User talk:Klamber

Welcome!

Hello, Klamber, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  —EdGl 15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Asper Biotech

Soory for the late reply; I won't point you to a page with a decent article, as don't know one...but I'll provide you with some links, regarding: notability, verifiability and sourcing; conflict of interest could be appropriate too. Feel free to ask more if you've got the need. Cheers. Lectonar 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Soviet Union, you will be blocked from editing.

Please, notice, that removing significant parts of pages, especially referenced information without rationale as you did here, is considered vandalism (see "Blanking" section there). For edits in such a style a user can be blocked. Cmapm 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"From the mid-1930s, when the Omakaitse adherents gained power" is exactly the kind of sentence which indicates that neither its author, nor whoever takes it seriously, possesses even trivial knowledge about Estonian history. It simply does not make sense, as Omakaitse was created only in 1941. Konstantin Päts and other people close to him who gained power in the mid-1930s never even had a chance to become "Omakaitse adherents", as by 1941 the Soviets had either executed or deported them from Estonia. I have been following your recent Estonia-related edits, TheFEARGod, and without fear of any God can tell you that most of them do not qualify for much more than insults to intelligence. Your admitted hate of fascism is okay, but please do not edit articles about things that you have no clue about. Regards,--Klamber 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the author of that sentence as you can find it here: [1] 2nd paragraph, 2nd line. You are right, I do not know what is Omakaitse, but I included that part because it was talking about anti-semitism.

also, I'm not working at the S. Wiesenthal center i haven't included that sentence into that site, if you are still doubtful. Please don't hurry with accusations in the future as it can be proven false, like this one. Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren's checkuser

Just to let you know - you have been named as one of Digwuren's sockpuppets/meatpuppets in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren. DLX 10:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding this edit. Defacing somebody's userpage is usually consider vandalism please do not do it anymore. Barnstars are supposed to be reserve for the good faith praising of contributors not for the criticism. It is usually a good practice to offer barnstars on the talk pages so the user can later put them wherever he or she thinks is fit or do not accept it all. This is especially important if there is something controversial with the barnstar.

In future please take into account that vandalism over your opponent's user page rarely helps to advance your point of view. Happy editing Alex Bakharev 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Estland

If you feel that the article Estland should be deleted, or its content removed, you sould take the article to WP:AFD. If you just do not like the name, you are free to propose a better name. See also my comments at Talk:Estland#Estland (disambiguation). -- Petri Krohn 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Sockpuppet

