User talk:Vexorg/archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

|}

Edits to Christianity by country

Hi, and thanks for your edits to this page. I looked at your source, however, and I'm not able to find the information about the percentage of Christianity that you are giving for these countries. The numbers seem abnormally low by most definitions (most studies cited here consider even cultural Christians to be Christian, so places like Columbia are at about 99%) - could you tell me what page they're on of the PDF? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! However, I believe that it constitutes original research, which is something like reading your own interpretations of data into an article. And, in fact, there are several flaws in it: first, you are taking a figure of people who claim to believe in God (e.g., 38% for UK), and extrapolating 35% from that, probably just guessing that 10% of that 38% is Muslim or other. Second, there are many who self-identify as Christians despite not being sure there is a God, or saying someone can't identify as Christian by the statement, "I believe in some sort of life force". In fact, almost all other figures read significantly higher than your figures. As such, I'm inclined to revert your changes, though I have not yet done so. I hope this answer helps. The Evil Spartan 17:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
greetings. I have purposely added 'Approximation' to the figures so there is no confusion. They are sensibly based upon the Eurobarometer Poll. I'm sorry but I don't buy this 'cultural Christian argument' - Even Christians will acknowledge you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in god. Further all but one of the Figures I have edited were unsourced. We wil probably never know exact figures, but the figures I have entered are sensible approximations based upon a recent EU reputable poll and common knowldge of most inhabients of those respetive countries simply know from experience that the original fgures were vastly inflated. Europe is well known for it's secularism. The page also forbids unsourced figures so please don't revert them bnack to their unsourced originals. Also the general consensus on the discussion page is that the original figures are way too high. One person even suggests the page is Christian propoganda. I wouldn't go that far, but there is clearly a lot of innacuracies that need correcting to a more accuarete figure. I am happy to do this for the EU region. Maybe others can do some more research on other egions of the world. thanks for replying Smeggypants 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Christianity by Country

The Catholic Website is a violation of the guidelines for valid sources already on the page. Please do not escalate this by reporting me for reversion,. I shall simply do the same to you [ dont forget that YOU were the one who started the reversions ]. Which of course is counter productive. I have no problem with properly sourced figures, but Christian websites are not acceptable.

Please discuss this on the Christianity by country talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs)

I have made a report to AN/3RR. However, I made a note to not block if you self-revert. In any case, I have not violated 3RR; I have made only 3 revisions today. And, I did not start the reversions: you started by reverting what another user had properly added before. The Evil Spartan 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have self-reverted to avoid escalting this at this time. The other user had NOT properly added the figures. Religious websites are in violation of the page guidelines. I shall place this matter on the talk page for discussion, and evntually remove the biased website reference. If need be I shall take this further through WP:DR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs)
That is good - I suggest we wait a little more until going to DR. In any case, I already removed the report from AN/3RR. The Evil Spartan 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

List of religious populations

You can't just edit sourced figures with figures which you have created (and which are disputed anyway) from another Wikipedia page. It specifically says: from the US census bureau. And in any case, your figures didn't add up to 100%. The Evil Spartan 00:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


"And in any case, your figures didn't add up to 100%" - And it seems you have once again caused the table in Christianity by Country to not add up correctly. The is NO source for the figure of 2.1 billion. However ...
I can't edit anything at the moment as my harless usename has been blocked becuase one person has for some reason deemed it 'gross' - The term smeg and smeggy is just a fun name and is in no way 'gross' - Unfortuntely I cannot add anything to Alison the Asministrators page becuase I am blocked.
I see you originally entered on Alisons page that I am editing with an anti-christian bias and then re-edited it to 'good faith' Smeggypants 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but your username definitely fails the username policy - Alison ☺ 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for unblocking me. The term smeggy is used in jest over here in the UK. I've never heard anyone take offence to it in my life before. However I respect your position as administrator and while I feel you have made a wrong decision I will respect it and apply to change my username. Editing a more accurate wikipedia is more important to me than worrying about a username warSmeggypants 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to read up on our username policy before assuming bad faith on the part of an administrator: Inappropriate usernames: Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions. The Evil Spartan 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have not assumed any bad faith on the adminstrator. I just disagreeSmeggypants 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As, indeed, is your perogative. However it still fails policy, sorry - Alison ☺ 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (who happens to be from Ireland. More than familiar with the term)
I think the two aren't necessarily contradictory. I'm sorry, but you've repeatedly claimed on here that anybody with a religion is automatically biased, and yet you yourself don't see that your own irreligiosity may be tainted your own views, and are astounded that someone may have even mentioned the possibility. It's possible to edit in good faith and still with a bias hidden even to yourself. The only reason I removed the comments wasn't becuase I changed my mind, but becuase I didn't want to offend you - and I apologize for that. The Evil Spartan 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No you say what you feel. If you think I am anti-christian then say so. however my editing of the Christianity By COuntry is NOT anti-christian. In fact if anything I'm corrected what was a very Pro-Christian Page.Smeggypants 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. I'm not arguing about htis anymore. The Evil Spartan 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


I am Now Vexorg!

Cool :) On with the show! Vexorg 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi peeps! :) Can I be unblocked now, as I am now Vexorg. -Cheers Vexorg 18:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding unblock request as instructed by message above...84.65.221.19 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This has all got really confusing... My username has been changed from the dissallowed username. I found I am still bocked from editing. I am not sure which unblock request to even enter now. The previous unblockj requests suggest I enter the following unblock request.Vexorg 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings - My username has now been changed from Smeggpypants to Vexorg ( Smeggypants caused the original block ) For some reason I am still blocked, by IP this time. Surely I must be legal now? I have a ( hopefully ) legal username that doesnt' offend anybody.

