User talk:Vexorg
Page contents not supported in other languages.
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 thetruth 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]
Hi Vexorg! I have noticed that you re-added an ethnic classification which was disputed in the past toDavid Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville. Since we're talking about a biography of a living person, please provide a source for your claim, perWP:BLP. Happy editing! —Ynhockey(Talk)18:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vexorg. See the complaint about you atWP: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]
Take a look atWikipedia: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]
Please reviewWikipedia: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 ofCategory:British Jews. Thus all articles inCategory:English Jews arealready inCategory: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 atDavid Sumberg. Addition of unsourced biographical content of this kind is a violation ofWikipedia policy. If you continue, you will bereported, and if you persist, you will beblocked from editing Wikipedia.Jayjg(talk)23:56, 19 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 partiesare 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]
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 atWP: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 ofWP: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. --Heptortalk20:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion. The nominated article isCriticism 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 alsoWikipedia: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 toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of YouTube. Please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove thearticles 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 abot. 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 thatUser:Snappy was attempting to use to justify removal of the categoryHomophobia from theIris 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 didhere andhere. 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 Nihonjoe05:40, 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]
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 issuehere .Off2riorob (talk)14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should consider revertingthis 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]
Here is what I would recommend, in the future when you are looking for more input, bring it to any ofWP: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 onlysafe 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]
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 getthis 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 toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing atwo-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are notautoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to onlya 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 atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obviousvandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeWikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.Courcelles (talk)01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to begin a discussion about Doug Horne's new book on the William Greer talk page but Admins keep reverting my entries and banning me. Please help--it's not fair to remove a discussion!—Precedingunsigned comment added by173.79.237.165 (talk)03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to giveResonant room modes a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits thepage history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to bemoved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the"Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates aredirect 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 atrequested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them atWikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.MarcusQwertyus00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no worries, I'll do it properly next time. :)Vexorg (talk)00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essayWikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybelisten to a little advice.Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes.User:TeleComNasSprVen (talk)02:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]:| TelCoNaSpVe :|05:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 | 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 ISeek his grace06:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
 | The Business and Economics Barnstar | |
| I hereby award thisbarnstar to Vexorg for your tenacity and motivation to make economic policies understandable to the general public. --Caparn (talk)18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
USER: Cordelia Vorkosigan appears to be a cover ACCOUNT forUSER: CordeliaNaismith. Any pro-Israeli propaganda being spread by this user in Wikipedia should be taken in that context.Cardovus (talk)—Precedingundated comment added08:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, By the way, removing the notice that I informed you of the sanctions is your right, but you should be aware that the warning was also logged at the relevant Arbitration Committee page for future reference, as was the identical warning I issued to Soxwon.Beeblebrox (talk)04:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.Courcelles04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vexorg(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please, there's an ANI regarding this issue. Now a trigger happy decision has blocked me I cannot communicate at the pertinent ANI page. At least let me speak there. Vexorg (talk) 11:42 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read theguide to appealing blocks for more information.TNXMan12:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
And in answer to the editor 'Tarage' - No it wasn't vandalism whatsoever. It was my opinion on the quality of the article.Vexorg (talk)16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you foryour contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from aneutral point of view. A contribution you made toQuantitative easing appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this importantcore policy. Thank you.LK (talk)02:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have literally no intention of getting draggged into this, but Andrewedwardjudd's comments of 10:45, 15 June ("It is rigged against you.") show a clear battleground mentality, which is also evident, to a less extent, in the actions of editors on both sides. As for conspiracy theories, I'm sure there was a comment which implied central banks were not being entirely honest. But I can't find it now and I have limited time. That's what I meant with those words. -Jarry1250 [Weasel?Discuss.]17:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I think a better way forwards for the out of nothing issue is to use the language of the BOE and say something like 'money simply created by updating the electronic records of the banks', The others cannot then have a reason to reject it. The simple reality is that these people do have an agenda and they will prevent your changes and there is nothing you can do about it since these other people are coordinating their efforts against you. Freeloader bobraynor and others always arrive to support LK if he finds a few editors changing his text. That is just the way it is. Lagrange is a new user and is already threatening to add back in text that i wrote that was muddled up and unclear by using things like WP:Redact. His purpose is clearly not what you would expect from an ordinary person just joining wiki. There is nothing you can do about if you do not play the wiki game, which essentially is loaded against you and in favour of the legal experts and team members who will always arrive to work against you.Andrewedwardjudd (talk)03:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd[reply]
Hi there.
There is certainly something odd about the agenda of some people in the discussion. Lagrange's approach is certainly not one of someone with any knowledge of the subject and he seems intent on time-wasting and diverting as I have already answered his concerns several times, yet he still returns.
I won't bow down to any bullying or possible cabals though and will continue to fight for what is right and the policy if Wikipedia. The money is created 'out of nothing' and calling that a 'view' is just plain absurd.
I have seen politicly motivated propaganda editors in other areas of Wikipedia, namely a group that aims to suppress anything negative about the behaviour of the state of Israel. That is something I understand as that state has a lot to hide, but I am surprised this kind of behaciour would extend to something technical like monetary mechanisms and policy.
HelloVexorg,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported forViolation of theEdit warring policy at theAdministrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on thenoticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.~NekoBot(MeowTalk)07:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)(False positive?Report it!)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read theguide to appealing blocks first. -2/0(cont.)22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]I won't be appealing. But I wasn't the only one edit warring and you should, to prove fairness, also block Lawrence K HOO.
btw - I'm not buying the accusation of personal attacks though. Calling someone hypocritical is not an attack. Lawrence K HOO was being hypocritical and I factually stated that. There is a difference between a 'personal attack' and a 'personal observation'Vexorg (talk)22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer.Wolfowitz, please STOP leaving patronising and untruthful accusations on my talk page. I suggest you research what a personal attack is beforehand. Thankyou!!Vexorg (talk)01:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Andrew, I have just read the post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz atTalk:Quantitative easing specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantitative_easing&oldid=435442767 ]. not only are you not indulging in Original Research as Eolfowitz alleges by I find his words "Please Read Carefully" and "I don't want to read another word of OR from you, especially not here" both patonising and offensive. And as soon as my block expires I shall be reporting him.Vexorg (talk)17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| The Business and Economics Barnstar | |
| I hereby award thisbarnstar to Vexorg for your tenacity and motivation to make economic policies understandable to the general public. --Caparn (talk)18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Please do not delete the citations from articles as you did with the article on theJudeo-Masonic conspiracy theory.Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability.
Note that the article does not claim that there is a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. The citations are there to verify that some people have made particular claims concerning one.
If you believe that the article should be deleted, then the appropriate thing to do is to propose its deletion onWikipedia:Articles for deletion. That would be a good place for you to explain your objections to the article. If you are going to propose that the article should be deleted, I suggest that you propose that it be redirected to the article on theProtocols of the Elders of Zion. My impression is that the Protocols is the major source for belief in a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.--Toddy1 (talk)04:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Cubase For Atari.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on thefile description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry atthe discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk)09:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently editedMilton William Cooper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently editedBrit funk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePaz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Dispute Resolution –Survey Invite Hello Vexorg. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, 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 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. Please clickHERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associatedresearch page.StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania!01:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
SeeTalk:Transient (acoustics)#Proposed undeletion.Andrewa (talk)02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vexorg, I started a new section on the talk page to discuss the changes you wanted to make.Talk:Religion in Europe#Caption_of_this_mapNico (talk)12:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that your editing in and about the topics of 9/11 and Israel has become too disruptive to continue. Accordingly, I've blocked you until such time as a return to editing can be arranged, which will almost certainly require your agreement to stay away from those topics and to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to proclaim your theories.
Please read thisguidance on coverage of fringe topics on Wikipedia, and use an{{unblock}} template to request review of this block. — Coren (talk)02:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that this user has an incurable case ofWP:TRUTH; and concensus is that a long block or wide topic ban is necessary. It's not clear, given the long disruptive history, that a determinate block will serve any purpose – so I'm inclined to interpret the consensus as "block until editor understands the problem and agrees to a topic ban." — Coren (talk)02:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)}}User:Vexorg has quite a lengthyblock history, including blocks over 9/11 pages and I-P articles.[reply]
(Anyone else hearquacking?) PerWP:GEVAL, we do not give paranoid delusions equal validity to accepted facts.9/11 conspiracy theories are treated in the same manner as other conspiracy theories, because all rational and educated persons identify them as such.Ian.thomson (talk)21:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear in all aspects of life that too many people are still under the indoctrination of what is deemed political correct by the Rothschild-Masonic-Zionist Elite. Now I know that many of you will deem that 'Fringe' and some morons who don't understand what Rothschild-Masonic-Zionism is will even call it anti-Semitic, even though will insult many Jews by saying so, but if you open your minds and do some research you'll only find what I have found.
I was probably too optimistic in thinking Wikipedia was going to be a welcome change from the traditional monopoly the Elite have on information and political correctness. But given they've entrenched this power for hundreds of years, I should have been more realistic. People like Jayjg are the real problem with Wikipedia. They work tirelessly to prevent Wikipedia from ever being a balanced repository of information.Vexorg (talk)05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 | The Resilient Barnstar | |
| Thanks for having principles.JohnAndersonian (talk)21:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Vexorg - have you ever read a book called "From Admiral to Cabin Boy", by Compton Domville? I think you would enjoy it.--Toddy1 (talk)07:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vexorg/William Cooper, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vexorg/William Cooper and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofUser:Vexorg/William Cooper during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.LuckyLouie (talk)16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingFile:Jesus-Zeit.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing theimage description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to theimage use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is alist of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Calliopejen1 (talk)08:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingFile:Jesus Cross.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing theimage description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to theimage use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is alist of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Calliopejen1 (talk)00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Irreligion.png, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.Calliopejen1 (talk)00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Europe religion map en-1-.png, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.Calliopejen1 (talk)00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cubase 4 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cubase SX3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cubase V2 8 windows.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cubase VST 4 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cubase 4 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cubase SX3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cubase V2 8 windows.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cubase VST 4 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
