "liberal" is removed months later in October when User:Hal Raglan notices that the source doesn't even use the term: "Weirdly, the referenced article says nothing about an "unabashed liberal" perspective"


 * 5 June 2011
 * Jim Hightower
 * User labels Hightower a "progressive" columnist, without sources
 * The word "progressive" is removed a month later in July by User:ZHurlihee who asks the user to "tone down thw POV"


 * 15 August 2012
 * Robert Service (historian)
 * User adds the which maintenance tag to a positive statement about the work that is fully sourced at the end of the sentence.
 * The tagged material is removed by on 21 May 2013.
 * The properly sourced material is restored by Viriditas on 23 May, and the erroneous maintenance tag which later justified the erroneous removal of the material is removed.
 * Note: this article has serious COI editing concerns, as the primary criticism comes from an author who released a competing work concurrently with the book by Service. Various editors, from both registered and IP accounts, appear to be promoting this COI agenda.


 * 19 September 2012 - 31 October 2012
 * Peter Lavelle
 * User twice adds poorly sourced criticism of a BLP.
 * Twice the material is removed by IPs.
 * Carolmooredc restored a more NPOV presentation of the criticism leaving out the usual non-encyclopedic attacks added by Festermunk.


 * 25 October 2012
 * Margarita Simonyan
 * User turns a small BLP stub into an attack piece on a BLP.
 * Carolmooredc edits the article to make it NPOV and removes the egregious attacks.


 * 31 October 2012
 * Institute of Democracy and Cooperation
 * User claims that RT calls the org "pro-Kremlin".
 * However, the source is not RT but Russia Beyond the Headlines which has RS issues.
 * Viriditas removes the claim and source in May 2013.