There's no autoblock on 84.65.221.19 and your block log is empty. Either the autoblock has just expired or there's a glitch in the system. I suggest you come back in 24 hours time and see if it's reset itself. If you're still blocked by then, we'll need to get a meta:Developer to debug the blocking system. --  Netsnipe   ►  20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Netsnipe. I've just checked and I'm still blocked - The block still says my previous username. SO mayeb it's a glitch. I shall contact Alison teh Admin who originally blocked me and see if she can resolve anything. Otherwise I will wait a day and check the meta:Developer situation. Thanks :) Vexorg 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've just tried an trick I've seen work before. I've reblocked your account for 1 minute. Once that block expires, it might kill off your autoblock as well. If it doesn't, then Alison won't be able to unblock either and you'll have to wait for the full 24 hours so that the autoblock will expire by itself before we try anything else. If I couldn't get you unblocked, Alison probably won't be able to either. Sorry about the bad luck! --  Netsnipe   ►  20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please try copying and pasting unblock-auto again from your block screen. The last time you did it, you weren't logged in so I never got your autoblock ID. It'd help us a lot if you could provide it. Thanks. --  Netsnipe   ►  20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we go... this is from my block screen - cheers for your patience Vexorg 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, how weird. I've just successfully unblocked the Smeggypants account even though AO/ACB was cleared for this one. There were no blocks showing on Vexorg but there's obviously some weird link still there. Try now? - Alison ☺ 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The autoblock on Vexorg has just been cleared and there's no IPBlock on that above address right now - Alison ☺ 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WOO HOO!! - Works now!! Thanks very much - Back in business!! Cheers!!! :) :) :) Vexorg 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally. The 1 minute block did the trick. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some mistake for your photos of "Percentage of each religion all around the World"

Hi!Nice to meet you!First of all,thank so much for your photos of Percentage of Christianity,Buddhism,Islam and Hinduism.But I have found some mistakes:

1/Bhutan: Buddhism is 97%(dark purple)===> RIGHT but Hinduism (20-29%)===>???.Total is from 120 to 130%???Remember,Buddhism is the state religion and Hinduism is only 2% Bhutan's population!

2/China mainland: You should change colour for it because from 78% before,now is 80%.And where is Macau (85% is Buddhists)?

But in Islam by country,I think you should do again with new census because the old census is the big liar with very biased sources.I think you only edit again or see more for countries in Balkan and Africa (Central and East mostly) and France (only 6.9% is Muslims)!

Best wishes to you!God bless you! Thank so much!Bye!

Greetings - I will have a look. I didn't do the graphic for Islam by the way. only the other relgions. But I will take a Look. The other maps I took the figures from the tables on the relevent page. you're right you cannot have more than 100% :)

Your userspace page

This page is almost entirely lifted from here. Please consider citing it as a source and moving the page around so it isn't a blatant copyright violation. Yours, Saturday Contribs 01:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect you are stating the obvious. I'm just using that page as a temporary area adn it's stil under construction. It's not linked to ( or shouldn't be ) at the moment and of course I wouldnt publish it on wikipedia in such a state. Vexorg 01:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
We still can't have it on there, even if it is not in the mainspace. There is most likely a copyright holder who would prefer to see his work cited. It is still hosted on Wikipedia servers. Change it around/cite it, or it will have to be removed. Saturday Contribs 01:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OK i'll put a link to the religious tolerence page. it's no biggie. The page isn't for public consumption at the moment anyway. Vexorg 02:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Groovy, I just didn't want to mess around with your userspace. Thanks, Saturday Contribs 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please help me protect the article of "Buddhism by country"

Last some days,the user named Bikeable has been editing the article of Buddhism by country because he hate Buddhism (I knew him in a religious forum,he is a Vietnamese Christian extremist)!Can you help me to protect it?Add it on your watchlist.That article is the result of mine (58.186.233.71),Chow Zhang Qui and Vexorg with many people!

When I create new topic with the link of List of religious population.He was very angry when he knows his religion (Christianity) is under around 1.6-1.85 billion,not 2.1 billion as he thinked!!!And he was edited the religious percentage in Vietnam (10% Buddhists,15% Christians,v.v...)!

I'll keep an eye on it. You should really enter proper sources against figures for for each country though. This will help keep the page more watertight. If you look at how the sources are cited on the Christianity by country page it might help. :) Vexorg 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK!I will!Thanks for your suggests as soon as possible!Muchas Gracias!

Please do keep an eye on it. I don't know where the venom above came from, but you'll see that I changed the estimate of Buddhists in China from a whopping 80%, unsupported by any sources, to 8%, the number cited on the Talk page, from the US State Department's Religious Freedom report. I gave detailed reasons on the Talk page. The whole page is extremely questionable, but using the figure of 80% gives an estimate of Buddhists literally a billion higher than any others. I plan to propose on the Talk page a reformatting, since the numbers are (as you recognize) for the most part unsourced. As for the stuff about my being an angry Vietnamese Christian extremist -- that's probably the weirdest thing that's ever been said about me, and I've no idea where it came from. Thanks for you attention. best, bikeable (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You guys should find proper sources if you can. The US CIA Factbook and US State Department's Religious Freedom report's figures are often unsourced as well. And the US government is hardly an unbiased concern. The trouble is you may find it hard to find any other figure at all. I would suggest, if there is a dispute adding a ragne of figures ( as is done on the Christian page ) as long as they are both sourced. Figures from the US government are better than nothing as long as you make it clear to the reader that the figures aren't necessarily trueVexorg 05:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist the movie

