Vexorg

No bizarre obsession you say? Well, do you even bother to read things before deleting them anymore? The sources (8 in total, you can Google it and find plenty more if you want) clearly state that both British and American officials have said the plan was directly linked to Al-Qaeda. So, please stop removing sourced material, reliable sources such as the BBC have reported that there is an Al-Qaeda link, and Wikipedia's job is not to determine what the truth is but to report what has been established in reliable sources. If you continue to remove sourced material I'm going to have to report you for vandalism. TheoloJ (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article is about Al-Qaeda involvement, not al-qaeda links. The 2009 plot has it's own main article. There is no source that says Al-Qaeda were involved in this plot. Only sources that allege a previous connection with one of the perpetrators. Pleaae stop edit warring Vexorg (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vexorg! I have noticed that you re-added an ethnic classification which was disputed in the past to David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville. Since we're talking about a biography of a living person, please provide a source for your claim, per WP:BLP. Happy editing! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vexorg. See the complaint about you at WP:AN3#User:Vexorg reported by User:Jayjg (Result: ).

These allegations appear justified, and I note that your last block for edit warring was for one week. I suggest that you accept a 1RR per week per article restriction on your edits, or agree to some other restriction that will prevent you from edit warring. If you make a reasonable response, I will close the 3RR case without a block. You can reply on my talk page or in the 3RR case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Per your comment at AN3, you can take a break from editing if you wish. But if you will agree to the 1RR it can save you from getting another block on your record. The 1RR can be removed later by application to WP:AN if the need for it goes away. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at Wikipedia:Quotations, here are a couple of excerpts:

"editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section. " "while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them" "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation."

and from the When not to use quotations section:

"the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."

Thats where the NPOV comes in, all of the quotes make Kissinger look callous, autocratic and wholly amoral. Bonewah (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes I read all of that. They are ONLY guidelines, not rules. I agree with "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation." , but then out them into context and not sinmply cull them.

"Thats where the NPOV comes in, all of the quotes make Kissinger look callous, autocratic and wholly amoral." - it is not the job of wikipedia to make all of it's subjects morally balanced individuals. Perhaps those quotes make him look so becuase he is so?

You're putting style over content. Why not put the content back and improve the style as per guidelines? Vexorg (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes those are guidelines, not rules, but they shouldnt be ignored without good reason. I dont really see any reason why we should deviate from the recommended standards, especially the one that says dont have a quote section. You say we should put them into context, but context is the problem. These quotes dont really fit into the article because they tell us very little about the subject. Its worth noting that the Chile quote is already in the article, in the Chile section where it should be. I have no problem with that because it helps to illustrate Kissinger's attitude towards Chile, but what do the rest of the quotes do for the article?

I think you are missing the point of the When not to use quotations section, dont use quotes to do things that would otherwise be a violation of NPOV. If we wrote in the article that Kissinger was an amoral cretin it would be an obvious NPOV violation. Picking quotes that make him look like an amoral cretin is the same thing, and exactly what wp:Quote is telling us to avoid. Bonewah (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The rest of the quotes are valuable in showing what kissinger is like. There's a big difference between writing in the article that Kissigner is an "amoral cretin" and listing a few quotes. The former would be a literal NPOV, but it's only YOUR opinion those quotes make kissinger look like an "amoral cretin" - I don't think they do, but that's my opinion as well. There removal is an example of WP:NPOV IMO. Sorry but your arguments don't hold water. Vexorg (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What do you think the When not to use quotations section that I quoted means? I read that to mean "dont do what was being done in the Kissinger article" almost exactly. Its a backdoor means to treat Kissinger in a non-neutral manner via selective quotations. Maybe we should take this to the Kissinger talk page? Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please review Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages:

Articles should be placed in the lowest level category possible. They do not need a category declaration toward every category that would logically contain it. A single, well targeted category declaration will place that article in a category which will itself be properly contained (subcategorized).

