Hi Professional Assassin. I noticed you tagged a number of files which depicted Iranian banknotes as copyright violations (you claimed that the uploader is releasing the files into the public domain). However, that isn't the case. Please carefully re-read the license tags placed on the image description pages; they indicate that the files are non-free content. As that is the case, the files are not copyvios. I have reverted your edits so no harm done, but in the future, please exercise more caution when tagging files for deletion. Regards, FASTILY(TALK)03:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What else could such crimes be named then? What do people call it in the Unites States? For example if you talk about how good the Southerners were and the Federal government puts you in the jail, what would that act be called? Do we have double-standards or what? Those kind of crimes are exactly THOUGHT CRIMES and nothing else and it does not violate NPOV. Do not forget that Wikipedia is not censored.Professional Assassin (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gas chambers
I'm starting to detect a pattern here. There is no reasonable doubt that the Nazis used gas chambers, so this edit is pushing a fringe position. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not the place to make arguments against the mainstream view of the Holocaust. Fences&Windows20:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as no reasonable doubt. There are so many doubts indeed and my edit was not a false one. The source of that statement was a Jewish website. You put a non-Allied and non-Jewish source which is independent and respects NPOV, then you can remove my sentence!--Professional Assassin (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
January 2010
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your comment against an editor here was not acceptable.Fences&Windows22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the debate before saying something! I didn't comment on an editor. I commented about the article's subject which is SUDDENLY your mentioned editor. By the way, I fully understand why you are angry and chasing my edits. Stay cool dude! :)) --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You directly attacked the editor as the subject of the article. Attacking living people also breaches WP:BLP, which doesn't merely apply within articles, but also on talk pages and at AfD. Don't give excuses for doing it, just avoid doing it again.
US army and Jewish organizations are reliable then? That sentence which I added in that article says only Allied and Jewish sources claim the (extensive) use of gas chambers in Germany. You didn't give a non-Allied, non-Jewish source! If you believe the Allied and Jewish sources are reliable, then why do you fear saying it? I brought a source which is against your gas chamber theories, whether you like it or not, there are people who are against these kind of theories. Your claims that EVERYBODY accepts such theories are false.
And about that person, you better check that page again and see how she talks with other users and you will see what personal attack really is. :) By the way, I didn't insult her or the article's subject as you try to use it as an excuse for chasing me across Wikipedia. I just said her English grammar is not THAT good to be a poet, let alone the other acclaimed 7 languages. This was necessary for defining the notability of the article's subject.--Professional Assassin (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Professional Assassin. You have new messages at Annette46's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Gas chamber appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Defender of torch (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third Reich related advice
PA - I just wanted to make a suggestion to you for dealing with the Third Reich articles you've shown an interest in. I happen to think there's some value (per NPOV) in what you're trying to add, but these articles need better sourcing and more tact than other articles, more (at any rate) than you have been using to date. Remember, there are still a lot of people in the world with hair-triggers on the subject of Naziism, and any unreasonableness tends to magnify exponentially. There are decent secondary sources for what you are trying to say, so give up the confrontational language, stick closely to facts and sources, and try to make reasoned arguments as best you can. If you can keep things calm on the talk page you'll be able to make fruitful additions to the article. --Ludwigs219:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I have added to wikipedia, regarding the Third Reich is well sourced, even in comparison to the other wiki articles. I don't give a damn if some people don't like this. If they don't like these facts from reliable sources, then they better NOT to read the articles. Let it make as many as people angry as it can. lol :)) My edits are fully in compliance with wiki rules. Wiki is NOT censored. It is an American project, not a European one!--85.185.184.1 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hey, PA (I'm assuming this IP is you, and that you forgot to log it). I agree with you about the inclusion of properly sourced material. All I'm suggesting s that it might be a good idea to tread a little lightly on these types of articles. if you come in with a 'fuck everyone' attitude, you're going to get yourself blocked by some admin, the material you add will get removed, and the whole thing will be a giant waste of your (and our) time. If you take it slowly and carefully and support what you're trying to add properly, there's a good chance you'll make a productive change.
It's your choice, really - you can get your rocks off, or you can add what you want to the articles; but you can't do both. If you want to start alienating people like me who are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, then I'll go ahead and say goodbye now. --Ludwigs217:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bias
I would ask you to refrain from accusations of political bias and give me (and other users) the same assumtions about good faith that you would expect.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I really don't care a bit, what you (and other users) think about me. Just adjust your comments according to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability when you are voting in an AfD debate.--Professional Assassin (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the wikpedias guidlines on assuming good faith and civility. But please provide the sources that indicate that Hitlers 50th birthday saw signifincat celibrations outside Berlin.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has enough sources. Where did you find the guideline which says, events are notable if they are outside Berlin? I am now getting even more sure that your comments are highly biased!--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, PA, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were actually interested in building the encyclopedia, but it's becoming increasingly clear that you are just looking for a fight. I would have helped you if I thought you were sincere, but I don't see the point in it now. If you get your act together before you are indef blocked, let me know. --Ludwigs221:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to revert my edit. Calling it vandalism is a personal attack - not a good idea. I did that rather than take it to AfD. I genuinely do not think it should have its own article. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my reasoning in the edit summary. Clearly not vandalism. If you disagreed, you could have added evidence for notability when reverting and that would have been the end of it. I still think that the place for it is in the article I redirected it to. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Kazem-Dashi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazem-Dashi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please stop adding material sourced to the Institute for Historical Review to Wikipedia's gas chamber article. They are considered a fringe group and not a reliable source for factual historical information. David Irving has been likewise discredited as a legitimate historian. Introducing their views to the gas chamber article violates Wikipedia's policy on undue weight, which is a part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is to say it must be followed, no exceptions. You have been told repeatedly and in many different ways that this material is not appropriate to that article. Continuing to add it is simply disruptive. It's time to abandon the notion that you're right and everyone else is wrong. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Everyone else mean, you and your tag team? Of course everything which is against your vampire theories is against NPOV! However most people are totally fed up with this huge propaganda of yours. Hmmm... By the way, this gas chamber and holocaust thing is a tool of making money for a middle eastern country and they fight fanatically to keep this theory legitimate. Aint it? ;) --Professional Assassin (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gas chamber. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk)21:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TAGTEAM. It says:
Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team.
Accusations of tag teaming are likely to be viewed as uncivil. Care should be made to frame assertions in an appropriate way, and to cite evidence.
You confrontational and accusatioanl style is not winning you any freinds or respect, but may lead to saction. for you own good I mwould sugest that you take mthings less personaly.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I note that he didn't answer my question about the non-existent warning he claims I made. I'm not worrying, and I know I'm not tag teaming. I doubt anything anyone says will make any difference to his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. (Removal of sourced content. Biased editing.)Cs32enTalk to me00:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, very funny indeed. NPOV is not to condemn National Socialism, while you are writing an article about Hitler's birthday. What you do is against NPOV and it will be reverted. This is NOT German Wikipedia.--Professional Assassin (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your username strays from WP:Username because it is offensive and likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible. Owing to this, I have blocked this account from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT against WP:Username. It is just YOUR OWN view and nothing else. It is obvious that, you did this because, you couldn't block me for adding well sourced material to the holocaust articles. You don't look too smart. Aint it?--Professional Assassin (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ihad some sympathy with your stance over this, I do not see how you user name is offensive. Perhaps slightly questionable (after all what are you assassinating, does the name have a hidden message for other users?). But reacting in this way to other users (and particularly ones who can block you) shows an attitude that goes beyond confrontational and steps boldly into the realms of suicidal.Slatersteven (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dodgy usernames are often taken along with their contribution histories. I've shut this talk page from editing by the account. To appeal this username block any further, the user can email arbcom at arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org. By the bye, I do think AH's 50th birthday is notable and encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. The cheap bastard didn't give me any cake. I mean, okay, I wasn't born until more than 30 years later, but that's just mean anyway. HalfShadow01:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with that. I mean, it's odd - I've come around to thinking that an indef block is the correct move (I tried to give him a helping hand and got bit for it), but I'd rather it were done correctly (for tendentious and disruptive editing) rather than making a highly suspect name block. --Ludwigs203:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The username block is improper; if it were just that, I'd unblock him. Doesn't matter much, though; he's not going to come back under this name. --jpgordon::==( o )05:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the username block was misguided.
If we are blocking a user over disruption, vandalism and WP:TIGERS holocaust denialism, we can and should name the actual issue, not conjure up some bureaucratic excuse for the block. There is certainly solid consensus that this user was begging for a permaban, but this has nothing to do with his username.
In a very similar vein, objecting to an uploaded image on the pretext that "AH's 50th birthday is notable and encyclopedic" is misguided. It is undisputed that Hitler is one of the most notable individuals of the 20th century, even if his fame is entirely Herostratic (due to the damage he caused). This doesn't mean that Wikipedia must accept crap submitted by Neo-Nazi trolls, but an encyclopedic discussion of the event is definitely within our project scope.--dab(𒁳)13:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree a temporary ban is appropriuate for his attitude I do not bleive that a perma ban is (after all he can hardley learn his leason if he cannot show contrition). But I bleive the user name block is inapropriate and misguided. The IP appearnces tend to show that he cannot learn, but I thougth we had to give people the benifit of the doubt?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. We assume good faith, which is rather different. Assuming good faith means we initially give the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't require us to continue assuming good faith once that assumption is proven incorrect. --jpgordon::==( o )16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has it proveor just assumed. A while ack I was involded in a disut part of which appeared to be and ws accepted as) a black sock puppet atack by a user editing in the style of another user in order to cause trouble. I am not saying this is what has happend, I am saying thaqt he has been given a chance (as for example he has been blocked from editing his own talk page) to disprove this allegation against him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at his edits, his edit summaries, his comments on talk pages, and although we could argue over the reasons, I'm convinced that the block was appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