Hi Vexorg. I am not too knowledgeable about Wikipedia, if you will receive a notification of response to to your comment on MY talk page if i edit it there. So I have created this input on your talk page instead. Yes, I have created the page several weeks ago, and was removed within 4 minutes of my putting a HOLDON tag. I dont want to get into blaming anyone, lets try to make this new page survive. I will comment further on the talk:Zeitgeist the Movie about specifics ...Squarepush3r 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Deletion of Article 04:23, 15 July 2007 User:Krimpet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Zeitgeist the Movie" (CSD G4, repost) 04:19, 15 July 2007 User:Krimpet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Zeitgeist the Movie" (CSD A7. no claims of notability whatsover, obvious COI, etc., etc.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krimpet#Deletion_of_Zeitgeist_The_Movie

userfication

I have had no luck yet with debating the deletion process. So in the meantime, I am requesting the article be userfiedUser_talk:Krimpet#request_userfication, so we can work on it in peace and improve it until it meets the criteria requested. The "non-notable" film is still gaining popularity, now at 30.000 views per day and at 590.000 for the new version on Googlehttp://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that Xiutwel :) - where can I find guidelines on what's allowed on user pages. I've created userpages for temporary work before but had 'wardens' censoring them for some reason.Vexorg 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've asked again for the text. On user pages: I'm no expert, the rules of wikipedia are rather scattered. The easiest thing is just do what you think is right, and wait till someone squeels. Or else you could search for userpage or userspace in the Wikipedia namespace (check the Wikipedia box in the second Search screen, and search again). — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

userfication archive

notability is a guideline, but verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. I am not userfying the article; if reliable sources existed, the article could be restored fully, but it's been clearly established that none exist thus there's no way to source the article, and userspace is not intended simply for copies of deleted articles.

Hi Krimpet, I cannot quite follow your hidden archive magic; it's wonderful. So I am copying your reply for everyone's clarity; no offense intended. I do insist you provide me with a copy of the deleted version, so I can look for sources and new info. If you are afraid that even in userspace this article will harm wikipedia, then please copy the latest version of the article here:

Is that ok with you? I am very disappointed though, not being able to see its history in detail. Perhaps you will copy the history as text, since it cannot be transferred, so I can at least read the comments and editors names. Thx for considering — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you a copy of the final revision before it was deleted via the "e-mail this user" feature, which is acceptable. As I already explained above, I will not userfy it as it has been clearly established that no reliable sources exist to improve this article's sourcing, and userspace is not to be used simply for keeping copies of deleted articles around. Krimpet 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

not userfied

Krimpet has asked that I do not userfy the article. I can understand it's rather sensitive right now, so I have a wiped clean version now here: [my user space]. For improving the article, I assume it's best to use talk2000 where alas all the wikilinks light up red. I think it is a matter of time before someone who is notable examines the film. All they need to do is call it crap to make it notable. What irony! — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

wikia

Did you notice?

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes angela mailed me and told me about the move to the filmguide. I haven't been able to devote any tiem ot it alte, but intend to as soon as I'm able. cheers. :) Vexorg 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in promoting reality

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts in promoting reality. I award you this BARNSTAR. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianity by country

Hi, quick question. How can you have figures showing, or corrected to include, all religions then stick it under a table marked % Christian ? - J Logan t: 10:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

greetings - The figures in the table aren't corrected to include all religions.Vexorg 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You stated in your summery they were. If they are not though, how could you possibly include the Eurostat figures which are for all religions. Even with a disclaimer which you were removing it is misleading to include it in a table marked %Christianity. They figures give nothing to the article and have no use for it. - J Logan t: 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but no I didn't. I stated the figures in the article are approximations which have been aproximated to take into account the Eurobarometer figures include a non christian god. For most European countries there aren't any proper figures and trhe Eurobarometer figures are the best approximation and most recent available. Of course it would be better if each country did do proper survey's but they don't. There is nothing misleading about the figures in the aricle at all. There have been huge discussions on this already. Please see the Christianity by country talk page. There has been a lot of work by variosu people on this article in the last few months. it was in a terribel state before hnad. Pleae bear in mind their are NO accurate figures anywhere, so everything in the article is an approximation and we have to work with the closest we can get. Thanks :) Vexorg 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you estimate on such statistics, and if there are no accurate figures then why treat the article in such a way. Would not a looser prose version discussing the matter not be more appropriate. And there are statistics for many countries, from surveys and census records - none of which are of course totaly accurate which is why I find the idea of a table on figures misleading. - J Logan t: 09:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Christianity by country up for deletion

Image:Christianity by country has been tagged as 'license not provided'. The uploader should add a license (probably GFDL). If this does not happen, the image will be deleted by September 19th. Best regards, Alfons Åberg 11:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Some problems for pictures of Big 4 religious percentage by country

Dear Vexorg! I've made new all 4 religious populations by country as 2007's census (nearly a month for all those 4 articles) and now,we have some errors.Let's see,I will only show you main points only: (B:Buddhist/C:Christian/H:Hindu/M:Muslim)

  1. Bahrain: M is only 81.2% (all minority religion is less than 10% per each)
  2. Kuwait: M 80%, H 12%
  3. Qatar: M 77.5%
  4. Suriname: M 13.5%-19.6%
  5. United Arab Emirates: M 61.75%, H 21.25%
  6. Nepal: H 81%, B 11%
  7. South Korea: B 50% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo De La Paz (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I need your help to edit it new as soon as possible! I want to thank you first! Take care! Angelo De La Paz 13:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll update them as soon as possible Vexorg 14:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NAU