Category:English Jews is a subcategory of Category:British Jews. Thus all articles in Category:English Jews are already in Category:British Jews. Please abide by Wikipedia's Categorization guidelines. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at David Sumberg. Addition of unsourced biographical content of this kind is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be reported, and if you persist, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Administrators, I presume, are not supposed to bring personal agendas into their administration practices. Remember you made a case against me and didn't even notify me of it so I could have my right of reply. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=317214469#User:Vexorg_reported_by_User:Jayjg_.28Result:_.29 - and why not help wikipedia and find a source instead of spending energy complaining about my edits? David Sumberg is Jewish http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1414 "Conservative MEP for northwest England, David Sumberg, who is Jewish, said, ...." Vexorg (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

jayjg. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jayjg all making sense now. A politically biased administrator. Kinda makes a mockery of Wikipedia doesn't it? Vexorg (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please move to discussion, there is a thread at the BLPNoticeboard regarding this article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

A thread has been opened at the BLPN regarding the balance of this article including the controversy section and the content regarding the subjects views on homosexuality, all involved parties are invited to comment there or here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid you are the one that stands alone here, and you are reverting without discussion to a position in the article that quite a few editors agree is excessive, you would do well to stop reinserting content that there is a clear support to remove, the comments regarding this homophobe are clearly excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No I am not standing alone. Others have restored your excessive hacking. Vexorg (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No they haven't, who? Sorry please move to the BLP noticeboard and make your case there. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

yes they have . Look at the edit history. Vexorg (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

One or two minor edits which are fine, you are reverting back to the original position for which there is no support at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually I am not. I've left many of your edits in. You are being fooled because I re-split the paragraphs and reverted your unnecessary title change. You made the article difficult to read on smaller monitors by making the section into 2 large paragraphs. It only looks like the original position. Vexorg (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The entire paragraph is poorly written and in need of a major overhaul. As a stopgap measure, I nevertheless attempted to give some balance to a programme summary riddled with mistakes, inaccuracies and intense bias, without expending the time and effort necessary to correct all of them.

But you reverted my revisions several times and violated the 1RR restriction which was imposed on you for previously edit warring.

Firstly, as is discussed in WP:OR, conjectural interpretation of the source is not permitted. So your claims must be direct and accurate.

More central to the issue, let me cite from WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material... and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." As such, the burden to prove the claims was on you. I fail to understand why you repeatedly mention Wikipedia:Verifiability when the burden of proof is on you when adding material, not on me when I removed false or improperly referenced claims.

The claims that I attempted to improve range from outright falsehoods, to acute POV:

"funding of ex Prime Minister Tony Blair to power" - Does the programme claim that a pro-Israel group funded Blair? Not at all. It simply points out that 'some' of the donors to the Labor Leader's office fund were also donors to some Israel advocacy groups. Furthermore, the claim itself is so ridiculous that no journalist would make it, as it implies that it was their funding that put him into power. Not only is this a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, it is a practically unprovable.

"detailed the methods of donation and influence on" - Exactly what do you mean by 'methods' of donation? Is it a weasel word with which you are attempting to slip in innuendo? A donation is just that -- a donation. Political donations are rarely, if ever, altruistic. Further, by writing "methods of donation and influence" you are attempting to create a fallacious causal relationship from donations to influence. Practically everyone that gives money to politicians gives it to those that agree with them. But claiming the reverse is true, needs evidence which is why Oborne himself never made that claim. In addition to what I wrote above about all political donations, even if their intention are to influence the recipients, it is important to note that that is distinct from actually influencing.

" The CFI paid for 20 Parliamentary Candidates to visit Israel and upon return they received huge donations. " Was removed because it was a patently false claim. Firstly, it was claimed that 10 of them received donations. Secondly, what reference point are you using for a for an an adjective like "huge" in the context of political fund-raising in the UK? (see below...)

"Also covered was the Israel Lobby's influence in the BBC and other British Media and showed how many media outlets were frightened of broaching the lobby." Now this would have to be one of the best examples of outright bias possible. Bias in the BBC, and who influences it, is a hugely contested subject and a BBC report to examine it was thousands of pages long, and its results were not released.I think it shows poor judgment to assert such a controversial statement as fact. Once again I attempted to mitigate the bias but you continuously reverted it.

I would also remind you that the programme is in editorial style; written and produced by Peter Oborne. Thus the disputed claims (of which there are many) are his opinions and of those individuals who express them and this should be reflected in in the programme summary. This is what I tried to do but you repeatedly reverted these edits.

There are other incidental questions I can ask like why you believe it so important to include the cash for honours scandal in a short synopsis of the programme when it not directly relevant to the topic matter. Or your hackneying of "featured" where some organization are mentioned in passing. Normally I could make such minor adjustment without drama. But you insist on not allowing me to make changes without attempting to strong-arm and one-up me. I may have been a bit overzealous in removing the additional lines you added which were clearly not accurate, and I should have corrected them rather than deleted them. But I was skeptical it would make any difference as you seemed intent on undoing the edits I made.

