|
User talk:Logicalgenius3Welcome
Disambiguation link notification for March 22Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bauakademie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Master builder. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Manual of StyleHello, I've reverted your edits at Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra. Please read Wikipedia's manual of Style before making any supposed style corrections. In particular, links are sparingly used, italics is used for foreign terms, and capitalisation is only used for job titles when strictly necessary. Graham87 12:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
June 2016
Chopin nationalityHi. I would like to thank you for stating your point on Chopin's nationality. I am glad you have started a new discussion, however, please make changes to the article after the discussion has ended and the resolution settled. Best Regards. - Oliszydlowski (TALK) 12:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oliszydlowski (TALK) 12:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Warning You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frédéric Chopin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 07:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: It was just one personal question "Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English?" never repeated, as considered by myself too personal, and one funny mockery/ridicule of the vulgarity of User:Drmies, and not an attack on his person, picked up, fully supported and thus confirmed, as justified, by many on his talk page in User talk:Drmies#What does "a-holish" mean in English?, so at most 1 personal attack, if a question qualifies as such, and thus definitely no persistence meaning enduring continuance not possible at only 1 instance, as requiring at least 3 instances, as only 2 qualify as only repetition and not continuance. Decline reason: I really don't care whether you regard "personal attacks" as an apt description of your persistently posting pompous self-important messages ridiculing other editors or not. Whatever you think of them, they are not constructive contributions to discussions relating to editing the encyclopaedia, and their only purpose is to belittle other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2016 (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. Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: My edits to properly describe Chopin's nationality as Polish-French and not only Polish were very constructive. The alleged consensus for Polish only (Solution A) was a prohibited result of a vote and NOT based on even a single reliable source (0 of "The sources indicated in the lead and in past discussions" claimed in the "consensus" result Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RfC Close table by User:Sjones23). "Cleverly", the only reliable sources provided, and all for Chopin being Polish-French, were spread by User:Sjones23 amongst 3 Solutions B, C, and D in order to and thus reducing the significance of their overwhelming combined weight against adopted Solution A (premeditated trick to defeat them). Additionally, one of these provided sources was primary, namely an image of the original Chopin's French passport (http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin7.htm on Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 10#Refocusing on the Issue by Frania W. obviously omitted in the above-mentioned vote table), which "prima facie" proved that Chopin was French (Solutions B, C, and D) and disproved that he was only Polish (adopted Solution A) and Solution E. Thus, User:Sjones23 and the rest of supporters of Chopin as only Polish conspired using illegal voting to force through Solution A, as no reliable sources supported it and still do not, as it is false. That was quite difficult to unraveled, because of the additional support also from administrators who do not check the absence of reliable sources for this Solution A sham (a lot of work) and blindly support it, such as User:Drmies, for which I ridiculed/mocked his vulgarity (WP:CIVIL). The opposition also from User:2Awwsome (Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 11#Edit request) was illegally crashed by the vote 12:0:1:0:3:1 for A:B:C:D:E (curiously 6 results for only 5 options).--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) 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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2016 (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.
November 2016 You currently appear to be engaged in multiple edit wars. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dr. K. 03:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The reason of blocking me is a conjunction of 2 elements, namely (1) tendentious editing of a nigh-policy + (2) to push a holocaust denial blog as a source, of which all have to be true in order for the conjunction (reason) to be true. *SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice not aware that the blog is partisan, biased or skewed in the editings of Rudolf Höss of 22:15, 13 November 2016 and Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture in regard only to alleged torture, and have never used it again, but many other related sources not in question. My use of said blog was by chance and limited to those 2 occurrences. I edited Context matters on Nov. 14 as well as on Nov. 15 when I was accused of Tendentious editing, because "in edit-warring disputes across several articles" and not "to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", as alleged in the blocking reason, and when I was already finished with Rudolf Höss incl. any relation to the said blog. If only those 2 edits were supposed to be tendentious, then they fail to meet the requirement to be "more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out", because they were only 2 and badly thought out admitted by me in talk page sub-section by saying "Correction:" and "convinced me that the phrase "reliable for..." was placed purposely in Context matters". If tendentious were supposed to be also my massive edits in the created by me talk page section, where the said blog did not play any role, than those massive edits were not "partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole", as required, in regard "to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", because the said blog was not there to establish "partisan, biased or skewed" editing in regard to itself, as stated in the blocking reason. Thus, the said reason is unfounded. *ADDITIONAL BLOCKING PROBLEMS: User:Ian.thomson asked for support for this blocking on the WP:noticeboard/Incidents, where speculated: "...