That article is going to get deleted in its current state. It was not intended to be a home for an article, it was merely intended as a foot in the door, to provide a search result. The article name with the proper capitalization is protected from recreation, and when the same thing happens to this one, people will type "north american union" into the search bar and get nothing. i suggest you find a way to integrate your info into the SPP article until you can establish enough notability through credible sources to recreate the NAU article proper. thats my advice, all the best, good luck. --PopeFauveXXIII 05:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

simply a method of people trying to politically censor Wiki. It' bceoming increasingly common knoeledge that Wiki is being devalued by this censorship. Vexorg 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
or, people who are getting their first introduction to the concept of cryptocracy will simply assume that the North American Union is a less-than-notable crackpot idea that doesnt even merit an article or mention on wikipedia, and their research of deeper truths will end there. anyway, not my fight. like i said before, best of luck. --PopeFauveXXIII 08:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
of course "the assumption of the proposedNorth American Union is a less-than-notable crackpot idea that doesn't even merit an article or mention on wikipedia, and their research of deeper truths will end there" is the intention of the censorship. Sadly most people know that the North Americam Union is not less-than-notable and will see the consorship as a negative reflection of Wikipedia. It is a sad day that political bias has taken over Wikipedia Vexorg 01:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to recall that as per the official policy on verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The Wikimedia Foundation would rather have no information on a topic rather than misinformation. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Official reply from Eurobarometer

A few month ago I have sent an enquiry to the Eurobarometer Team ( Eurobarometer@ec.europa.eu ) regarding the possibility of using Eurobarometer for determination the number of Christians (or any other religions) in Europe. Today I have received the reply from them:

Dear *********

The question quoted in page 11 of the report of the Eurobarometer on Social Values, Science and technology 2005 does not answer the question of determinating the approximate number of followers of Christianity or followers of other major religions in Europe. It cannot be used for this purpose.

We are very sorry for this late reply.

Best regards, EB TEAM

I hope you Vexorg will not argue with the opinion of those who carried out the research, and the Eurobarometer figures will not be used for an inappropriate purpose.

If you wish i can forward you their reply, by e-mail.

AndreyX109 09:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion in the United Kingdom

The relationship between religious affiliation, belief and practice in the UK together with the constitutional question makes this a complex subject. Perhaps you should join the discussion on Talk:Religion in the United Kingdom so that we can find a way forward? Duncan Keith 05:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I am not happy about the manner in which you are editing the religion sections in the UK pages; apart from several spelling, grammar and typographical errors, these edits are controversial, and you appear to be editing as though you owned these pages. Please discuss these edits on the talk pages, and allow time for debate, before reinstating them into the main articles. Viewfinder 10:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


3RR rule

Andrex109 fires my message right back....

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Further please don't logout to hide behind an IP Address. The 3RR Rule still applies Andrex109 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

stop being childish please! Vexorg 22:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Europe belief in god.png

You recently changed this map/image. Because of non-linear (unlogic) coloring, it now has become less readable and decreased therefore in quality. Please reestablish the old version. all the best Lear 21 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just making some continuity with the rest of the religious wiki maps :) Vexorg 16:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The map has become unreadable and will be replaced then. Lear 21 12:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lear, the new map is useless. Which rest of the religious wiki maps are you referring to anyway, I only have seen a few looking like these all created by you. Arnoutf 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't create the colour scheme. I did create a couple of new versions base upon the scheme. To say the colour scheme is unreadable is highly subjective though.Vexorg 01:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok not easily readable, the reason being that there is not implicit association between hue (colour) and percentage (each and any colour can mean any percentage, while there is such an intuitive link between darkness and percentage (darker is more). While that does not make it impossible to read, it makes it very, very hard to read. Any image for which the interpretation relies on a legend is by definition a bad image (read any good handbook on graphical design). Arnoutf 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh and one more thing the Previous colour scheme doesn't work with low percentages as the country colour is far too light. I shall look for another one that works across the whole range.Vexorg 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There are hardly any countries in the Europe map where this poses a problem. Arnoutf 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've spent some considerable time looking for a colour scheme that works with the low percentages. And had a look at some articles on colour schemes for data presentation. The 3 colour blend is not uncommon and done for a reasons so that it is clear to people as there are distinct changes between each decade. As said the previous colour scheme was not readable when there are many low percentages together. The countries almost always blend in with the background with that scheme. In view of this I've changed back to the 3 colour blend. It's NOT unreadable at all anyway. Vexorg 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, for trend data a multi colour map may be readable (note we are not talking about a single moment in time, which this map is used for in the EU article), so as we are not talking about the trend use that argument is irrelevant. Also in the EU there are not many low percentages together, so again no argument. There is clearly no consensus for this change. Feel free to upload your map for use in trend comparison under a different name, but please do not change against consensus. Your actions are negatively influencing the European Union article, that alone should be an argument not to do it. Arnoutf 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Some notes:
* YES, there are low percentages together in this data, so this is a very valid argument.
* A couple of people is hardly a consensus.
* The European Union problem is easily solveable.
* I see you are not convinced. I shall take steps to remedy that. :)
Vexorg 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Except for Estonia and Chech republic I cannot find low percentages that maybe a problem, hardly together though. Arnoutf 13:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Religiosity - look here in the 3rd column most of the %'s are below 20%
Three people protesting your recent change shows there is no consensus for a change, that is only advocated by 1 person.
I agree, the old version should stay and the problem is solved ;-)
What steps are you thinking of, as I have not seen a single convincing argument; so that will not be easy I think Arnoutf 13:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
look at the 3rd map in the link I gave above. - Very pale and not very readable. Vexorg 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree the 3rd map is hard to read. Perhaps you can recode the data (rather then reporting no-belief report no unbelief (which is basically 100-no-belief number), that would solve the issue, and at the same time make comparison between the first map and that map easier (ie compare Belief in God with No stated UNbelief in any force).
Even so, the reason for my (and probably our) protest is that the top map is used in other articles besides the comparison article you are referring to. For that reason alone we should be very careful about changing, as in the context of the European_Union#Religion article the changed colour scheme makes reading more difficult. So there may be a conflict of interest between these articles.
I would suggest you upload the image you want under another name for use in your article, that way I think the problem can be solved. Arnoutf 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I already uploaded the 'belief in a god' map under a new name for the religion in europe/religion in EU articles so that any changes wouldn't affect the European Union article. This is what I meant by "European Union problem is easily solveable." above. I did try and cahgne the colour scheme so that 0%-9% was darker and thus stood out against the white background, but then this resulted the difference between the decades nto being clear enough. Anyway.... rest assured that the European Union article won't be affected now Vexorg 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Arnoutf 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use "rationales"