Furthermore, Why did you add the superfluous, and politically charged (not to mention grammatically incorrect) line, "against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories" in the previous progamme summary when it serves no useful purpose? Was it revenge that I changed Tom Hurndall's activities from "peace protester" to the more accurate "ISM activist? Was it simple browbeating or were you trying to one-up me? Either way, please enlighten me.

It is a pity that I have to write such a long and detailed refutation just to make a few corrections.

If you believe you are operating in good faith and that you are not POV pushing, can you explain why nearly every sentence you wrote originally, contained either logical fallacies, false claims or egregiously POV statements asserted as fact?

Wikieditorpro (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me but where was a 1RR restriction imposed upon me? Vexorg (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vexorg. Please add a comment at WP:AN3#User:Wikieditorpro reported by User:Vexorg (Result: ) and agree to stop edit warring on this article. Both you and Wikieditorpro should be aware of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If you won't follow our policies, the article may be fully protected or placed under a 1RR restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vexorg. I deleted this claim because it was unsourced, and included with other claims that were incorrect. Please see the article Talk: page for more details. -- Heptor _talk 20:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at the talk page and you haven't responded there. Have you seen the Program? the Program itself is the source. Of course it would be easy to add a ref to the program. Vexorg (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The issue has been plenty discussed on the talk page, I didn't find anything substantial I could add to the discussion. For example you added the claim that 'The CFI paid for 20 Parliamentary Candidates to visit Israel and upon return they received huge donations.' As pointed out on the article Talk: page, this claim is factually incorrect. -- Heptor _talk 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove this section in your edit? "Other groups featured in the program were the Jewish Leadership Council, the Zionist Federation, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Camera. " Vexorg (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This was not the main issue with your edit that I responded to. Why haven't you responded to objections raised on the article Talk page? In any case, what are your sources for this claim?

Also, I hope we can continue this discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs. -- Heptor _talk 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of YouTube. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of YouTube. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. this is the link that User:Snappy was attempting to use to justify removal of the category Homophobia from the Iris Robinson article. I don't think this change of policy has left us in the right place - there is a need for a category for out-and-out homophobes like Robinson, but as Robinson is now the only person in the category, it would seem sensible to remove her, and have a discussion on the principle rather than this specific article. SP-KP (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from making unproductive comments as you did here and here. If you want to contribute in a productive way, you are welcome to do so. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

In whose opinion are they unproductive? If someone wastes time reporting a user name that is IMO not offensive then I think I'm entitled to say so Other people have done so. The whole point of wikipedia is consensus. These comments are productive IMO. Vexorg (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Usernames with "penis" and "vagina" in them are absolutely violating the username policy, and your comments that they are not are not helpful and not productive. Again, you are welcome to make productive comments there, but please refrain from making any comments if all you're going to do is make drive-by untrue comments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

untrue comments!??? There was nothing untrue about my comments. And it's NOT up to anyone else to decide whether my opinion is genuine or not. In any case the words 'penis' and 'vagina' are proper anatomical terms, not profanity. I've just re-read the username policyand there's nothing against using such terms. You may have a hang up with these terms for personal reasons and that's your prerogative, but please respect that most people do not. My comments are not unproductive but rather helping the consensus. Vexorg (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are repeatedly inserting Zion to the Rothchild article, you should move to discussion , stuffing it in is not a good long term solution and disrupts the article. Off2riorob (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I DID move to discussion, and put my rationale, before editing the article. Perhaps you should read the discussion and ceck the facts BEFORE making false accusations? I have done nothing to disrupt the article and actually provided rationale, which you have not done. Are you IP 173.120.203.243 ??? Vexorg (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