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog" (I said earlier My objective here is to strengthen Wikipedia by removing its policy/guidance provisions allowing disregarding primary sources) to magnify my isolated comment as "reflective on his [my] conduct as a whole" while User:Ian.thomson contradicted himself by saying "has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated", and misrepresented by saying "his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English" when I stated earlier that I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Slawomir Bialy. English is not my first language, etc., etc. Also there, User:Dr.K. allowed himself to be libelous by referring me as "This guy is [...] cocky denialist". *ARGUMENT A: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice without awareness that it is a holocaust denial blog, because at the 1st glance it looked credible also for showing the "Poland lowers official Auschwitz toll" article at its top, and I neglected to read carefully the whole, but - instead - just searched for the word "torture" and carelessly went directly to the part I was interested in just before making my 22:15, 13 November 2016 edit. I still was not aware that Robert Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, all support holocaust denial, because User:Poeticbent summarized only that "Robert Faurisson is not considered a reliable source", but was not specific why. Only after User:Dr.K. pointed out on 22:25, 13 November 2016 that "rem. source from blog created by exposingtheholohoax", I started to read the blog, but still it seemed to me not biased, as full of references appearing credible. Nevertheless, I dropped the said blog from my subsequent edit of the Höss article (see link above), but following the User:Diannaa suggestion of 00:38, 14 November 2016 ("you need to go to the talk page"), I only included the said blog for the 2nd time among the 2 references to Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture to answer somebody's question posted months earlier still not seeing anything bad in the blog. I took the same User:Diannaa's advice of 21:56, 13 November 2016 while editing the Auschwitz article and started pushing the issue of more accurate number of death toll in Auschwitz by adding 1.3 M deported that still stands (at "least 1.1 million" OF 1.3 now is more accurate than only "at least 1.1" before). Only during writing to the Auschwitz talk page I checked Robert Faurisson and found that he is a Holocaust denier and thus everybody citing him has the same intention incl. the said blog. In search of a replacement, I found reliable sources in Chicago Tribune and National Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau also used in subsequent editing of the Auschwitz. And that is the whole story of my (honest) mistake with the said blog and Robert Faurisson. *BTW, there is still a logical error of saying "Others deported..." without prior naming initial deportees, because "others than who". The proper text should be "An estimated 1.3 million people were sent to the camp incl. 1.1 million Jews". Only then the subsequent sentence starting from "Others deported..." will have a proper reference in 1.1 million deported Jews (do not mistake with the 1.1 million death toll). I still do not understand why my edits of Franciszek Piper and Theresienstadt concentration camp were reverted by User:Kierzek, because "rv blocked editor". Was there anything wrong with those edits? Do not they, my remaining addition to the Auschwitz, and stopping editing the Höss immediately after the User:Diannaa suggestion, show my honest intentions? *ARGUMENT B: I explained in detail on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Correction: Saying .22reliable for.22 in Context matters is inconsistent w.2F WP.27s 1st Pillar that referencing there Chopin and Höss (mainly Chopin and Höss only to illustrate the calculation) was only for example, as the main issue there was tighten directly to the WP's 1st Pillar and I could have put Santa Clause instead of Höss, and it would have worked equally well. Responding TFD and User:Alanscottwalker there took it as such and explained the issue using Chopin only as the intended example, as sometimes it is easier to use example to explain especially difficult issues that mine was. Responding User:Sławomir Biały there was "somewhat sympathetic to this point", but frankly I did not understand, which part of his statement was "this point", as there were more than 1 possibility. I explained there also my limitations and admitted my errors. *BTW: Eric Stover, Victor Peskin, Alexa Koenig describe in detail that "British investigators also faced allegations of torture and abuse in their handling of Nazi prisoners" in the respected book titled "Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror" from the middle of page 35 on, so my WP:NPOV concern on the issue was not unfounded.