User talk:Vexorg - Knowledge (XXG)

3214:-- 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. 636:"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. 2697:

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.

2510:- 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 642:"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. 1651:

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".

633:"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. 3567:, 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. Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) has simply become a mirror of the Mainstream Media. 2843: 2085: 650:

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.

4806: 4750: 4694: 4638: 4582: 4526: 4470: 4414: 1514: 376: 2226: 4281: 4216: 885: 639:" 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...) 3375: 4825:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 4769:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 4713:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 4657:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 4601:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 4545:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 4489:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 4433:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3098: 2576: 225:

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?

1752: 1673: 4068:) - 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 Knowledge (XXG). It's wikipedia's loss. I highly doubt you are a sockpuppet of 154:"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 Knowledge (XXG)'s narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." 3998:

I was probably too optimistic in thinking Knowledge (XXG) 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

1923:

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

1313:

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

771:

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:

3994:

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

3392:

Hello Vexorg. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Knowledge (XXG), in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The

2696:

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

970:

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

626:

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

100:

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

4297:

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

4232:

4094:

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. Knowledge (XXG) started out as a damn fine idea, but as with everything that gets too mainstream

3235:

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

2486:

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 Knowledge (XXG). The edit war was a disruption. After both of

2406:

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

26:

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

3906:

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

2728:

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

2491:

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

1420:

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

1122:

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 ???

645:

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

591:

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.

3489:

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

2997:

specifically . 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.

2715:

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.

2469:

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'

2427:

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

2166:, 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, 2063:

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

1650:

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

1631:

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

224:

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.

2723:

I have seen politicly motivated propaganda editors in other areas of Knowledge (XXG), 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

2641:

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

1243:

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

501:

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

649:

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.

272:

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

653:

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

3539:; 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." — 3682:

We don't need more anti-Semite truthers on Knowledge (XXG), 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.

616:

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.

2487:

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

336:

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

148:"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 Knowledge (XXG), try not to overuse them" "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation." 3240:- 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. 48:

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

303:

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?

2913:

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'

4023: 1390:

that "shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his 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?

1025:

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.

1363:

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.

2522:

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:

1075:

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

3025: 1954: 3205:

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.

1163:

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,

1080:

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.

660:

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?

2669:

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.

2654:

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.

4147:

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 :)

1244:

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.

2719:

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 Knowledge (XXG). The money is created 'out of nothing' and calling that a 'view' is just plain absurd.

3393:

survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

1632:

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.

3119:. 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 2163: 407:

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.

116:

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

2323:

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

2311:

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)

3709:

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.

1456:

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,

1262:

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.

4085:

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

1438:

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 Knowledge (XXG) blocked or banned.

4185: 1416:

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

246:. 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 1588:

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!

483:

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

899:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also 3813:- 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. 814: 955: 840:

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?

1707:

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

2402:

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

3641:

indeed has been at it for years. The rothschild-Masonic-Zionists biggest asset in Knowledge (XXG). Notorious all over the Web and I'm sure he'll be rewarded handsomely in retirement.

910:

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

3112:

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.

911: 4392:

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.

4359:

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.

757:

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.

3835:

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.

1287:

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.

2060: 4196:

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.

3175: 1712: 3769:

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 :)

2642:

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. -

4318:

to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Knowledge (XXG). Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a

4253:

to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Knowledge (XXG). Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a

2750:

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.

1684:

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 "

4387: 4354: 1107:

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.

410:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=317214469#User:Vexorg_reported_by_User:Jayjg_.28Result:_.29

806: 729:

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. --

1543:, 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 654:

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.

1409: 27:

removing sourced material, reliable sources such as the BBC have reported that there is an Al-Qaeda link, and Knowledge (XXG)'s job is not to determine what the

3277: 3170:

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

2594:

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

1711:

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

3409:

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated

2394:

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.

72: 3340: 3287: 3273: 3884:, 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. 1343:- 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. 3995:

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.

3765:

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

384: 627:

Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability when the burden of proof is on you when adding material, not on me when I removed false or improperly referenced claims.

31:

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.

