/archive 1

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]

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:44, 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]