And what's all this 'inserting Zion' nonsense? Vexorg (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vexorg, It looks like there's been some discussion of this issue on the talk page of the article, with consensus apparently leaning towards leaving discussion of the status of the Golan Heights to the article on the Golan Heights. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have mentioned the Zion issue here . Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think you should consider reverting this edit. Let them make their own corrections, misrepresenting the diffs does not hurt you. Editing their posts does. Unomi (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

good point. thanks Vexorg (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually I changed my mind, this was an obvious deliberate misrepresentation IMO. Stellarkid's disclaimer at the end of his first paragraph proves he was very aware of making sure the diffs were correct. It smacks of someone deliberately misrepresenting and pre-apologising for the mistake. In my opinion it was deliberately done to make it look like there were 3 edits a day and inflate the recent diffs. Of course one cannot prove it as he'll just deny it, but I wasn't born yesterday. Thanks for the recommendation though. Vexorg (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you had left his misrepresentation then you could bring that to the attention of WP:WQA or ANI in a separate thread. I think there have been a number of recent cases where SK fairly clearly misrepresents events. Yet policy quite clearly states that editing another persons posts is a no-no. Unomi (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see your point but if I bring it up in a separate thread it's going to be seen as continuing the battle. But yes I don't want to violate policy. OK, I'll revert back again. Vexorg (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes you were right. It was indeed jumped on as a 'call for action!!!!'. I can see that any slight mistake one makes is going to be used against me. Anyway, it should draw attention to Stellarkid's misrepresentations, and any reasonable person can see I wasn't being deliberately disingenuous, but just wanting to correct a misrepresentations against myself. Thanks again Unomi Vexorg (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I think the following shows Stellarkid's intent .... "Will try to fix that later in the day." - it would take 5 seconds to fix. To me that's a clear indication of his intent to leave that misrepresentation up as long as possible for maximum impact. Vexorg (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I also notice that user:Off2riorob has misrepresented me. "He also posted messages in a canvassing manner " - A canvassing manner? Unbelievable. The messages were benign. I didn't try and persuade you or NickCT with any campaign or canvassing message, I was just asking for more input. user:Off2riorob is simply continuing to reduce anyone's feeling that he might be having a good faith agenda. Vexorg (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Unbelievable the lengths some editors go to try and denigrate another editor.... Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons has even used the comments above as some kind of claim at the ANI that "shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his[my] behavior" . IMO this is really scraping the barrel when it comes to reasons to pile on in order to try and get someone banned. Does anyone still believe some editors are acting in good faith? Vexorg (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here is what I would recommend, in the future when you are looking for more input, bring it to any of WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, WP:Content_noticeboard or any wikiprojects the article may fall under. Directly asking editors to join in the discussion, even when neutrally worded, can be used as a grounds to claim canvassing. I would say that the only safe way to do such direct notification would be to ping the last 10-20 or so editors who have contributed directly to the article. It is a shame, but so it goes. If the issue on the Rothschild page is not yet resolved I would suggest that you open up informal mediation asap, state on ANI that you have opened informal mediation and ask that people join it. Avoid drama, even if you think that you are in the right. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I shall bookmark those pages on my front page. I am quickly learning that some editors will use any means to get editors who insert content they don't want in Wikipedia blocked or banned. Vexorg (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

and again, I would recommend that you remove your recent comment to AE, as a highly involved editor your opinion is unlikely to have much weight and serves only to draw attention to yourself. Kind Regards, Unomi (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get this image from?--Rockfang (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The 'image' is public domain, and I am the source for the 'file'.Vexorg (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to begin a discussion about Doug Horne's new book on the William Greer talk page but Admins keep reverting my entries and banning me. Please help--it's not fair to remove a discussion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.237.165 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

For background, Vexorg, the IP was overwhelmingly banned from this page here [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive202#Proposed_topic_ban]. Most of the talk page deals with him, including this section [1]. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

First, that is an assumption. Second, is it not a poor choice to revert or remove a discussion? I believe that the "fringe", "topic ban", and "copyright" issues may carry some weight. However, an editor was previously asked to "develop consensus on the discussion page" prior to posting again. Now that this is underway, some editors and admins have taken it upon themselves to remove edits from the discussion page that may lend credibility to the argument. This is simply and abuse of Wiki policy from my stand point.173.79.237.165 (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you review the talk page, you will see that an editor has misrepresented Horne's position by "cherry picking" Horne's statements in Chapter IV and ignoring his unequivocal statements regarding Greer in Chapter V. The response has been semi-protected, which is satisfactory in that it allows the information to stand and be judged on its merits as referenced. However, this prevents the necessary discussion to advance the content of the William Greer page itself--which should be done in light of Horne's new book. Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will consider reading up on this important new development in the assassination of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Horne's highly-credible contribution guarantees that the theory that William Greer assassinated JFK on November 22, 1963 is no longer in the realm of the "tooth fairy".Ehoffmanp (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Resonant room modes a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, no worries, I'll do it properly next time. :) Vexorg (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

No idea what you are talking about Vexorg (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

To Marcus Qwertyus, not you... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ahhhh OK. gotcha. thanks :) Vexorg (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		From appearances, looks like you deserve it. Just take it easy for the rest of the day, and come back smiling. King Bedford I Seek his grace 06:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why thankyou King Bedford. I am happy to get a 24block for standing up to hate speech as dished out by the editor Sceptre callng people 'Nazi Scum' and 'racist' for some irrational reason. Racism is abhorrent and it's highly offensive to call it simply because you disagree with another editors edits. I shouldn't have engaged with such hate and I gracefully accept the 24hour ban for weakening to his attacks. My integrity is intact however and I think you for recognising that with your barnstar award. Cheers Vexorg (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Vexorg for your tenacity and motivation to make economic policies understandable to the general public. --Caparn (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

why thankyou Caparn (talk) - much appreciated! I would thankyou personally on your talk page, but cannot until my ban is lifted. :) Vexorg (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

USER: Cordelia Vorkosigan appears to be a cover ACCOUNT for USER: CordeliaNaismith. Any pro-Israeli propaganda being spread by this user in Wikipedia should be taken in that context.Cardovus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC).Reply

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, By the way, removing the notice that I informed you of the sanctions is your right, but you should be aware that the warning was also logged at the relevant Arbitration Committee page for future reference, as was the identical warning I issued to Soxwon. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Talk:September 11 attacks. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, I am hereby enacting a discretionary sanction. You are limited to one revert per 24 hours period on any article or talk page related to the September 11th attacks. This restriction will be in effect for 6 months from the time this block expires. Appeals may be made to me in the first instance, WP:AE in the second, and the Committee in the third. Courcelles 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. It's worth it to uphold the right of free speech on a talk page. I hope you also block anyone who removes my comments. Vexorg (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh come on!! at least let me communicate at the ANI page. Vexorg (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vexorg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please, there's an ANI regarding this issue. Now a trigger happy decision has blocked me I cannot communicate at the pertinent ANI page. At least let me speak there. Vexorg (talk) 11:42 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TNXMan 12:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The decision was not trigger happy. I warned you about edit warring, and you reverted again. You left no choice, if I had seen it first I would have blocked you myself. Edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. Edit warring on a page like this right after you've been warned to stop and informed that the matter is under discussion is inexcusable. Even if an overwhelming consensus emerges that your remarks belong there, your actions were still wrong and blocking was basically the only option left. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree that edit warring is not good. But the right not be censored on talk page by some ordinary and distasteful editor who tells me to 'piss off' is even worse. I don't want to edit war but my comments have a right to be there. Being blocked from editing for 72 hours is a price worth paying to preserve my right of speech, but not being able to defend my case at ANI is unfair. Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you have something to say on ANI, I would be perfectly happy to copy your statement over for you. Courcelles 04:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

And another thing: the worst behaviour in this farce is the abuse made by the editor 'Soxwo'n when he/she told me to 'piss off'. Is anyone going to sanction this editor for that? I get blocked for 72 hours for preserving my right of comment ion a talk page yet an editor who tells me to 'piss off' gets away Scott Free. Come on!! Vexorg (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

He stopped edit warring after I warned him, he has admitted that the "piss off" comment was out of line, and he will likely be subject to the same sanctions as you. Blocking is not a punishment, it is done to stop damage or disruption to Wikipedia. The edit war was a disruption. After both of you were warned for it you made one more reversion. Therefore you are blocked to prevent the edit war from continuing. Soxwon has not reverted you again so he was not blocked. Currently your remarks are still on the talk page while they are being discussed. Discussion is what we do instead of edit warring, participating in discussion does not permit you to continue edit warring. If you can convince an uninvolved administrator that you understand and will comply with that you may be able to get unblocked early. Or you could just accept it and take a break for a few days. Or you could keep going on about free speech (which is not guaranteed on this privately run website) and get declined again. The choice is yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

hi there Beeblebrox - I've decided to just take a break. I know free speech is not guaranteed on a privately run website. It's not guaranteed anywhere for that matter, but I strongly feel that one should be able to comment on the quality of an article on it's talk page even in a non specific manner. unless something is completely off topic or hateful I think it is out of order to remove another editors remarks on a talk page. The 'piss off' comment ( which was made by TWO editors if you check the history ) only served to anger me further. I would never remove another editors comments on a talk page however much I disagreed with them. It was also wrong of User:Soxwon to shout WP:FORUM at me. There's nothing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TPG#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable that says my remarks are unacceptable. In fact "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." is right in line with my remarks as they were intend to generate discussion on how to improve the article. please copy thoughts over at ANI> thanks :) Vexorg (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