2951:, please STOP leaving patronising and untruthful accusations on my talk page. I suggest you research what a personal attack is beforehand. Thankyou!! 1756: 4837: 4781: 4725: 4669: 4613: 4557: 4501: 4445: 3957:) believes one conspiracy Theory as a 'accepted facts' even though there's no proof, and deems contrary conspiracy theories as 'paranoid delusions' 1692:, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Knowledge (XXG) has a feature that allows pages to be 193:- 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? 4323: 4258: 2891: 2379: 2350: 2149: 4305:

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

4240:

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

3410: 3336: 3283: 1833: 1793: 1610:

For background, Vexorg, the IP was overwhelmingly banned from this page here . Most of the talk page deals with him, including this section

4298:

copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the

4233:

copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the

1633: 1595: 110: 4306: 4241: 623:

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

3999:

real problem with Knowledge (XXG). They work tirelessly to prevent Knowledge (XXG) from ever being a balanced repository of information.

2813:. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ 3330: 2266: 1207: 3167: 3116: 2587: 2492:

keep going on about free speech (which is not guaranteed on this privately run website) and get declined again. The choice is yours.

874: 3326: 2183:

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.

810: 3907:

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.

2117: 620:

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

1413: 379:

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Knowledge (XXG) page, as you did at

3929:

are treated in the same manner as other conspiracy theories, because all rational and educated persons identify them as such.

3120: 3102: 2779: 2364: 1884: 1421:

opened informal mediation and ask that people join it. Avoid drama, even if you think that you are in the right. Best Regards,

4383: 4350: 3333:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3280:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1699:

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

705: 412:- and why not help wikipedia and find a source instead of spending energy complaining about my edits? David Sumberg is Jewish 1060: 1009: 571:

One or two minor edits which are fine, you are reverting back to the original position for which there is no support at all.

4821:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4765:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4709:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4653:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4597:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4541:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4485:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4429:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2875: 2133: 2109: 1559: 2910:

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.

2555:

And in answer to the editor 'Tarage' - No it wasn't vandalism whatsoever. It was my opinion on the quality of the article.

1052:

comments there, but please refrain from making any comments if all you're going to do is make drive-by untrue comments. ···

4126:

Vexorg - have you ever read a book called "From Admiral to Cabin Boy", by Compton Domville? I think you would enjoy it.--

3398: 4826: 4770: 4714: 4658: 4602: 4546: 4490: 4434: 892: 4379: 2900: 2583: 2261: 1677: 2850: 2239: 2092: 1708: 1563: 1529: 392: 2233: 329: 3445: 2988: 2970: 2946: 2734: 2702: 2675: 2238:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1828: 1788: 1771: 1210:

edit. Let them make their own corrections, misrepresenting the diffs does not hurt you. Editing their posts does.

1169: 16: 4761: 4537: 4076:), as it's clear they are simply using that as an excuse to block you for having a politically incorrect viewpoint 3115:

If you believe that the article should be deleted, then the appropriate thing to do is to propose its deletion on

3106: 1919:

Why thankyou King Bedford. I am happy to get a 24block for standing up to hate speech as dished out by the editor

1536: 484: 4073: 4065: 4042: 2113: 1760: 1723: 802: 4193: 4177: 4171: 2871: 2859: 2797: 2595: 2579: 1898:

From appearances, looks like you deserve it. Just take it easy for the rest of the day, and come back smiling.

3926: 3171: 3163: 2994: 2025: 1637: 1599: 444:

all making sense now. A politically biased administrator. Kinda makes a mockery of Knowledge (XXG) doesn't it?

1001:. If you want to contribute in a productive way, you are welcome to do so. Thank you for your cooperation. ··· 4817: 4593: 3043:

to Vexorg for your tenacity and motivation to make economic policies understandable to the general public. --

1972:

to Vexorg for your tenacity and motivation to make economic policies understandable to the general public. --

191:"Thats where the NPOV comes in, all of the quotes make Kissinger look callous, autocratic and wholly amoral." 3468: 668: 157:

Thats where the NPOV comes in, all of the quotes make Kissinger look callous, autocratic and wholly amoral.

4184:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 3880:. His assertion that Knowledge (XXG) is run by some sort of Zionist conspiracy is a flagrant violation of 3074:) - much appreciated! I would thankyou personally on your talk page, but cannot until my ban is lifted. :) 2043: 2003:) - much appreciated! I would thankyou personally on your talk page, but cannot until my ban is lifted. :) 1591: 900: 704:

and agree to stop edit warring on this article. Both you and Wikieditorpro should be aware of the steps of

142: 4649: 4425: 4397: 4364: 4331: 4299: 4289: 4266: 3420: 2603: 2032:. Any pro-Israeli propaganda being spread by this user in Knowledge (XXG) should be taken in that context. 1544: 1383: 723: 708:. If you won't follow our policies, the article may be fully protected or placed under a 1RR restriction. 694: 388: 4705: 4481: 4234: 4224: 3040: 1969: 1525: 1477: 1048:, and your comments that they are not are not helpful and not productive. Again, you are welcome to make 413: 202:

You're putting style over content. Why not put the content back and improve the style as per guidelines?

3954: 3934: 3889: 3265: 2980: 2966: 2938: 2730: 2698: 2671: 2029: 1823: 1783: 1767: 1165: 357: 349: 345: 341: 75:. Since we're talking about a biography of a living person, please provide a source for your claim, per 4293:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 4228:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 1704: 1528:

on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a

935:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- 273:"amoral cretin" - I don't think they do, but that's my opinion as well. There removal is an example of 71:

Hi Vexorg! I have noticed that you re-added an ethnic classification which was disputed in the past to

3123:. My impression is that the Protocols is the major source for belief in a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.-- 1408:

Here is what I would recommend, in the future when you are looking for more input, bring it to any of

657:

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

4201: 4069: 4061: 4038: 3723:'s comments are simply offensive to all those decent Jews who are against Rothschild-Masonic-Zionism. 3719: 3692: 3220: 3183: 2497: 2442:

If you have something to say on ANI, I would be perfectly happy to copy your statement over for you.

2412: 2280: 2069: 1716: 1618: 1574: 1192: 1112: 940: 896: 878: 713: 576: 538: 507: 492: 473: 126: 106: 3613: 1569:

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

4346: 3475: 2863: 2591: 2359: 2033: 1755:

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay

1681: 1656: 1540: 963: 3766: 3762: 3749: 3609: 3494: 1184: 3467:

Dear Vexorg, I started a new section on the talk page to discuss the changes you wanted to make.

2037: 1700: 1485: 1066: 1015: 664: 3922: 3536: 2810: 2804: 2771: 2515: 1703:

at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a

300: 247: 239: 2586:. One of the core policies of Knowledge (XXG) is that articles should always be written from a 4393: 4360: 4327: 4262: 3818: 3453: 3415: 3356: 3303: 2819: 2616: 2599: 1906: 1689: 1101: 309: 255: 162: 36: 3918: 2809:

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the

1551: 1368:

is simply continuing to reduce anyone's feeling that he might be having a good faith agenda.

274: 243: 4131: 3950: 3930: 3885: 3500: 3128: 3071: 3048: 2895: 2881: 2388: 2139: 2000: 1977: 921:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

854: 783: 740: 4314: 4249: 4189: 4181: 3881: 3877: 2867: 2121: 1555: 1259: 987: 932: 922: 915: 904: 843:

Also, I hope we can continue this discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs. --

701: 468:

Please move to discussion, there is a thread at the BLPNoticeboard regarding this article.

94: 76: 4845: 4789: 4733: 4677: 4621: 4565: 4509: 4453: 4197: 3712: 3685: 3215: 3179: 2507: 2493: 2443: 2408: 2171: 2153: 2065: 1614: 1570: 1462: 1426: 1365: 1360: 1268: 1258:

Well, if you had left his misrepresentation then you could bring that to the attention of

1215: 1188: 1108: 976: 936: 709: 572: 534: 503: 488: 469: 122: 102: 4822: 4766: 4710: 4654: 4598: 4542: 4486: 4430: 3876:- If he cannot even understand how people see his rant as a conspiracy theory, we need a 2793:

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for

2167: 2129: 2125: 2105: 2101: 1765:

Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes.

533:

No they haven't, who? Sorry please move to the BLP noticeboard and make your case there.

118: 1924:

is intact however and I think you for recognising that with your barnstar award. Cheers

3471: 2643: 2354: 1652: 1077: 1045: 891:

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for

375: 101:

close the 3RR case without a block. You can reply on my talk page or in the 3RR case.

28: 3347:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3294:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1685: 1481: 1053: 1002: 967: 925:

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

630:

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

380: 88: 80: 3101:

Please do not delete the citations from articles as you did with the article on the

2428:

preserve my right of speech, but not being able to defend my case at ANI is unfair.

2059:

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at

4104:

Take mare my friend who ever you are and don't let the braindead grind you down :)

3814: 3449: 3352: 3348: 3299: 3295: 2829: 2814: 1920: 1899: 417:"Conservative MEP for northwest England, David Sumberg, who is Jewish, said, ...." 305: 251: 158: 32: 4022: 1513: 1382:

Unbelievable the lengths some editors go to try and denigrate another editor....

4322:. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the 4257:. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the 4149: 4127: 4105: 4000: 3958: 3836: 3770: 3642: 3568: 3547: 3241: 3141: 3124: 3075: 3067: 3044: 2999: 2952: 2915: 2751: 2656: 2620: 2556: 2525: 2511: 2471: 2429: 2244: 2206: 2184: 2004: 1996: 1973: 1925: 1856: 1809: 1736: 1495: 1440: 1392: 1369: 1344: 1318: 1288: 1245: 1226: 1142: 1124: 1082: 1027: 959: 844: 819: 773: 758: 730: 679: 593: 556: 520: 445: 419: 278: 203: 50: 3140:

you do realise the policy on verifiability means 'reliable sources' don't you?

2328:

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Knowledge (XXG),

1558:, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see 884: 4841: 4785: 4729: 4673: 4617: 4561: 4505: 4449: 3638: 3634: 3617: 3564: 3540: 3506: 3024: 2615:

A very patronising message to a long time editor. I assume your offensiveness

1953: 1458: 1422: 1315: 1264: 1211: 972: 396: 361: 1539:

to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only

242:

section, dont use quotes to do things that would otherwise be a violation of

4294: 4229: 3318: 383:. Addition of unsourced biographical content of this kind is a violation of 89:

You're being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard; please respond to this offer

441: 179:"Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation." 177:

Yes I read all of that. They are ONLY guidelines, not rules. I agree with

3490:

using Knowledge (XXG) as a soapbox from which to proclaim your theories.

2164:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

519:

No I am not standing alone. Others have restored your excessive hacking.

1751: 1672: 3925:, we do not give paranoid delusions equal validity to accepted facts. 3374: 1611: 414:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1414

1314:

wanting to correct a misrepresentations against myself. Thanks again

1044:

Usernames with "penis" and "vagina" in them are absolutely violating

4849: 4793: 4737: 4681: 4625: 4569: 4513: 4457: 4401: 4368: 4335: 4270: 4205: 4186:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Vexorg/William Cooper

4157: 4135: 4113: 4046: 4008: 3966: 3938: 3893: 3844: 3822: 3778: 3696: 3650: 3620: 3576: 3543: 3509: 3479: 3457: 3426: 3360: 3307: 3249: 3222: 3187: 3149: 3132: 3083: 3052: 3007: 2960: 2923: 2905: 2824: 2759: 2738: 2724:

extend to something technical like monetary mechanisms and policy.

2706: 2679: 2664: 2646: 2628: 2607: 2564: 2533: 2520:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:TPG#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

2501: 2479: 2446: 2437: 2416: 2369: 2214: 2192: 2174: 2156: 2073: 2047: 2012: 1981: 1933: 1908: 1883: 1864: 1840: 1817: 1800: 1775: 1744: 1730: 1660: 1641: 1622: 1603: 1578: 1503: 1489: 1466: 1448: 1430: 1400: 1377: 1352: 1326: 1296: 1272: 1253: 1234: 1219: 1196: 1173: 1150: 1132: 1116: 1090: 1070: 1035: 1019: 980: 944: 863: 827: 792: 766: 749: 717: 687: 672: 601: 580: 564: 542: 528: 511: 496: 477: 453: 427: 399: 364: 313: 286: 259: 211: 166: 130: 83: 58: 40: 4180:, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 3761:

As for WP:Fringe, what an utterly stupid concept. People waving

1550:

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

1494:

The 'image' is public domain, and I am the source for the 'file'.

3608:. He's been at this for years; absurdly combative in defense of 3269: 2519: 1680:

to Knowledge (XXG). It appears that you recently tried to give

360:. Please abide by Knowledge (XXG)'s Categorization guidelines. 4192:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

3322: 4804: 4748: 4692: 4636: 4580: 4524: 4468: 4412: 4279: 4214: 3554:

history, including blocks over 9/11 pages and I-P articles.

3373: 2841: 2777: 2224: 2083: 1512: 993:

Please refrain from making unproductive comments as you did

883: 702:

WP:AN3#User:Wikieditorpro reported by User:Vexorg (Result: )

3178:

if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

1562:). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found 678:

Excuse me but where was a 1RR restriction imposed upon me?

181:, but then out them into context and not sinmply cull them. 2205:

Oh come on!! at least let me communicate at the ANI page.

912:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Criticism of YouTube

2376:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2124:. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek 962:

was attempting to use to justify removal of the category

2396:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1388:

used the comments above as some kind of claim at the ANI

4319: 4254: 3551: 3404:

Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

3321:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3268:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2294: 2290: 2284: 2275: 2271: 2257: 2253: 2249: 1387: 1340: 998: 994: 409: 4836: