User talk:CommonSenseofCourse

I am actually fighting an agenda that Wikipedia has stood by for multiple years. Assyrianization on Wikipedia has gotten ridiculous and it is sickening that a so called "liberal" website can allow such a thing to happen. I am fighting against Assyrian nationalists because they are misconstruing history of Iraqi Christians and Middle Eastern Christians in general. They are labeling the Syriac and Chaldean communities Assyrian here on Wikipedia. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans call themselves Assyrian and this is causing animosity among the communities. Wikipedia is not doing anything about this issue and is standing idly by. Several times people have tried to edit the pages and correct them, but they get reverted and the people are banned for editing. People have been complaining for years in the Talk sections, yet Wikipedia still continues to not do anything about the issue. I do not think I should be banned for standing up to people that are misconstruing history, here on Wikipedia.CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits such as this are entirely unacceptable. In this context, I am declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys at Wikipedia will still deny that there is an issue here? All the sources they have put on the page are either Assyrian nationalist sources, or are sources not even pertaining to the issue. If I am unblocked I will promise to stop vandalizing, but Wikipedia has to do something about this issue. I am sincerely sorry for my actions, I just want to be able to speak against this movement that has caused issues in many communities. I did not come here to vandalize, but I came here to stop these fallacies. Please take this into your consideration. You are in a sense revoking my freedom of speech by blocking me; I understand what I did was wrong and I take fully responsibility on behalf of my actions. CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you seem to have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. You make it clear that you intend to continue trying to use Wikipedia to campaign to promote a point of view, which is against Wikipedia policy. The fact that you are convinced that your point of view is THE TRUTH, and that people who disagree with it are WRONG does not make it acceptable: everybody believes that their own point of view is the correct one. Blocking you is not in any sense "revoking [your] freedom of speech". "Freedom of speech" means that you are free to promote your opinions, not that every web site, newspaper, television channel, and so on is obliged to help you do so: Wikipedia has as much right to decide who is and who isn't allowed to contribute as any newspaper. (You refer to Wikipedia as a 'so called "liberal" website', but you don't say by whom it is called that. Certainly Wikipedia itself makes no such claim.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you are saying and I see why I am banned, but as a man of my words I guarantee that this will not happen again. I understand what I did was against the website of Wikipedia, but you are banning me for something that others are practicing among your website. I am not trying to justify that what I did was right, but I am simply trying to get you to understand where I am coming from. The articles are oppressing the people that are being labeled as something that they are not. The issue is even stated several times among the "Talk" posts. Mr. Watson, if you were an Englishman, but someone was trying to force you to be labeled as a Spaniard, what would your actions be? Again, I am not trying to justify what I did, but you must understand why I did it. I only wish that my ban was lifted so that I can express my point of view in the "Talk" sections. I do not wish to edit anymore because I see that there are several nationalists that lurk on these articles; anything that I, or another group of individuals try to edit will eventually be reverted. I do not mean any disrespect in what I am saying, but Wikipedia is in a sense supporting the nationalist movement that is occurring on that article. Anywhere that there are Chaldeans on Wikipedia, they are being forced to be labeled as Assyrians, which they are not. I am a Chaldean, I have no nationalist agenda, I am not a part of any Chaldean organization because none of them exist. There are however many Assyrian nationalist groups that are misconstruing history about people that existed long before their nationalist uprising. I know that you could care less about this issue, but to the Syriac and Chaldean communities it is an issue. Many have been expressing this all over the internet, but somehow we are the ones that are wrong. If a group rejects a label, why should they be forced to carry it? In a sense, we are being persecuted on this site. Many Assyrian nationalists have gone as far as posing as Chaldeans on Wikipedia, in order to make it seem like it is only a few that reject the label. Most of the sources they list say nothing about Chaldeans being Assyrian, the sources that do say that Chaldeans are Assyrian are the ones that are tied to their nationalist websites. I only ask that you consider what I am saying to you. My identity and many others like me, is being falsified on the internet and it does not represent the majority. I am sorry to have bothered you and many others as yourself about this subject, but this issue is rising among the communities. Please consider what I am saying. I agree that what I did was wrong and I apologize for it, but I should not be banned indefinitely for it. I know I compromised Wikipedia rules, but I should also be given a second chance. Thank you.CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our guide to appealing blocks; your request will be considered when it focuses on your behavior - the reason you are blocked - and omits the WP:SOAPBOX you are presenting the volunteers processing your request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]