And in answer to the editor 'Tarage' - No it wasn't vandalism whatsoever. It was my opinion on the quality of the article. Vexorg (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Quantitative easing appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. LK (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

A very patronising message to a long time editor. I assume your offensiveness User:Lawrencekhoo was deliberate. Vexorg (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have literally no intention of getting draggged into this, but Andrewedwardjudd's comments of 10:45, 15 June ("It is rigged against you.") show a clear battleground mentality, which is also evident, to a less extent, in the actions of editors on both sides. As for conspiracy theories, I'm sure there was a comment which implied central banks were not being entirely honest. But I can't find it now and I have limited time. That's what I meant with those words. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh. Thanks for your explanation. another editor suggested that a reason why some might want to hide the fact of money being made "out of nothing" was that it might suggest something illegitimate was going on. Which is of course silly. Vexorg (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Under the terms of for example the maastrict treaty QE is really at the edges or crosses the edges of what has been described in law. There simply is no way to know if the BOE will reverse its actions so that it is not debt monetization. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjuddReply

Hi

I think a better way forwards for the out of nothing issue is to use the language of the BOE and say something like 'money simply created by updating the electronic records of the banks', The others cannot then have a reason to reject it. The simple reality is that these people do have an agenda and they will prevent your changes and there is nothing you can do about it since these other people are coordinating their efforts against you. Freeloader bobraynor and others always arrive to support LK if he finds a few editors changing his text. That is just the way it is. Lagrange is a new user and is already threatening to add back in text that i wrote that was muddled up and unclear by using things like WP:Redact. His purpose is clearly not what you would expect from an ordinary person just joining wiki. There is nothing you can do about if you do not play the wiki game, which essentially is loaded against you and in favour of the legal experts and team members who will always arrive to work against you. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjuddReply

Hi there.

There is certainly something odd about the agenda of some people in the discussion. Lagrange's approach is certainly not one of someone with any knowledge of the subject and he seems intent on time-wasting and diverting as I have already answered his concerns several times, yet he still returns.

I won't bow down to any bullying or possible cabals though and will continue to fight for what is right and the policy if Wikipedia. The money is created 'out of nothing' and calling that a 'view' is just plain absurd.

I have seen politicly motivated propaganda editors in other areas of Wikipedia, namely a group that aims to suppress anything negative about the behaviour of the state of Israel. That is something I understand as that state has a lot to hide, but I am surprised this kind of behaciour would extend to something technical like monetary mechanisms and policy.

You can see the absurd situation we are dealing with by looking at lagranges trashing of my attempts to take the propaganda out of money printing in the money printing section. Since i have now quoted bernankes speach explicitly - it was already cited - his deletion of my edits just make him look like an idiot. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjuddReply

His claims of sources not supporting the language are complete untruths. My BBC source directly uses the language 'out of nothing', yet he's still edit warring on it. Vexorg (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Vexorg,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 07:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring at Quantitative easing and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I won't be appealing. But I wasn't the only one edit warring and you should, to prove fairness, also block Lawrence K HOO.

btw - I'm not buying the accusation of personal attacks though. Calling someone hypocritical is not an attack. Lawrence K HOO was being hypocritical and I factually stated that. There is a difference between a 'personal attack' and a 'personal observation' Vexorg (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz, please STOP leaving patronising and untruthful accusations on my talk page. I suggest you research what a personal attack is beforehand. Thankyou!! Vexorg (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Andrew, I have just read the post by  Kiefer.Wolfowitz at Talk:Quantitative easing specifically [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantitative_easing&oldid=435442767 ]. not only are you not indulging in Original Research as Eolfowitz alleges by I find his words "Please Read Carefully" and "I don't want to read another word of OR from you, especially not here" both patonising and offensive. And as soon as my block expires I shall be reporting him. Vexorg (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Vexorg for your tenacity and motivation to make economic policies understandable to the general public. --Caparn (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

why thankyou Caparn (talk) - much appreciated! I would thankyou personally on your talk page, but cannot until my ban is lifted. :) Vexorg (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not delete the citations from articles as you did with the article on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability.