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Decline reason: This block was a result of discussion on WP:ANI. That essentially makes it unlikely any admin would consider overriding the consensus of the community. If you wish your block to be reconsidered, your next step is WP:ARBCOM. Yamla (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2016 (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. Slightly improved argument for unblocking requestThe reason of blocking me is a conjunction of 2 elements, namely (1) tendentious editing of a nigh-policy + (2) to push a holocaust denial blog as a source, of which all have to be true in order for the conjunction (reason) to be true. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice not aware that the blog is partisan, biased or skewed in the editings of Rudolf Höss of 22:15, 13 November 2016 and Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture in regard only to alleged torture, and have never used it again, but than many other related sources not in question. My use of said blog was by chance and limited to those 2 occurrences. I edited Context matters on Nov. 14, as well as on Nov. 15, when I was accused of tendentious editing, because "in edit-warring disputes across several articles" and not "to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", as alleged in the blocking reason, and when I was already finished with Rudolf Höss and thus with any relation to the said blog. If only those 2 edits were supposed to be tendentious, then they fail to meet the requirement to be "more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out", because they were only 2 and badly thought out, as admitted by me in talk page sub-section by saying "Correction:" and "convinced me that the phrase "reliable for..." was placed purposely in Context matters". If tendentious were supposed to be also my massive edits in the created by me talk page section, where the said blog (torture) did not play any role, than those massive edits were not [[WP:TE|"partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole"] in regard "to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", as needed to constitute "tendentious", because the said blog's aspect of torture was not used there to establish "partisan, biased or skewed" editing in regard to the blog, as stated in the blocking reason, but only the death toll from other source not in question. Thus, the said reason is unfounded. ADDITIONAL BLOCKING PROBLEMS: User:Ian.thomson asked for support for this blocking on the WP:noticeboard/Incidents for the Holocaust denial promotion, but instead argued WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR against me. User:Ian.thomson speculated that "...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog" (against my earlier commitment that My objective here is to strengthen Wikipedia by removing its policy/guidance provisions allowing disregarding primary sources) in support of arbitrary notion that my isolated comment is "reflective on his [my] conduct as a whole" while User:Ian.thomson contradicted himself by saying "has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated". User:Ian.thomson misrepresented me by speculating: "his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English" when I admitted earlier that I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Slawomir Bialy. English is not my first language. Then, the discussion deviated from the Holocaust denial into evaluating me to "become a good WP:GNOME and correct some formatting problems or spelling errors, but is it even worth it? I'm not seeing why his "edits in other areas" would make you think twice about just blocking him. Hijiri 88", as if my alleged tendentiousness was only a pretext to resolve arbitrary preferences. Also there, User:Dr.K. allowed himself to be libelous by referring me as "This guy is [...] cocky denialist". ARGUMENT, Part A: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice without awareness that it is a holocaust denial blog, because at the 1st glance it looked credible also for showing the "Poland lowers official Auschwitz toll" article at its top, and I neglected to read carefully the whole, but - instead - just searched for the word "torture" and carelessly went directly to the part I was interested in just before making my 22:15, 13 November 2016 edit. I still was not aware that Robert Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, Institute for Historical Review, all support holocaust denial, because User:Poeticbent summarized only that "Robert Faurisson is not considered a reliable source", but was not specific why. Only after User:Dr.K. pointed out on 22:25, 13 November 2016 that "rem. source from blog created by exposingtheholohoax", I started to read the blog, but still it seemed to me not biased, as full of references appearing credible. Nevertheless, I dropped the said blog from my subsequent edit of the Höss article (see link above), but following the User:Diannaa suggestion of 00:38, 14 November 2016 ("you need to go to the talk page"), I only included the said blog for the 2nd time among the 2 references to Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture to answer somebody's question posted months earlier still not seeing anything bad in the blog. I took the same User:Diannaa's advice of 21:56, 13 November 2016 while editing the Auschwitz article and started pushing the issue of more accurate number of death toll in Auschwitz by adding 1.3 M deported that still stands (at "least 1.1 million" OF 1.3 now is more accurate than only "at least 1.1" before). Only during writing to the Auschwitz talk page I checked Robert Faurisson and found that he is a Holocaust denier and thus everybody citing him has the same intention incl. the said blog. In search of a replacement, I found reliable sources in Chicago Tribune and National Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau also used in subsequent editing of the Auschwitz. And that is the whole story of my (honest) mistake with the said blog and