User talk:The Best There Is 'Snikt!'

Question
Iloveandrea--have you finally gotten permission for your return to Wikipedia?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh?--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Suffice it to say that you bear more than a passing resemblance to a banned sockpuppeteer. However, on closer examination it seems I may have jumped the gun.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Contras
Hi, I just saw that you have been carrying out a major operation on the Contras page. While I appreciate your effort, I noticed that you made a change to the sourced statement from the Latin American Studies observer group. I did not wish to revert you, since you clearly put a lot of effort into your edit, but I was hoping you could either explain that, or reinsert it. Also, just as a quick note; it is probably more helpful in the long run to give book names and page numbers, rather than googlebooks links; it is more durable, and easier for editors to examine. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because it's only repeating that the elections were fair. It was borderline undue because the basic point that the elections were fair had already been made. And I believe you kind of have to include links on some issues that tend to inflame passions but I'll try it your way.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, that seems fair, but you should keep in mind that we are not only reporting that the elections were broadly fair, but that multiple groups saw it as such. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Good Work
Hey, great work on the Contras page; it seriously needed some cleanup. Since you've been doing such a great job there, might I point you to this page? It's in a very similar area, and is in urgent need of cleanup, which I don't have the time to do properly. Of course, you have absolutely no obligation to do any such, just thought I'd mention it. Once again, good job. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll be working on several projects so I may get to it later. Thanks.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice
For your attention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You again. Why do you keep coming here with this mess? First you accuse me of being Iloveandrea and now this. And also, wouldn't all kinds of thoughts being going through your mind right as to what is going on here?--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. From reviewing your contributions it is obvious that you are attempting to evade your block yet again. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, it is appearing as though this administrator and the user are accusing me of being because we both used similar sources on 2 pages. I don't know what to think here.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally, for future reference, Nick-D (talk) dubbed a page I created "a POV pushing disaster area", though all I did was use studies by Amnesty International's Michael Mcclintock, the authoritative scholarly literature, the official truth commission report, and mainstream media reports. So since this administrator perceives this as 'POV disaster pushing', he will likely flag me for it in the future. In other words, I am confused as to how else I am supposed to edit in a way that does not offend him. I will just end up back here, appealing a block for POV pushing. Thanks.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there an invisible line that I have crossed here? Did I bring the 'forbidden knowledge' or something? It's almost black comedy, just as the users "prime example" of "proof" of a sockppupet. Why is this happening again?--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "again"? Are you referring to all of the previous times you were blocked and had this exact same reaction (accusing Nick-D, Stumink, CJK, and I of forming a cabal to censor your "forbidden knowledge" on behalf of the US government)?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Again, as in I've already been wondering why this is happening. Why are you doing this, btw?--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to get caught using socks, you shouldn't be so quick to break character. Goodbye.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are ruthless and due driven. What am I supposed to think and say to you?--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please answer the question. What is driving you to do this?--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Horhey, there are a couple of dead giveaways in formatting style and page linking even in that unblock request. After all this time, you still can't Wikilink properly! (For the record, if you didn't use Grandin as Horhey, then I introduced you to the source...)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the suggestion that "United States intervention in Guatemalan civil war" would have demonstrated your contrasting editing style, bear in mind any admin can check the deleted article to see how it compares to Horhey's work.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am new and just discovered the "Sandbox" the night before I got banned. I probably don't know a lot of other things. But I do know anything can be checked, thanks. And no, you did not introduce me to anything. You should relax more and go about your business. "You're too close to this", sir.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you claim to be such an avid reader of Greg Grandin's work, then you should have no problem adding this to the page:

"'in Latin America the first sustained campaign of death-squad-executed “disappearances” of political dissidents occurred in Guatemala in 1966, carried out by a unit created and directly supervised by American security advisers.'"

You can't do it can you? You would see that in the book you supposedly own or have read and pretend you never saw it. I on the other hand am willing to add it to the page and yet, I am the one pushing POV, as you say.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, this right here was part of what Nick-D (talk) dubbed "a POV pushing disaster area". The NPOV rule is not subjective. It is not in the eye of the beholder. It actually means something. It's very specific and straight forward. POV is not something you might find offensive. It is when the cited source is misrepresented or not adequately represented. Period. I'm sorry if it makes some people feel uncomfortable but it's not POV pushing. I'll check back in a few days.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To respond in brief to your claim of being a new user, your very first edits with this account suggest otherwise. I was referring more to some of Horhey's specific editing quirks, like including an unnecessary underline with every Wikilink (for example, Barack_Obama or Barack Obama), every single one of which you have displayed at one time or another.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)