User talk:Maurnxiao

Hi Maurnxiao! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! NoonIcarus (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maurnxiao (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Harry S. Truman. Accusing another editor of "deliberate erasue(sic) of highly important historical context" indicates you are not assuming good faith. Please familiarize yourself with our policies that likely required the the content be removed, and discuss with the editor on the article's Talk page if you have questions about their reasoning. General Ization ^Talk 02:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the "deliberate" came prematurely, and sorry for the spelling mistake in 'erasure' too. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, none of the sources for the content you are edit warring over appear to suggest that Harry Truman personally caused, implemented or was responsible for the misbehavior of the South Koreans, even if it occurred with knowledge and approval of parties within the US government. Since the sources you cite do not mention Truman, they could not be making the argument that Truman was responsible or even necessarily aware of those events. Consequently, the claim you are implicitly making by adding this content to an article about Truman is not supported by the sources. This information exists and belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia, but it does not appear to belong here. And even if it does, you must not edit war over it. General Ization ^Talk 02:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted more than four times which I believe is the limit. Truman, as President, was Commander-in-Chief, and the US perpetrated atrocities which are not mentioned in the article. Truman authorized the bombardment of North Korea which killed possibly more than a million and a half people. Omitting this from the article would detrimental and not provide a balanced account of Truman's actions. There is even a citation in the Bombing of North Korea article that says Truman ordered MacArthur to begin the bombing of North Korea. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "limit" is 3 times, but you may be blocked for conducting an edit war even if less than that. When you note that others reject your edit, your response should be to discuss it on the article Talk page (without making the same change again), not to repeatedly assert your change. See the several links I have given you now to our policies. General Ization ^Talk 02:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were provided. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not mention Truman. This discussion belongs now on the article Talk page, not here. General Ization ^Talk 02:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truman was the Commander-in-Chief and bore responsibility for the atrocities committed by the US. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is your premise. Now you need to cite sources that explicitly say so. You may not assign responsibility to Truman here using sources that don't mention him. General Ization ^Talk 02:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that state Truman was Commander-in-Chief? Plus, I already gave a source of him authorizing at least one of the bombing campaigns. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that your arguments for including mention of this at Harry Truman are right, but that you need to locate reliable sources that explicitly make the connections you are implicitly making to Truman. You may not make those connections without citing sources that support them. (See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.) Also, your arguments belong on the article's Talk page where they can be discussed with others, not in your edit summaries. General Ization ^Talk 02:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Harry S. Truman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization ^Talk 02:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just reiterate what User:General Ization said: edit warring is really about an attitude, not about a number. I actually got close to blocking you already. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless comment and it feels like it was made to intimidate me out of this discussion. I find it a dereliction of duty to not mention the atrocities committed by the US under Truman's command, some authorized directly by him, in an article about Truman. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I think Maurnxiao may need some time to read and think about what I have tried to explain to him. General Ization ^Talk 02:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now you appear to be exhibiting the same behavior at Gerald Ford. Read the summary by the reverting editor, and consider that the content may belong but not in the article lead where you put it. Reflexively putting it back in the same place without discussion means you are not responding correctly to the revert. General Ization ^Talk 03:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour being rectifying erasure of highly important information pertaining to the individuals in question. One carried out a potential genocide and the other funded one! But these information is apparently not too open and not important enough according to this small consensus. Maurnxiao (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The behavior being that you are failing to follow multiple policies we have established for collaborative and constructive editing here at Wikipedia, and for verifiable sourcing of the content in our articles. It is not your job to "rectify erasure" of anything, nor your prerogative to violate those policies in order to do so. General Ization ^Talk 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What rule did I violated and how? Maurnxiao (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have I really wasted more than an hour? See the discussion above. General Ization ^Talk 03:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need for such snarky comments? There was one incident and I apologized for it. Maurnxiao (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'm out. General Ization ^Talk 03:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Maurnxiao (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add Bodo League massacre to Truman's biography when you have no direct connection shown to Truman. Don't add Truman's approval rating without context—the reader should be told what caused the low approval rating. Your positioning of the statement was directing the reader to assume it was because of the massacre or bombings or both, but this was not established. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the approval rating statistic, it was already there. And I have pointed out already several times how Truman was connected to the massacre. Maurnxiao (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And [1] with the edit summary in this diff, you are engaging in SYNTH/OR on yet another article, by claiming as a definitive fact in the article text something that the cited sources only say could be considered the case (and also containing counterarguments to that point). @Drmies:, it'd be appreciated if you could take another look, because it's looking like they're unable to grasp the basis of what OR is. Loafiewa (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you only read the New York Times article from the early 70s that I provided? Because there are more citations I gave that describe, in detail, his war crimes. Maurnxiao (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jimmy Carter, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Donald Albury 01:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury Hello, Donald. I was and still am under the impression that citations are generally not needed for lead sections because the contents are already discussed and well-sourced in sections. In Carter's case, his support for Suharto's government is already mentioned and sourced in the presidency section here. Maurnxiao (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Albury, and Loafiewa, thank you. No, Maurnxia, what you put in the lead is not what it says in the article. Moreover, I'm beginning to think that you are here only to shove negative information into the biographies of American political figures, without much regard for sourcing and for our policies, and certainly without much regard for the opinions of other editors. Edit warring is blockable, but so is stomping all over articles in contentious topics areas, which User:Red-tailed hawk already notified you about. Honestly, I see three reasons already for any of these editors/administrators to take you to a noticeboard for disruptive editing, or ever to arbitration. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies in the article it says