Hey — I just wanted to leave you a note to explain that this is not an appropriate fair use rationale. Fair use is a legal requirement for Wikipedia to use an image, and without a proper rationale — as outlined at WP:FURG — we cannot legally include it. Furthermore, images of things such as zodiacs, or crosses, are replaceable under our content guidelines, and are not considered acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Simply adding a rationale, of any kind, does not address this concern. I'll be filing these at WP:IFD once the edit war settles down on the page. --Haemo (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vexorg, do you feel in harmony with other editors, or ... what should still be discussed?

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

greetings. bit busy right now. but will be back on zeitgiest duty soon :)

Help for Christianity in China issues

Hi, can you help me with this issue? --Esimal (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Zeitgeist - cross of zodiac.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Zeitgeist - cross of zodiac.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Add your maps into your Watchlist

Dear Vexorg!

I think you should add your created maps Christianity by country, Islam by country, Buddhism by country and Hinduism by country into your watchlist as soon as possible.

Thank you so much! Good luck! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks - done. Vexorg (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Map image for List of unrecognized countries Wikipedia article

Hi, I was wondering if you have the time to create a map image for the article List of unrecognized countries at Wikipedia? I noticed that you created maps for other articles and so I came here to ask you. Gary King (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A little help.

Dear Vexorg!

I think you could help me because you was the original author of all these maps. I want to find the 10 colours these maps use in List of religious populations? Please help me as soon as possible because it could be an "impossible mission" for me (it's very hard to find the exact colours in these maps). Thank you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cubase 4 03.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cubase 4 03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Asenine  16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC) -- Asenine  16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images cannot be licensed under the GFDL

You cannot legally license screenshots of copyrighted software under the GFDL. This is copyright infringement even if you created the screenshot yourself. ViperSnake151 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

'Satisfies fair use on Image:Cubase 4 03.jpg'

I have reverted your revision, as it did not satisfy fair use under the low resolution criterion. Have a nice day! :)  Asenine  23:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I came across your talk page because of a note left on ANI about a dispute you are having and I noticed you seem to be having a bit of trouble in several places. For example, you were edit warring on Image:Cubase_4_03.jpg despite the other editor giving you a clear explanation of why the image was reduced in size and pointing you at the pertinent policy - please don't do this sort of thing in the future. If you don't understand the policy or think the other editor may be incorrect, there are proper places to bring up that sort of thing; edit warring just isn't a good way to handle it.

You also seem to be having a disagreement over the Christianity by country article and whether the CIA factbook is a reliable source. Can I ask that you try another RfC or bringing this up at the reliable sources noticeboard? Hopefully if everyone involved can get some opinions of outside editors, you could bring this issue to a close. If there's anything I can do to help, feel free to drop a note on my talk. Shell babelfish 06:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

hello there. thanks for the message an concern. :) I'm not having any trouble though. The issues with the Christianity by Country page is an ongoing issue and goes back with a long way with a problem about sources of data for the % of Christians and a dispute where numbers plyucked from thin air are more valuable that estimates. Vexorg (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but it does actually look like you're having some trouble - in fact, I think you've just recently ended up blocked over the situation :( I think there are quite a number of editors trying to explain that the CIA factbook is generally considered reliable; I understand that you believe otherwise, but for the purposes of Wikipedia, its the larger community consensus that makes the difference. That's why I suggested, instead of edit warring on the article (which didn't work out well) to try asking outside editors and develop a consensus on whether or not the CIA factbook is a reliable source -- if the community consensus says that it isn't, then you have a firm base to stand on when removing the data. If it is reliable though, even if its not what you want, you're going to need to respect that consensus. Shell babelfish 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I have read the eurobarometer source, but I don't see the statistics you are citing, could you point me to them please? Thanks. Prodego talk 19:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
IIRC they are on page 13. Please note they are listed as estimates in the article. The figures disputed in the CIA factbook have NO SOURCE. Vexorg (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Understood about the factbook, thanks for the page number. Prodego talk 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR at Christianity by country

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The report started by The Evil Spartan is someone who has made highly offensive comments about me. here: Talk:Christianity_by_country#Offensive_remarks_by_The_Evil_Spartan_noted Vexorg (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm sorry I reported you; I admit I lost my patience a bit; I came back to remove the report but it's already enforced. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

You don't seem to understand the point of the reference - whether the information is "correct" or not is not the issue, it's whether the information can be verified to reliable sources, and in this case is clearly can. It is accepted practice to discuss changes on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting people. Hut 8.5 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand what the point of a reference is

1] You reverted without talking about it, thus going against accepted practise. 2] And of course whether the information is correct is the issue 3] The paragraph I removed was misleading. Because the authors of a book claim a community consensus it doesn't mean there is a concensus.