Note that the article does not claim that there is a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. The citations are there to verify that some people have made particular claims concerning one.

If you believe that the article should be deleted, then the appropriate thing to do is to propose its deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That would be a good place for you to explain your objections to the article. If you are going to propose that the article should be deleted, I suggest that you propose that it be redirected to the article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. My impression is that the Protocols is the major source for belief in a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

you do realise the policy on verifiability means 'reliable sources' don't you? Vexorg (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cubase For Atari.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. This is getting sad -- you're googling statements about a book, as a substitute for reading the book? I've read the references you accuse me of not reading -- but you, obviously, have not read any Mullins. What's next...the Holocaust never happened? Read The Biological Jew -- without reading the actual source material, you're not qualified in any way to comment about Mullins's prejudices. If you're not convinced after reading the actual source material, then I'm not the one with the agenda. And by the way, ad hominems -- i.e. attacking me instead of addressing the actual argument -- is just another debate fallacy and will only deprive you of editing privileges when other editors have had enough. I've read your talk page, I see that I'm not the first (nor probably the last) editor you've attacked, nor the first block you've invited. So give it a rest, okay? Or go argue with the other editor; I don't know the person, but he or she is clearly one of many who understands that you can generate a more convincing argument that the Earth is flat than you can that Mullins had no animosity against Jews. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe for one minute you've actually read any of those references. I'm not attacking you at all, I'm contending your edit. And ... I think you're on sticky ground accusing people of ad hominems when you yourself make such a repulsive and nauseous insinuation against another editor such as .... What's next...the Holocaust never happened? - You should be ashamed of yourself. You thoroughly disgust me and I would report you for that insinuation except that I don't want to have to come into further contact with any individual that stoops so low as use holocuast denial as an ad hominem. Good bye and good riddance. Vexorg (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Milton William Cooper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Brit funk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Transient (acoustics)#Proposed undeletion. Andrewa (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Vexorg, I started a new section on the talk page to discuss the changes you wanted to make. Talk:Religion in Europe#Caption_of_this_map Nico (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The consensus is that your editing in and about the topics of 9/11 and Israel has become too disruptive to continue. Accordingly, I've blocked you until such time as a return to editing can be arranged, which will almost certainly require your agreement to stay away from those topics and to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to proclaim your theories.

Please read this guidance on coverage of fringe topics on Wikipedia, and use an {{unblock}} template to request review of this block. — Coren ^(talk) 02:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's clear that this user has an incurable case of WP:TRUTH; and concensus is that a long block or wide topic ban is necessary. It's not clear, given the long disruptive history, that a determinate block will serve any purpose – so I'm inclined to interpret the consensus as "block until editor understands the problem and agrees to a topic ban." — Coren ^(talk) 02:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)}} User:Vexorg has quite a lengthy block history, including blocks over 9/11 pages and I-P articles.Reply

Coren ^(talk) , you are quite correct, in that I have an incurable quest for the truth. Something I am proud of. You are also quite correct in that I understand the problem. Wikipedia is never about truth, it's about verifiability. And that verifiability with a bias to what are considered 'reliable sources'. Mainstream Media sources are of course given far more weight in terms of what is more reliable and thus Wikipedia has simply become a mirror of the Mainstream Media. Vexorg (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Support. He's been at this for years; absurdly combative in defense of WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG beliefs. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh the infamous Jayjg ^(talk). Jayjg ^(talk) indeed has been at it for years. The rothschild-Masonic-Zionists biggest asset in Wikipedia. Notorious all over the Web and I'm sure he'll be rewarded handsomely in retirement. Vexorg (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Support We don't need more anti-Semite truthers on Wikipedia, and his ranting on talk pages is not conducive to a collegial editing environment. I'd prefer an indefinite topic ban (very broadly construed, to include soapboxing on unrelated talk pages), but a long block will probably suffice. Horologium (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

This kind of crap used to annoy me, but people who don't even know what anti-Semitism really is making accusations of anti-Semitism against other peopel are just objects of ridicule and should be pitied. Horologium (talk) 's comments are simply offensive to all those decent Jews who are against Rothschild-Masonic-Zionism.