Someone clever has just confirmed you are me here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren--Alexia Death 06:20, 29 May 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please kindly unblock. I am not Digwuren, I am not Alexia Death, I do not use either of them as any kind of puppet, and I honestly do not know who they could be in real (non-Wiki) life. Moreover, the wrongful allegation that Digwuren is my "puppeteer" (please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren), and the wrongful allegation that I am a sockpuppet of Alexia Death (please see administrator Alex Bakharev's indefinite block notice on my user page) do not even make logical sense as my Wikipedia registration predates both of these users' membership, as evidenced by the respective contribution logs. Thankfully, --Klamber 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Current consensus among checkusers and other involved admins appears to be that there is some degree of correlation or collaboration among the various Estonian accounts involved in this matter, but that evidence is generally too weak for indef blocks. However, checkusers have most strongly correlated you and 3 Löwi (talk · contribs), so operating under the currently most likely assumption of meatpuppetry I am reducing your block to a week, to match that of 3 Löwi. See also here. — Sandstein 20:39, 29 May 2007 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Thanks for reducing the block. However, if this block is based on the accusation of me "abusing multiple accounts" -- where can one see evidence of such abuse? If this block is based on the assumption of meatpuppetry, where is the evidence that I have been so disruptive a meatpuppet as to necessitate blocking? If this block is based on the appearance of "collaboration between various Estonian accounts", then this really is not so much evidence against me, but more evidence of the blocks in this case being based on guilt by association. The main reason why my edits may look as "correlation" or "collaboration" is that after logging in I admittedly have often had a habit to read the most recent contributions of 3 Löwi, Digwuren, DLX, Staberinde, and Petri Krohn (the latter being particularly "interesting" lately, to put it diplomatically) and, as a result, my contributions would to some degree tend to reflect (or correlate with, or be a function of) the preceding contributions by these users. However, I can not see where and how this would have amounted to so abusive collaboration with 3 Löwi and/or so abusive collaboration against the "plaintiff" (Petri Krohn) as to make it punishable by blocking. Regards,--Klamber 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Thanks for reducing the block. However, if this block is based on the accusation of me "'''abusing''' multiple accounts" -- where can one see evidence of such '''abuse'''? If this block is based on the assumption of meatpuppetry, where is the evidence that I have been so disruptive a meatpuppet as to necessitate blocking? If this block is based on the appearance of "collaboration between various Estonian accounts", then this really is not so much evidence against me, but more evidence of the blocks in this case being based on [[guilt by association]]. The main reason why my edits may look as "correlation" or "collaboration" is that after logging in I admittedly have often had a habit to read the most recent contributions of 3 Löwi, Digwuren, DLX, Staberinde, and Petri Krohn (the latter being particularly "interesting" lately, to put it diplomatically) and, as a result, my contributions would to some degree tend to reflect (or correlate with, or be a function of) the preceding contributions by these users. However, I can not see where and how this would have amounted to so abusive collaboration with 3 Löwi and/or so abusive collaboration against the "plaintiff" (Petri Krohn) as to make it punishable by blocking. Regards,--[[User:Klamber|Klamber]] 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Thanks for reducing the block. However, if this block is based on the accusation of me "'''abusing''' multiple accounts" -- where can one see evidence of such '''abuse'''? If this block is based on the assumption of meatpuppetry, where is the evidence that I have been so disruptive a meatpuppet as to necessitate blocking? If this block is based on the appearance of "collaboration between various Estonian accounts", then this really is not so much evidence against me, but more evidence of the blocks in this case being based on [[guilt by association]]. The main reason why my edits may look as "correlation" or "collaboration" is that after logging in I admittedly have often had a habit to read the most recent contributions of 3 Löwi, Digwuren, DLX, Staberinde, and Petri Krohn (the latter being particularly "interesting" lately, to put it diplomatically) and, as a result, my contributions would to some degree tend to reflect (or correlate with, or be a function of) the preceding contributions by these users. However, I can not see where and how this would have amounted to so abusive collaboration with 3 Löwi and/or so abusive collaboration against the "plaintiff" (Petri Krohn) as to make it punishable by blocking. Regards,--[[User:Klamber|Klamber]] 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Thanks for reducing the block. However, if this block is based on the accusation of me "'''abusing''' multiple accounts" -- where can one see evidence of such '''abuse'''? If this block is based on the assumption of meatpuppetry, where is the evidence that I have been so disruptive a meatpuppet as to necessitate blocking? If this block is based on the appearance of "collaboration between various Estonian accounts", then this really is not so much evidence against me, but more evidence of the blocks in this case being based on [[guilt by association]]. The main reason why my edits may look as "correlation" or "collaboration" is that after logging in I admittedly have often had a habit to read the most recent contributions of 3 Löwi, Digwuren, DLX, Staberinde, and Petri Krohn (the latter being particularly "interesting" lately, to put it diplomatically) and, as a result, my contributions would to some degree tend to reflect (or correlate with, or be a function of) the preceding contributions by these users. However, I can not see where and how this would have amounted to so abusive collaboration with 3 Löwi and/or so abusive collaboration against the "plaintiff" (Petri Krohn) as to make it punishable by blocking. Regards,--[[User:Klamber|Klamber]] 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• If the verdict hails from Scotland, and there's no evidence of any disruption, shouldn't the principles of Justice demand avoiding any blocks at all? (Note that no claims of "mutual 3RR assistance" were made between 3 Löwi and Klamber, for example.) After all, the puppetry policy only bans disruptive puppetry. Digwuren 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)