The line needs re-wording at least. Vexorg (talk)

What I did was perfectly acceptable, see WP:BRD. Your second point is directly contradicted by the first line of WP:V - a core Wikipedia policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia works by repeating the views of sources which have the authority to judge the subject and this is certainly such a source (it's published in a peer-reviewed journal). If you want more sources I can add them, but if you think this source is wrong you need to come up with sources of your own. I suggest we continue this discussion at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Hut 8.5 20:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan I (band)

An article you created has been nominated for deletion. Please see the article and WP:PROD to see how you can improve the article or dispute the nomination, if you wish to do so. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

why is this being nominated for deletion? An article already exists on the single he released. Vexorg (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Timothy F. Geithner, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nobody is disputing the man's religion; we just need citations from reliable sources. This issue has already been widely discussed on the talk page; please do not ignore policies (especially BLP and consensus).  Frank  |  talk  23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you post a welcome message, tell me about the sandbox and suggest I read the welcome pagewhen you can see I'm an experienced editor? Vexorg (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, being Jewish is not a religion it's an ethnicity Vexorg (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize; it is generally frowned upon to use a template since you're a regular. However, your edits were not in keeping with consensus, and I indicated that in my further notes. As for religion vs. ethnicity, that is not for us to decide or even debate; my point was that it doesn't belong in the article without proper citations.  Frank  |  talk  00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questionable behavior

Hi. This is completely unacceptable; logging out and then expressing support for yourself, in order to feign consensus, is not an allowable practice on Wikipedia. Please do not do this again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was a bit silly :) Fair cop.Vexorg (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Khaled al-Mashhadani

If you think the article Khaled al-Mashhadani ought not to exist, please consider following the proper deletion procedure rather than blanking it. Thank you. – The Parting Glass 14:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Abu Ghadiya

Hi, you recently removed information from the Abu Ghadiya article that indicated he was active with AQI. The reason you gave was that there was "no evidence or source." Would you mind explaining a little further? Both sources seem to indicate that he was an active operative in AQI. Thanks --RDavi404 (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Melatonin in the UK?

"Melatonin is available without prescription in most cases in the United States, Canada and the UK, ..."

You added the bolded words to Melatonin, and I hope it's true! But how do you know? I've been told by people in the UK that it's almost impossible to get a prescription for melatonin. One person in Scotland got a specialist's prescription and could get it filled only at a hospital pharmacy.

I know that it's legal to import no more than a 3-month supply for one's own use, but that's not the same thing as "available without prescription". Has there been a recent change in the regulations? - Hordaland (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes it's true. We just bought some. There's only a couple of suppliers in the UK though apparently. We got our supply from biovea.co.uk Vexorg (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering! Do you have to get it online, or do pharmacies (chemist's, I think you'd say) or health food stores stock it? I want to inform our circadian rhythm disorders mailing list! - Hordaland (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I don't know. My partner and I suffer with Chronic Fatigue and the clinic is now recommending Melatonin. They gave my partner that online source I mentioned above. I don't think pharmacies are stocking it yet. I've only been taking it for a few days. I suffer with bad broken sleep and I think it's helping. I'll have to trial it for a longer period to get a better picture though. Glad to be of help :) Vexorg (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Since you mentioned 3RR to me, I note that you've just violated 3RR yourself. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

if you block me based upon that I shall report you for abusing your position as an admin. Vexorg (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself. This is my last request. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Your agenda is clear. You have even got someone else to block me. I'd rather be blocked for 24 hours than succumb to your admin bullying. I shall be taking this further. All the rationale for including the CIA report in the article has been given. You are editing using your admin status as weight. That is abuse of admin status. Vexorg (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The user Jayjg is using his/her admin status as weight in an edit war. IMO this is abuse of admin status. He/she keeps removing a section from the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, a section which is properly sourced and properly relevant to the article. All the rationale for this relevance is provided in Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine. I am editing in good faith here. I cannot say the same for those ignoring the rationale for the inclusion of the section.

Decline reason:

Obvious and unambiguous violation of WP:3RR. As is always the case with 3RR, all you need do is say you will cease the objectionable editing style and you're be unblocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 15 March 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.

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

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

Request reason:

OK, I will not breach 3RR and refer back to the talk page of that article

Decline reason:

Glad to hear it. However this is not your first block for 3RR. Please wait out the block and learn the lesson for next time. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 16 March 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.

Isn't that the definition of a block being punitive rather than preventative? The whole point of a 3RR block is to stop an edit war. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Vexorg (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Almost immediately following your block for edit-warring at United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you have resumed a pattern of edit-warring over the same material. Some of the reasons you have provided in edit summaries for your reversions are, at best, clearly mistaken and, at worst, a deliberate misrepresentation of discussions on the talk page. This is below the mandatory standards of behaviour expected of editors and for thus I am blocking you from editing for a period of 72 hours.