WP:FRINGE

As for WP:Fringe, what an utterly stupid concept. People waving WP:FRINGE about as some kind of stick are simple people who don't want an open an inclusive wikipedia. A spherical Earth which revolved around the Sun used to be WP:FRINGE some years ago. Copernicus and Galileo would no doubt have been blocked had wikipedia been around in those days. Some idiots would alos have called them anti-Semites :) Vexorg (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Support - Ridiculous theory that has been disproved many times. We don't need an editor with an ax to grind (baselessly) against a particular group. I'll get RS citations if anybody really wants. MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Except it hasn't been disproven. On the contrary. I have to laugh at the promise to get RD citations to try and prove something. ROFLMAO!!! Verifyability not truth remember. Vexorg (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Support - If he cannot even understand how people see his rant as a conspiracy theory, we need a competency block or ban. His assertion that Wikipedia is run by some sort of Zionist conspiracy is a flagrant violation of WP:AGF, a cornerstone of this website. It's just common sense to keep him away from certain topics, just as liquor stores wouldn't hire recovering alcoholics. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Now this an interesting one. Yes I'm well aware that some of my views are a conspiracy theory. Nothing wrong with conspiracy theories. After all the official explanation of 911 is a huge conspiracy theory. It claims that 19 Muslim hijackers conspiracy to commit 911. that is just a theory. There's certainly no proof of it. I just happen, like a hell of a lot of other people, to believe in Conspiracy theory that says otherwise.

(Anyone else hear quacking?) Per WP:GEVAL, we do not give paranoid delusions equal validity to accepted facts. 9/11 conspiracy theories are treated in the same manner as other conspiracy theories, because all rational and educated persons identify them as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ian.thomson (talk) believes one conspiracy Theory as a 'accepted facts' even though there's no proof, and deems contrary conspiracy theories as 'paranoid delusions' Vexorg (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's clear in all aspects of life that too many people are still under the indoctrination of what is deemed political correct by the Rothschild-Masonic-Zionist Elite. Now I know that many of you will deem that 'Fringe' and some morons who don't understand what Rothschild-Masonic-Zionism is will even call it anti-Semitic, even though will insult many Jews by saying so, but if you open your minds and do some research you'll only find what I have found.

I was probably too optimistic in thinking Wikipedia was going to be a welcome change from the traditional monopoly the Elite have on information and political correctness. But given they've entrenched this power for hundreds of years, I should have been more realistic. People like Jayjg are the real problem with Wikipedia. They work tirelessly to prevent Wikipedia from ever being a balanced repository of information. Vexorg (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Thanks for having principles. JohnAndersonian (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can't even edit my own front page so: Much thanks JohnAndersonian (talk) - I read your comments at the ANI Kangeroo Court and thankyou for sticking up for me and my principles. I've so much as being told that unless I conform to Rothschild-Masonic-Zionist political correctness that I ma blocekd from editing anything at Wikipedia. It's wikipedia's loss. I highly doubt you are a sockpuppet of JohnAndersonian (talk), as it's clear they are simply using that as an excuse to block you for having a politically incorrect viewpoint

It's this entrenched political Bias in Wikipedia that has caused many people to simply not trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. And once trust is lost then all value is lost.

I will stick with my principles. When the only response people have is to call me 'Fringe', 'paranoid delusional' and 'Conspiracy Theorist' in a pejorative way then they have lost the argument. Period. Wikipedia started out as a damn fine idea, but as with everything that gets too mainstream it gets contaminated by Rothschild-Masonic-Zionism.

Take mare my friend who ever you are and don't let the braindead grind you down :) Vexorg (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Vexorg - have you ever read a book called "From Admiral to Cabin Boy", by Compton Domville? I think you would enjoy it.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi There Toddy1 - No I have never heard of such a book. To be honest I tend to avoid such books and rely upon my own independent research to form my conclusions. but I will bear it in mind. But thankyou for the recommendation :) Vexorg (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

User:Vexorg/William Cooper, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vexorg/William Cooper and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Vexorg/William Cooper during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Jesus-Zeit.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Jesus Cross.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irreligion.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Europe religion map en-1-.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cubase 4 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cubase SX3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cubase V2 8 windows.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cubase VST 4 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cubase 4 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cubase SX3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cubase V2 8 windows.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cubase VST 4 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply