User talk:Berzerker1982

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Berzerker1982, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Travelbird (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wild Hunt Order[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wild Hunt Order requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Travelbird (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living people[edit]

I have removed material from Kōga-ryū that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kōga-ryū[edit]

Hi - I assume you are talking about Kōga-ryū. I actually did not revert your edit - it was reverted to my previous edit by someone else. That said - it was done primarily because you used WP:WEASEL words and unreferenced comments on sexuality which could be considered an attack. What I would do is delete the entire paragraph with a comment in the edit line along the lines of "unreferenced made up connection" then monitor the page (I will watch also) to see what comes back. You might also want to comment on the Talk:Kōga-ryū Peter Rehse (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Hunt Order deleted[edit]

I deleted Wild Hunt Order because it did not indicate why its subject is important or significant, because it didn't cite sources, and because it sounded like something a few friends made up. If you want to, write it up with references at User:Berzerker1982/sandbox and it can be moved to mainspace if compliant with policy. The welcome message at the top of your user talk page has links to more information. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Ásatrú in the United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You ignored an earlier warning. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of druids and neo-druids[edit]

Bear Rollins is a Real Person of Value and the article on him had reliable sources. I do not give a damn what the Nazi named Doug has to say.

I was put on block for being a Pagan.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Berzerker1982 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

He was harassing me. No one asked for his interjection. I was defending myself. Berzerker1982 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I feel that the blocking admin has been very lenient here, possibly because you are a new user. Calling a respected and experienced administrator a Nazi is not ideal behaviour here. Furthermore, he is correct in his assessment of your article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I was not blocked for calling someone a Nazi. I was blocked for calling a Loud Mouth Insensitive Twit, Ping Pong, when he interjected in a situation that was not his business. He did not like being told to mind his own business. Granted I did it in a questionable manner, but I had to get his attention.

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).

Berzerker1982 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Doug did not know the subject matter. He deleted the name of a nationally and internationally recognized Druid with references because he hates Pagans and/or does not know the subject. So I called him a Nazi. I am sorry that the Truth Hurts. Then I got blocked for defending myself against this Asian Guy who inserted his unwanted opinion, repeatedly. What he was doing was Harrassment.

Decline reason:

I concur with Anthony Bradbury. You are being shown a lot of leniency. Your continued personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you continue to make such attacks, I will extend your block to indefinite. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I was explaining what I did and owning my crime. I called you Ping Pong because your page declares you to be and expert in all things Cantonese. Now please stay off my page. You are just looking for a reason to block someone. I know you have a problem with Pagans, just like Doug. I know you are allowed to harass and discriminate against people, but I am not. Please, once again, stay off my page and quit harassing me. All your doing is making my case that you are harassing me.

I will not further comment on your new unblock request, because we do not usually intervene twice in a block. But I will say that (1) you did not call me Ping Pong, because your unblock request was my first interraction with you (it was, however, an objectionable mode of address); (2) all pages here are open to all, and you cannot request that a page not be accessed by another editor; (3) Accusing any admin, be it Doug or anyone else, of prejudice is going to cause you trouble if you persist in doing so;(4) no admin, be it Doug Weller, or I, or anyone else, is allowed to harass or to discriminate; nor have we. Please just follow wikipedia policy, and accept that we are doing exactly that. If you wish to make edits which do not abide with this policy then the error is yours, not ours. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]