Robert Faurisson. BTW A, there is still a logical error of saying "Others deported..." without prior naming initial deportees, because "others than who". The proper text should be "An estimated 1.3 million people were sent to the camp incl. 1.1 million Jews". Only then the subsequent sentence starting from "Others deported..." will have a proper reference in 1.1 million deported Jews (do not mistake with the 1.1 million death toll). I still do not understand why my edits of Franciszek Piper and Theresienstadt concentration camp were reverted by User:Kierzek, because "rv blocked editor". Was there anything wrong with those edits? Do not they, my remaining addition to the Auschwitz, and stopping editing the Höss immediately after the User:Diannaa suggestion, show my honest intentions? ARGUMENT, Part B: I explained in detail on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Correction: Saying .22reliable for.22 in Context matters is inconsistent w.2F WP.27s 1st Pillar that referencing there Chopin and Höss (mainly Chopin and Höss's death toll from different sources than the said blog about torture, and only to illustrate the calculation) was only for example, as the main issue there was tighten directly to the WP's 1st Pillar and I could have put Santa Clause instead of Höss, and it would have worked equally well. Responding TFD and User:Alanscottwalker there took it as such and explained the issue using Chopin only as the intended example, as sometimes it is easier to use example to explain especially difficult issues that mine was. Responding User:Sławomir Biały there was "somewhat sympathetic to this point", but frankly I did not understand, which part of his statement was "this point", as there were more than 1 possibility. I explained there also my limitations and admitted my errors. BTW B: Eric Stover, Victor Peskin, Alexa Koenig describe in detail that "British investigators also faced allegations of torture and abuse in their handling of Nazi prisoners" in the respected book titled "Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror" from the middle of page 35 on, so my WP:NPOV concern on the issue was not unfounded.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Shorter versionI will control my disruptive tendency, if unblocked. Both clauses of the conjunction: "[1] tendentious editing of a nigh-policy [+ (2)] to push a holocaust denial blog as a source" must be true for the blocking reason to be true. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice by chance in regard only to alleged torture (not the death toll) and not being aware that the blog is partisan, biased or skewed while editing 22:15-13-November-2016's Rudolf Höss and Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture. I edited Context matters on Nov-14, as well as on Nov-15, when I was accused of tendentious editing, because "in edit-warring disputes across several articles" and not as alleged in the blocking reason, when I was already finished with Rudolf Höss and thus with any relation to said blog. If only those 2 edits were supposed to be tendentious, then they fail to meet the requirement to be "more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out", as I admitted: "Correction:" and "convinced me that the phrase "reliable for..." was placed purposely in Context matters". If tendentious were supposed to be also my massive edits, where said blog (torture) did not play any role, than those massive edits (how I'm WP:NOTHERE?) were not "partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole" in regard the clause (2), as needed to constitute "tendentious", because said blog's aspect of torture was not used there to establish "partisan, biased or skewed" editing in regard to the clause (2), but only the death toll from other source not in question. That's all. WP:NOTICEBOARD/INCIDENTS DISCUSSION PROBLEMS: User:Ian.thomson disregarded the clauses (1)+(2), but instead discussed WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR against me. User:Ian.thomson speculated that "...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog" (against my earlier commitment that My objective here is to strengthen Wikipedia by removing its policy/guidance provisions allowing disregarding primary sources) in support of his arbitrary notion that my isolated comment is "reflective on his conduct as a whole" while User:Ian.thomson contradicted himself by saying "has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated". User:Ian.thomson misrepresented me by speculating: "his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English" when I admitted earlier that I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Slawomir Bialy. English is not my first language. Next deviation into evaluating me to "become a good WP:GNOME and..., but is it even worth it? I'm not seeing why his "edits in other areas"... just blocking him. Hijiri 88" from my alleged tendentiousness seems a pretext to resolve arbitrary preferences. More here..--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #17291 was submitted on Jan 08, 2017 04:24:43. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC) UTRS Account RequestI confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Logicalgenius3 (talk) January 2017Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: 1. Why do you believe you should be unblocked? (*) I should be unblocked, because I can contribute while verifying in several languages, as I did for hundreds of articles where I added complex details and corrected difficult to notice inconsistencies incl. tackling difficult and controversial issues of bias mainly on the nationalistic or chauvinistic bases according to WP:NOTNOTHERE. I "have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing of a nigh-policy to push a holocaust denial blog as a source, indicating that that you are not here to build an encyclopedia." It does not make sense, because my pushing for a greater role of primary sources (WP:NOTNOTHERE) is a proof against my alleged "tendentious editing of a nigh-policy to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", because, e.g. the primary sources of the photos of concentration camps prove the Holocaust. I already admitted several times my mistake in slow noticing that the blog was a holocaust denial one, because it looked OK on the first glance. Quoting it only twice before permanently stopping was "an isolated comment that was badly thought out". I admitted my linguistic limitations also by saying "I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Slawomir Bialy. English is not my first language, but also my knowledge of Wikipedia is not deep. So, I struggle with explanation of this quite difficult issue.... but rather logical than linguistic, so my English should be sufficient", that could have been used against me under WP:CIR, but was not. Instead, WP:NOTHERE, which required competence, was, but contradicted my alleged Dunning–Kruger effect ("D-Ke") claiming incompetence, but also contradicted by my said admissions of mistake/limitations, as those suffering of it are not capable "to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately" (see more in pt 3 below). (**) Also, my v. hard work to overcome my English limitations and be better understood while arguing for improving the difficult definition of reliability to better serve the Wikipedia community against any nationalistic (and other) bias (WP:NOTNOTHERE) testifies against the D-Ke. Please, take under consideration how difficult is arguing against a policy and how difficult is to summarize many disputes over multinationals and to conclude that a remedy lies in improving the definition of reliability, and now also realize that such improvement will also serve against any bias including the Holocaust denial. That is not the D-Ke, but only hard work not many are willing to put into editing. Thus, I was a valuable editor... with some temper issues I admit. 2. If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? If unblocked, I intend to edit various articles, as before, according to WP:NOTNOTHERE. I am a refugee from Poland (see my recent edits of the Polish Wikipedia on medicine, psychology and pharmacology) and have the first hand experience with the Holocaust, communism, antisemitism, nationalism, etc. I am professionally familiar with architecture, engineering, art, computers, CADD, and computer programming and management. I usually check Wikipedia when watching TV and seek details on interesting subjects. When finding an insufficiency, I check other sources and then add new details to Wikipedia. I am specifically sensitive to logical errors (my programming habit). I admit, loosing my temper while correcting them was putting me sometimes in trouble. Editors do not like that kind of corrections, but I learnt my lesson and do promise to stay cool in the future. Such admission is also not characteristic for those with the D-Ke. 3. Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I liked editing from time to time and thinking that I was able to improve Wikipedia so others had an opportunity to be better informed. It was making me happy. I believe, that happiness was taken away from me unfairly. If you compare the administrator's discussion over my case titled "LogicalGenius3 citing a Holocaust denial blog and trying to change WP:RS to support it" with the one following it, you will see that the later is strict, precise, and accurate, while mine includes "everything, but the kitchen sink", incl. the D-Ke, as if it had anything to do with the Holocaust denial ("Hd") or supported the used against me WP:NOTHERE implying competence (purpose) while the D-Ke - incompetence. If a person suffers of the D-Ke, his attempt to do a difficult "editing of a nigh-policy" must be futile, and thus calling it a "push" would be exaggerated, as beyond competence, and thus using WP:NOTHERE for blocking me was inconsistent with incompetence characterizing the D-Ke discussed by the administrators, to which some opposed. They also discussed my alleged WP:CIR consistent with my admission of English limitations, but it was not used to block me. Thus, nothing discussed by the administrators gained their full approval. They did not notice that I eventually corrected my argument and cooperated with other editors in good faith in that very difficult issue many well versed in English editors would have difficulty with, consistent with WP:NOTNOTHERE, and intended against bias incl. the Holocaust denial. 4. Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Would it be quite "unexpected" to find out that I am Jewish and that the most of my parent's families died in the Holocaust? How the Wikipedia would look like after permanently blocking a Jew for alleged Holocaust denial? Ridiculous? A witch hunter? A society of mutual adoration of administrators seeking a pretext for revenge after encountering a difficult and complex issue consistent with WP:NOTNOTHERE and throwing them out of their comfort zone?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: I am declining this unblock request solely on the grounds that it has sat open since 2017-01-08 and no administrator has seen fit to lift the block. That is, you have failed to convince any administrator to lift the block and there's no longer any reasonable hope that this particular unblock request will lead to an unblock. This is without prejudice. You are welcome to make another request with a more compelling justification. Yamla (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2017 (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.
@Yamla:, you were very kind in the explanation of declining my unblock request, like nobody before, and thank you.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC) |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