During Carter's presidency, the U.S. continued to support Indonesia as a cold war ally, despite human rights violations in East Timor. The violations followed Indonesia's December 1975 invasion and occupation of East Timor. Under Carter's administration military assistance to Indonesia increased, peaking in 1978. This was antithetical to Carter's stated policy of "not selling weapons if it would exacerbate a potential conflict in a region of the world".

I added

Carter maintained the Ford administration's support for the Suharto regime in Indonesia as it committed genocide in East Timor.

How are they different?

Your other claim about me just being here to shove negative information into the biographies of American politicians is 1) demonstrably false 2) pointless because it's not my fault that Carter did this or Curtis LeMay did that, if you failed to adequately cover what they did, and I am rectifying that error, it's on you, not me.

Maurnxiao (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you do not see a difference between continued to support Indonesia as a cold war ally, despite human rights violations in East Timor and maintained...support for the Suharto regime in Indonesia as it committed genocide in East Timor? Valereee (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both say he continued the previous administration's support for Indonesia during this period. The one in the presidency sections should clarify that the "human rights violations" were a genocide. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must absolutely find a reliable source saying that and add it into the section, with that source, before you add it to the lead. And even then, you need to be ready to persuade other editors that it belongs in the lead. This is something we expect all editors to understand before they start editing in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained, the sources are in the presidency section and citations are generally not necessary in lead sections. But here's one. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a letter to the editor by " a Raleigh resident"? And your understanding of when and why sources aren't needed in lead sections is wrongheaded. I strongly suggest you stop editing in contentious areas while you learn policy. Valereee (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is this valid? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpunch is considered a generally unreliable source per WP:RSNP, and that's an opinion piece, which we generally don't use unless the writer is a recognized expert. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet American media is reliable when it comes to discussing the crimes of American leaders, military and political? Try again, is this one any good? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see how RSNP handles FAIR at its entry, which notes that "Most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions." So we might use this for a statement that "Jeff Cohen said "whatever". Valereee (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this one? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSNP says nothing about that source -- may not have been discussed there -- but our article on ZNetwork would indicate it is an activist media, so probably can't be considered unbiased and again would need to be attributed, as "Noam Chomsky in 1999 wrote "whatever". Valereee (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not familiar with Red Tailed Hawk, did you mean someone else? Maurnxiao (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant the administrator who warned you about contentious topics. That you're not familiar with them yet isn't really my concern. I see what Valereee also saw: if you can't tell the difference between "support" and "genocide", you shouldn't be editing such articles. That something "should" be rephrased to be "genocide", that just indicates that you are not editing neutrally. Don't go around telling two experienced editors that sources don't have to be in the lead: we know that. We are telling you that you should stick to the sources. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and objectivity are two different things and you're being pedantic here. Sources have been provided, and I did not claim Jimmy Carter carried out a genocide, only that he supported a government that was commtting one. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurnxiao, again, you're wrong. That's not pedantry. That's an experienced editor trying to explain policy to you, and you don't seem to be willing/able to understand. Valereee (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter supported a government while it committed a genocide. Is there anything else? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are likely to have issues similar to those above with Douglas MacArthur. You should at least include reliable sources for your additions. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That entire paragraph in the lead section has no citations. In fact, citations do not seem to be a necessity in lead sections. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because any content that appears in the lead section should also be discussed more extensively — and reliably sourced — in the body of the article. If not, it doesn't belong in the lead section. General Ization ^Talk 16:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amnesty for Japanese war criminals (namely Shirō Ishii) is already discussed and sourced in the article. The bombing of North Korea is also well sourced. Roughly ~12% of the population killed and ~80% of the infrastructure destroyed. MacArthur was the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations Command and authorized the bombing. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are gearing up your own personal World Court to judge MacArthur in ways that have never happened in real life. The push to "Right Great Wrongs" is not allowed on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sounds". Maurnxiao (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the two wikilinks in my edit summary. They explain that thumbnail images are not to be used in infoboxes and that ALLCAPS are not to be used. These are Wikipedia policies, not mine. If you have a valid reason for keeping this page your way that is consistent with Wikipedia policies and manual of style, please explain.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the capital letters but the name of the team is Wells City F.C. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please either stop reverting these edits or explain what you're doing better. Thumbnail images are not to be used in infoboxes – no consensus is need for this. It's in the Wikipedia Manual of Style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Images. Pages with thumbnails in their infoboxes get listed at Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images so that editors who do cleanups know to fix them. The team name is already in the infobox and doesn't need to be repeated.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P-block from article space to prevent additions of unsourced material into the lead of contentious topics. No objection to any other admin lifting this if the editor shows willingness/ability to listen. Valereee (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to convince Admins you should be unblocked. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maurnxiao, you can still make edit requests at article talk pages, which means in order to get an edit inserted into an article, you'll have to convince another editor, which generally means you'll need to provide a reliable source for that edit. And in order to get information added into the lead, you'll have to convince another editor it's appropriate there. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like at Talk:Gerald Ford where two people failed to make any arguments and eventually abandoned the discussion? Or at Talk:Political positions of Joe Biden where one guy got upset at me adding an analogy Biden made when meeting with the Israeli PM, decided to remove it, and despite being in the minority in that talk page (2v1), he got his way by slow-walking the discussion to the point where a consensus was impossible? And who is going to read let alone act on my suggestions at Talk:Joo Yang-ja? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussions result in no-consensus, but see Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion, which includes,

* When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However:

• • Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.

Donald Albury 14:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Well, and? In order to edit WP you are going to have to accept that sometimes you won't get your way, no matter how strongly you believe you're right. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean no matter how many articles there are proving my edits are good, so long as one guy disagrees with them? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean WP:CONSENSUS. If one guy disagrees, get a WP:30. If it's 2:1 your favor but it's controversial BLP content/at a contentious topic, start an RfC. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. You have to be willing and able to persuade other editors. Typically editors abandon a discussion because they can see they aren't getting anywhere because the person they're arguing with isn't listening. If you have a 2-1, you can take it to dispute resolution, although that's not what Biden really looked like to me, and someone there suggested opening an RfC. I don't see that happened? I don't see anything at Joo Yang-ja, but properly templated edit requests often do get fairly quick responses.

In the case of a possibly-contentious edit, you'd want to first open a talk section explaining the edit you want to make and providing sources and reasoning. If no one responds, that means you can assume there's no objection and open an edit request (pointing out that lack of objection) and asking for the edit to be made. Doesn't mean the person responding to the request won't object, but now you've got someone discussing. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about the Joo Yang-ja article? Who will even visit the talk page and bother to carry out my edit request? Does such a person exist? I increased the size of that article by what, a thousand percent? Such an edit might not have been possible without my ability to edit. The person in that Joe Biden talk page is incredibly biased and is almost blatantly hostile towards me, because his hero Biden made comments he does not seem to like very much, and as a result of this he slow-walked the discussion to death and got his way. Edit requests are mainly effective as updates in highly notable articles. Maybe at Lee Jae-myung it would have worked, but would I really have been able to convince such biased editors to include information about Douglas MacArthur's and Prince Yasuhiko Asaka's war crimes? Already there are people who might seem to be objecting to calling a war crime a war crime unless a partly or fully American court has deemed them so. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is obscure doesn't mean an edit request won't get handled. There are people who do that regularly, checking categories like Category:Wikipedia edit requests. You can also ping previous contributors to an article, if they're still editing. Looks like the creator of Joo Yang-ja edited this month.

If you're coming into editing with the idea that you're going to WP:rightgreatwrongs, you are going to have problems here. That's not what we're here to do. You can do that on a blog, but on Wikipedia we operate by consensus. Valereee (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying things like "but I have the sources", and then experienced editors explain what the problem is with the sources you have (a letter to the editor? really). You say "there's one guy on the talk page saying I'm wrong and that's stupid"--and you said "two people failed to make any arguments", which sounds like you edited against consensus. And then it's the American media, of course. In the end, I think WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies, and I think you were treated kindly with just a block from editing in articles. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I block you? You're obviously in a different world mentally from where I am, either deliberately or not, you're just saying these astonishingly hypocritical things and people are somehow agreeing with you. So tiresome. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract that personal attack. Donald Albury 15:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury I can't edit Talk:Jimmy Carter any longer but I saw your recent comment.

You do seem to be on a campaign to add contentious material to the leads of articles about famous leaders.

You mean removing the veneer  of state propaganda that has infected that many articles? Imagine if Alice Weidel addressed the Bundestag and calomed the Holocaust was a fabrication, that only a few thousand Jews were murdered by a few rogue SS battalions? This would be considered a revival of Nazism. But if, say, you or some other editor want to cover up the fact that Lyndon B. Johnson (dramatically escalated the war in Vietnam and backed up a brutal murderous regime through extensive and inhumane bombing campaigns against civilians, which included herbicides and napalm, also backing up the same Indonesian government as Ford and Carter during the Indonesian mass killings of 1965-66), Richard Nixon (the only president to have resigned and doing so only after realizing that even Senate Republicans would not back him during an inevitable Impeachment process, like Rousseff in Brazil, or Park Geun-hye in Korea, also oversaw a significant period of the Vietnam War. Aside from allegedly "torpedoing negations by the Johnson Administration to end the war by promising South Vietnam (a dictatorship) a better deal, Nixon unilaterally decided to bomb Laos and Cambodia, non-belligerents (to an extent. The Guardian: "By the time the last US bombs fell in April 1973, a total of 2,093,100 tonnes of ordnance had rained down on this neutral country." Approximately 50,000 people died as a result of the bombing, 98% of them civilians. More than 20,000 Laotians have been killed since the bombing campaign ceased, s a result of an enormous number of undetonated bombs. The bombing of Cambodia, which occurred entirely during Nixon's stewardship, killed between 50,000 to 150,000 Cambodians. In the pursuit of a closer relationship with Pakistan (itself part of an attempt to curb Soviet influence in India and to achieve closer ties with China, Pakistan's foremost ally), the US vigorously defended the actions of Yahya Khan's government. "Half of Dhaka's population fled within a week, and 30,000 people were slaughtered. International media outlets and English-language reference books have reported fatality counts ranging from 5,000 - 35,000 in Dhaka and 200,000 to 3,000,000 in the whole of Bangladesh". Nixon refused to discontinue military support for the West Pakistan. Nixon said, “Biafra [another genocidal war in Nigeria] stirred up a few Catholics... but you know, I think Biafra stirred people up more than Pakistan, because Pakistan, they’re just a bunch of brown goddamn Muslims.”), Gerald Ford (who supported the Suharto regime in Indonesia during its violent genocide in East Timor, one of the worst based on percentage of population killed, with some estimates putting the death toll at roughly a third of the population), Jimmy Carter (who supported vile, vile fascist regimes in Korea, Argentina, Chile, and who continued the previous administration's policy of supporting the genocidal government in Indonesia), Ronald Reagan (who continued supporting the same government carrying out a genocide in East Timor, who bombed Libyans, who supported militarily an Iraqi government that had a hard-on for chemical weapons, killing Iranian soldiers and Kurdish militants and civilians with them, invading foreign countries for the sake of establishing more favourable regimes, supporting more fascists and kleptrocrats in Korea, Chile and Argentina, and the Philippines and Indonesia respectively), George H.W. Bush (who launched the Gulf War despite the U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie basically giving permission to Saddam Hussein, telling him in July 1990, just a week before his invasion, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." His administration also seems to have completely made up the Iraqi buildup in the Saudi border. Don't forget the horrifying bombardment of Iraq, destroying civilians infrastructure and killing thousands of civilians, often consciously. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post reported in June 1991: "Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. … Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as ‘collateral’ and unintended, was sometimes neither".), Barack Obama (alternatively called Obomber, well known for his affinity for drone strikes, sometimes drone striking bloodlines and calling it "collateral damage".), Joe Biden (who presided over the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, which made 19 years of war effectively for nothing, as the Talibak did not at all become "softer", as others had predicted. On 26 August 2021, members of a separate organization attacked Kabul Airport, killing at least 183 people, including 170 Afghan civilians and 13 members of the United States military. Joe Biden responded by saying, "We will hunt you down and make you pay" to the perpetrators. On 29 August, a drone strike was carried out by the US, 'targeting a vehicle a few kilometers from Kabul Airport'. According to sources, 10 nearby civilians were killed, including seven children. Following the October 7 attacks, Biden reiterated his support for the State of Israel, even as its actions after the attacks resulted in the deaths of at least 37,000 according to figures accepted by several non-Hamas run sources. By January 2024, the BBC reported that at least half of Gaza's buildings had been destroyed by an extensive Israeli bombing campaign which had displaced close to two millions people, almost the entire population of the Gaza strip. Biden repeatedly said Israel launching an attack on Rafah, a refugee center, was his "red line". On May 6, 2024, Israel launched an attack on Rafah, which was eventually followed by a ground invasion. The Biden administration then said that Israel had "not crossed a red line".) AND you can choose almost any president at random – James K. Polk was an imperialist who deliberately pushed Mexico into a war so he could take an enormous bite out of it. Some even wanted to annex the entirety of Mexico.) – and you will find a man who committed grave crimes against humanity. But if you DENY OR DOWNPLAY THESE CRIMES you are just a regular American. Or if Yuriko Koike downplays or denies anti-Korean massacres, she is a regular Japanese. And if an Israeli denies or downplays the massacres against Palestinians, whether it be terrorist groups like Irgun or state-sanctioned pogroms like the Nakba or the current atrocities in Gaza, they are a regular Israeli. What's more, if you speak out against these you are actually considered an "anti-semite" by many. Monstrous double standards hinging on the state propaganda of various different countries, and surely it is not unreasonable to ask for this to be rectified? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 15:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant bullshit. Look at the articles I have contributed to, Jagmeet Singh, Lee Jae-myung, Pierre Poilievre, Julian Nagelsmann, Presidency of Dmitry Medvedev and Joo Yang-ja. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Doug Weller so you don't weasel your way out of this with an "I did not see it". Maurnxiao (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're flirting with losing access to your talk page. At this point your talk should only be used for discussing how you can get unblocked. Valereee (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to ban me even harder now? @Doug Weller has blatantly abused his power by accusing me of not being here to build an encyclopedia when I have made various significant edits to various different articles which I have shown in my user page and on here also. Maybe he should get some ban or a warning for abusing his power? Maurnxiao (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a website with certain policies and rules, pertaining to for instance sourcing and consensus. You have chosen to either challenge or ignore those--that's fine, but that makes it likely that administrators don't want you to play here anymore. What started as battleground behavior has now turned into full-fledged attack mode, with you insulting administrators and editors--blaming others is not going to help you make your case, if you actually want to make a case. One more thing: ten different editors, four five of whom administrators, have come to this talk page to talk to you, reason with you, admonish you--that's a lot of work for the volunteers. Surely they can't all be wrong. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not insulted, I've pointed out the fact that one guy on here is abusing his power, another is trying to whitewash Joe Biden, another (you) is infuriatingly un-objective, etc. Please, forgive that I do not view them as a dream team, really, and many complaints have been very modest and unrelated to the discussions around Carter, LeMay, etc... Maurnxiao (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Donald Albury 16:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]