Additionally, there follows a standard template notification of particular provisions made by the arbitration committee for articles in this topic area:

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

CIreland (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can clearly see an agenda here. I am editing in good faith. One group of people are edit warring and they get license to do it. Yet I provide proper rationale for the inclusion of a section in the article and I get blocked. This is Admin bullying and is shameful. It is a clear example of personal views being forced upon Wikipedia by the advantage of Admin privilege. I am saddened that Wikipedia is weaken by this behavior. At best this means that a tag-team of Administrators are able to prioritize their personal views under the protection of Admin atatus. Dreadful behaviour. I have given proper rationale fro my editing yet this is ignored. I had great faith in Wikipedia despite many people telling em that it can't be trusted. Folllowign this I am now beginning to believe them Vexorg (talk)

Tags

First off if you dispute the addition of the weasel words tag, remove that one, NOT ALL OF THEM. Second, I would appreciate you actually working on the talk page instead of having a pointless edit war. Soxwon (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop indiscriminately tagging people as neoconservatives

It is factually incorrect, your sources do not back up your claims, and you're showing an appalling ignorance of the history of the term. A veteran editor should know better. RayTalk 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

excuse me!! I am editing in good faith and NOT indiscriminately tagging people as neoconservatives. Sources are provided. "A veteran editor should know better." - please don't patronise me. Vexorg (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't questioning your good faith, merely the quality of your research and your writing on this subject. Did you read your sources? Your "source" for Karl Rove said only that he consulted a neoconservative. Your "source" for Gary Bauer merely says that he cooperates with neoconservatives in various projects. Neither are sufficient for calling them neoconservatives. And that's just the only two I've spot-checked, without even going into the reliability of sources. RayTalk 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Bauer was a member of PNAC Vexorg (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
So what? So were Donald Rumsfeld, John McCain, Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, and other people whose family affiliations with the Republican Party go back generations. Nothing "neo" about their conservatism, either. RayTalk 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Recording proof of RayAYang's editign in bad faith ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_J._Luti&oldid=283126767 06:00, 11 April 2009 RayAYang (talk | contribs) (1,407 bytes) (rm horribly pov and defamatory paragraph per BLP. Please do not throw around neoconservative like an epithet. If you want to write a balanced section regarding his viewpoints, feel free to do so.) (undo)
There were two separate topics in that edit. The first was a pov and defamatory paragraph, which I removed. The second was your use of neoconas an epithet. Take it to WP:ANI, if you like. I would welcome such a discussion, if you like. Do you deny that the paragraph I removed was pov and defamatory? Do you deny, separately, that you've been using neoconservative like an epithet, without context, all over the place? RayTalk 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
recording proof of bad faith editor comments of 'name calling' by User:RayAYang - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_J._Luti&oldid=283316891 - (fix - stop tagging indiscriminately and try to put a *little* useful context into the namecalling, please) (undo) Vexorg (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
recording proof of bad faith editor comments of 'name calling' by User:RayAYang - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Ledeen&oldid=283317286 - (fix - try to put a *little* useful context into the namecalling, please) (undo) Vexorg (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vexorg. You have new messages at Xeno's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–xeno (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 96 hours

I've blocked you for a duration of 96 hours for your continued edit warring across multiple articles in an attempt to tag multiple BLPs as "neoconservatives" with questionable sources and opinion pieces. Please find a better way to interact with the community than edit warring. --auburnpilot talk 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

These people are notable neoconservatives and the sources reflect this. Have you also blocked those who were 'edit warring' with me? No didn't think so. Your administrative bias is noted. Vexorg (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have been unfairly blocked. I have restored sourced information in these articles. If anyone who is edit warring it is the editor, namely User:RayAYang. Also I have deliberately not reverted some of these articles for a number of days. I have read WP:BLOCK and blocking is NOT to be used as Punishment. This block is clearly punishment as you could have participated in the dispute regarding the edits

Decline reason:

Per comment below and review of relevant article histories. -- Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 15 April 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.

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

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

Request reason:

A review of article edit history's is not sufficient to resolve this dispute. You also seem to have missed the fact that I have left it a number of days before reverting edits and spoken via the talk pages. Sorry, but you don't appear to have reviewed this unblock request in enough depth before making a decision - Please also see my additional comments below.

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 00:55, 16 April 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.

  • Note to reviewing admin: I have also been supported by a number of editors in the talk pages. It takes more than one person to edit war. The main editor in dispute is RayAYang (talk · contribs). I have recorded his POV 'bad faith' comments [| above in my talk page ]. You can see further evidence of his bad faith at Talk:Douglas_J._Feith#Hudson_Institue_in_lead_section. This editor clearly has a personal problem against the use of the description 'neoconservative' and has removed many of my properly sourced edits. I have spoken to this user on talk pages and have left it a few days before restoring my edits. I don't consider I have been simply 'edit warring' Vexorg (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) reverted a bunch of category edits after I had created Category:American_Neoconservatives which was then nominated for deletion - see User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Cat:American_Neoconservatives. His/Her edits were not part of the alleged 'edit war'
There have been many instances of the neoconservative placement in articles that Threeafterthree (talk · contribs) has no reverted, and so on. Your long list is misleading. And yes if I deserve block then so does RayAYang (talk · contribs) Vexorg (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The silence is deafening. The review to take longer than the block? Vexorg (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The editor Toddst1 made the following statement in his/her reasons for declining my request to unblock: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. - I fully understand what I have been blocked for. What I am trying to explain is that I disagree with the reasons for the block. To suggest I have disrupted Wikipedia is false. I have edited in good faith and provided sources for my edits. The main objector to my edits was one editor and most likely the one who made noise about them. Just because some more editors side with my opposing editor doesn't make the editing decision correct. That would be the logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority and mean that an agenda with the most editors wins the argument. Further there is clear bias here. Even auburnpilot agrees that the other party, RayAYang (talk · contribs), in the 'dispute' should probably be blocked. Are you going to play fair and block that editor also? Again I request that my block be removed.

