Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk) 07:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be following me. Keep up the * work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleSBernard ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Will do, -- Tom 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:BLP very carefully. Do not insert into biographies of living people any material that is not extremely well sourced from highly reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Last chance, MichelleSBernard. Use the article's Talk page to propose changes, bringing the sources to see if they are reliable. Otherwise you will be blocked. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
MichelleSBernard ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Deletion review per Mango was biased and flat out wrong. The article I posted was an ARTICLE, not a letter to the editor. Maybe if Mango had spent some time in actually reading the articles, unlike Jayjr.
Jayjg appears to be blocking me because he disagrees with the edits that I have been making to pages, trying to populate the Jewish Journalists category. There was a request to populate the category and I have been trying to do that. Jayjg appears not to like including people in that category so he is harassing me in an attempt to end my constructive edits. I have been adding the tags only when there existed prior information in the persons bio that they were jewish, and that they fit the definition of a journalists. This appears to be an attempt by Jayjg to use his blocking privileges to advance his own agenda. The information I was adding as sources were reliables, ie beliefnet which is owned by the same company that owns the NY Post and the Wall Street Journal. Jayjg appears to be using the one exemption in the blocking policy of content disputes to shut my constructive edits down, instead of using normal dispute resolution means. This is a horrible abuse of his power, and if I had any say I would recommend that the power be taken away from him, as he has shown he does not have the cool head needed, and stop advancing his agenda through harassment and blocking. Its shameful what he has done. Truly shameful what he has done in going power mad. Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_journalists That was the source for where I clicked on people to add to the category. I guess I shouldn't rely on the sources gathered by wikipedians because they are edited by people like Jayjr, and thus the constructive editors are forced out. I had also taken my case to the discussion page of the people in question,
David Brooks,
Gloria Steinem, and
Gideon Yago, to avoid 3RR and to let others interject. Sourced material was added that you reverted, see
[1]. Once this block is lifted I plan on reporting this for dispute resolution and I will be attempting to have your blocking privileges revoked, that is not a threat, that is a promise. I would also like to point out that I was relying on information Jayjr, the man who blocked me, approved of via this edit
[2].
Decline reason:
No, actually, it seems that you are the problem, not Jayjg. We have stringent standards when it comes to material about living people, and your efforts at David Brooks, for instance, are clearly a violation of that. You include a letter to the editor: an opinion piece, as if it were a reliable source of fact. You edit warred over it, and when you were finally dragged to the talk page your response bashed others as "pro-Jewish" rather than addressing the issue. Please read WP:BLP and address your own behavior if you make another request. Many people are upset about getting blocked, but we don't unblock them just because they want to file official grievances and feel that the administrator was biased. Mango juice talk 07:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. If you deny that David Brooks is Jewish your living on a cloud, I posted an article from a news organization, I guess thats not good enough for some mango juice. I can see why people don't trust wikipedia, they are oblivious to the facts. I'll be back, and I'll take care of David Brook's article when I'm back up tomorrow.
According to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met
If you violate the rules after fair and clear explanations, your edits will be reverted and you will be required provide relevance per above. Ignoring the rules will show more bad faith with each and every bad faith edit a separate violation. Comments like "I'll be back," are probably a leading indicator. Econewbie ( talk) 07:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
MichelleSBernard ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Deletion review per Mango was flat out wrong. The article I posted was an ARTICLE, not a letter to the editor. Maybe if Mango had spent some time in actually reading the articles, unlike Jayjr, he would have realized that. Maybe if he had spent time reading my unblock request he would also see that i was going off as a starting point a page which Jayjr had edited, and by default therefore accepted. I realize this is against deletion review protocol, but honestly, are there any unbiased admins on wikipedia, or are you all like the MSM, pushing your line? I mean Jayjr spends his whole day changing articles to fit a pro-jewish meme, editing in loaded words, and harassing editors like me who try to populate categories he disagress with, and has stated he disagrees with on prior deletion reviews. He didn't like the outcome of the deletion review so he has chosen to harass those who populate the category, its pathetic. Why is that?
Decline reason:
This does not address the edit to Gary Bauer you were blocked for. But, at any rate, your conduct here continues to be disruptive. You accuse others of their alleged "Pro-Jewish philosphey" [1], and you show no indication of understanding our biographies of living persons policy; instead, you announce that you will continue to violate it [2]. To prevent you from causing further disruption and using Wikipedia as a battleground, I have blocked your account indefinitely. — Sandstein 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_journalists
That was the source for where I clicked on people to add to the category. I guess I shouldn't rely on the sources gathered by wikipedians because they are edited by people like Jayjr, and thus the constructive editors are forced out.
I had also taken my case to the discussion page of the people in question,
David Brooks,
Gloria Steinem, and
Gideon Yago, to avoid 3RR and to let others interject.
MichelleSBernard (
talk) 04:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
According to
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories :
It would appear that the 2nd requirement is not met on the majority of edits. I mentioned this on my talk page. Besides that glaring defect, the comments by MichelleSBernard in response, to everyone concerned, shows an extreme failure of NPOV: he has labeled those who challenge his edits as a probable " zionist" and automatically lacking neutrality.
He attacks those who question his edits as bad faith accusations with ulterior motives: "we should not point out who Jewish members of the media are." He has referred to the Gaza conflict as a justification or cause for many of his edits (note his vandalism to Sergey Brin) and unrelated vandalism to Chip Caray. He has also placed extremely hostile references on my talk page without cause and has refused to explain them.
Because of the nature of his edits and his prior willingness to engage in edit wars and vandalism, I created this alternate user name to deal with his edits. Econewbie ( talk) 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
From the few, fairly recent edits you've made, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kotecki, they seem pretty sophisticated for a new user. How do we know you're not using a sock puppet?
I replaced the question below as I assume you deleted it by accident in your "clean up." I replaced it awaiting a reply. Econewbie ( talk) 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You added a cited reference to Kristallnacht on my talk page as part of your reply. I failed to see the reason for this added reference as our discussions had nothing to do with Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. Could you please explain? Econewbie ( talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
MichelleSBernard ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is insane. I am constructlivly adding to wikipedia by filling in a category based off a list proved by the person who blocked me. I have been brought into a battle with Jayjr, and he has fired all the guns by blocking me. I have been peaceful, the specific edit in question was a mistake and I regret making it. This is INSANE. When, and if, I am unblocked I plan on continuing to add people to the category, but I will promise that I will only add that category tag to well sourced info, like I did with David Brooks, that was rejected by Jayjr, and when the issue arises I will bring it to the talk page, like I did with David Brooks - and was summarily attacked by Jayjr. That is the proper way of resolving disputes. Jayjr was the one abusing the system because the proper way to resolve disputes is NOT to block users whose religious philosophy you disagree with. This is a bigoted block. This is a racist block. Furthermore, the reason given in the last denial was that I was engaging in a "wiki-battle" on my own talk page, which is preposterous to begin with, and secondly the user who came to my talk page to harass me has freely admitted he is a sockpuppet and was created purely for the purpose of harassing me. I think that user, and his puppet master, should be blocked for engaging in the very "wiki-battle" that you have blocked me indefinitely for.
Decline reason:
Per all of above. Also: tweaking block due to continued disruption and abuse of the {{ unblock}} template. {{subst:User:^demon/sig}} ( talk)
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.
With respect to your e-mail, I leave it up to ^demon, the administrator who most recently blocked you, to decide about what (if anything) should be done. However, a random sampling of your contributions [3], [4], [5] does not suggest to me that our project would gain anything by unblocking you, and I counsel against it. Sandstein 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ana Kasparian, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 67.173.185.224 ( talk) 05:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ana Kasparian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Kasparian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ana Kasparian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Kasparian (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Otterathome ( talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)