Decline reason:

The purpose of blocking users isn't to punish, it's just to protect Wikipedia from disruption. In case you don't realize, edit wars are disruptive. After the block is finished you can pursue user conduct dispute resolution in regard to the other editor if you wish. For example, you could file a Request for Comment on user conduct. From what you have said on this page, it's apparent you introduced controversial material into biographies of living persons, and then edit warred over this content. In this context, a block is entirely justifiable. In future, use talk pages to find a compromise, and if that doesn't work, try content dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) 22:58, 17 April 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.

Elliott Abrams

Please see the talk page and discuss the edit you're trying to make regarding the Reagan administration's policy goals in Nicaragua and Abrams' involvement. Lizrael (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. – Quadell (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Oh please. This was hardly an edit war. A couple of reversions, the first one against an editor who has the attitude to write 'sigh' in his reason for reversion ( very POV indeed ). Presumably you've acted fairly and blocked the other party for a week too? After all it takes TWO to 'edit war' - On the basis of this black being far too heavy handed, an obvious punishment as all you had to do was send me a message and I would have backed off from this article, I request an unblock

Decline reason:


(1) As per policy, the reverts of your additions do not constitute edit warring: “Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).”
(2) While you did technically not violate the three-revert rule, you were indeed edit warring: You were confrontationally using reverts in order to win a content dispute.
(3) Given your history of blocks, the duration of the block (1 week) is also justifiable. — Aitias // discussion 22:40, 22 May 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.

Edit warring at Democratic Unionist Party

Hello Vexorg. You are warned not to add or remove Category:Homophobia from this article for the next seven days, per the result of WP:AN3#Edit warring on Democratic Unionist Party (Result: Warned). This restriction expires at 15:45 UTC on July 1st. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

AN3 is a pretty infuriating noticeboard sometimes. For future reference, when you're reporting someone for edit warring without 3RR violation yet, it's good to have a sentence or two in your report explaining "I know the user hasn't broken 3RR yet but I believe his actions clearly constitute disruptive edit warring because....", that way you hopefully won't get a dismissive response like what you got this time.

As for this particular dispute, it looks like you'd be better off filing a request at WP:RFPP if edit warring continues, since the person is editing from multiple IPs (and thus there is little use in blocking just one of them). Since you've started a talkpage discussion now, though, it's better to wait and see if he will start discussing things. If he reverts again, then you can revert him with an edit summary that links to the talk page; and if he reverts again after you've shown him the talk page, then you can apply for page protection at WP:RFPP. Hope this helps, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Much thanks for the reply and advice. Appreciated :) Vexorg (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Zionist lobby group.

That is not what the article is about, Zionist claims are on another page, Thanks. Zionism. I would say if you want to connect blair as a zionist them collect a few cites and offer them up for discussion on the talk page. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

You also inserted an attack site. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Is that your idea of an apology? Why did you insert the attack site in the first place? Did you go there before you inserted the cite?(Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Haaretz is not an attack site, it's a reputable media outlet. The link was clean when I visited it. Please stop edit warring. I shall report you the next time. Vexorg (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Clean, that cite has never been clean. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC))
nonsense. Haaretz is a reputable media outlet. Vexorg (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it is in your neck of the woods. You inserted it and when you did it was flagged as an attack site.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Tony Blair edit wars

Thanks for taking the appropriate action. I now see Off2riorob has been blocked before for similar behaviour. He has just accused me of being a SPA while admitting that his raison d'etre on wikipedia is to protect Tony Blair from harm (and by extension other Labour politicians). I have no problem with him removing the word "zionist" or trying to improve the article, but trying to cover up Blair's links to Israel is beyond the pale. I apologise for referring to you as a vandal; I had not heard of the media outlet you used, and was taking Off2riorob at face value. Beganlocal (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

no worries. Haaretz is a major Israeli media newspaper. Off2riorob's agenda is clearly POV. All that nonsense about 'Jewish Coatracks' in his revert reasons exposed that. The LFI is a Zionist organisation btw, but I've no problem with it being referred to as Pro-Israeli group as it's the same thing. Zionism is a legitimate political movement and not a conspiracy theory. Off2riorob doesn't seem to recognise that. I have no idea why he would want to censor Blair's clear links to Israel though. Cheers. Vexorg (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Vexorg. I noticed your edit-warring on Tony Blair. I see that you were more careful than User:Off2riorob, having reverted four times in 26 hours rather than 24, therefore not breaking the letter of WP:3RR. Still, edit-warring is edit-warring, and I see that you're been blocked recently for the same practice. I'd strongly encourage you to refrain from edit-warring at all, and to put yourself under a voluntary 1RR restriction, as a good faith measure to show that you do not intend to continue this behavior. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I reverted three times, not four ...
00:07, 19 July 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&oldid=302859267
00:14, 19 July 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&oldid=302860022
00:29, 19 July 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&oldid=302862103
I think you'll find the other reversions were done by the editor Beganlocal
Anyway if a user keeps removing properly sourced material without any rationale we have to leave the article damaged? I would say not. Vexorg (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vexorg/archive_1&oldid=1151044916"