User talk:Blastikus

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Two Hundred Years Together. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism, you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Jewish Communist propaganda poster.jpg.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Jewish Communist propaganda poster.jpg.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Russell Bolshevism.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Russell Bolshevism.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ipatiev2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ipatiev2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Leaders of the Proletarian Revolution.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leaders of the Proletarian Revolution.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for removal of block

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).

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

Request reason:

SarekOfVulcan blocked me for "disruptive" editing. The summary of the "disruptive editing" article states that "While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." The problem is, my sources were entirely reliable and were given as a rejoinder to an opposing position. They were directly relevant to the point at hand, since the larger argument concerning the image being debated concerns the nature of the Bolshevik Revolution. The reason for my lengthy rejoinder is that SarekOfVulcan has listed File:Ipatiev2.jpg to be deleted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#File:Ipatiev2.jpg

The reason the editor requested for the file to be deleted was because of this explanation of the image, which alarmed him so much: http://iamthewitness.com/books/Denis.Fahey/Waters.Flowing.Eastward/2.5.2.The.Writing.on.the.Wall.htm

That page does not contain the footnotes, but the footnotes which appear in the actual book are as follows:

1. The student may be confused by the fact that, in the photograph which is reproduced facing page 192, the characters appear as though reversed, and written from right to left. But this is not the case, and is explained by the position assumed by the writer, who stood with his back to the wall, with his right arm stretched down, and formed the letters from right to left, in the Hebrew manner.

2. The cabbalistic interpretation of letters and words is found in the following books: Kircher, Oedipus Aegyptiacus; Lenain, La Science Cabbalistique; Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica; H. Krumrath, Amphitheatre de Veternel sapience; Franck, La Cabbale.

3. Fabre d'Olivet, La Langue hebralque restitute.

4. Fabre d'Olivet, op. cit.

5. Eliphas Levy, Dogme et Rituel de la haute magie.

6. Cornelius Agrippa, Philosophic Occulle.

7. Cf. The report made by Leinigen to the Munich Psychological Society, March 3, 1887.

8. To cipher the real meaning, cabbalists frequently resort to a special kind of hieroglyphics, one form of which is synthetic, whereby a word is concealed by several others. For instance, the first letters of several words are taken and assembled in one word, as in the present case in the word Melek. See Molitor, Philosophic de la Tradition. The above is a reproduction of the photograph of the inscription found on the wall of the room in Ekaterinburg where the Tsar Nicholas II and his Family were murdered, in 1918, by order of the Bolsheviks. The town was retaken from the Bolsheviks, a tew weeks after the murder, by the forces of General Denikin, at whose command an official inquest was instituted: the bodies of the Imperial Family were exhumed, etc., and a careful record of the proceedings was kept. The photograph is found in this record.

The name of the town has since been changed by the Bolsheviks to Sverdlovsk, after the Jewish President, Sverdlov, of the Court which ordered the murder.

The student must not be confused by the fact that in the above photograph the characters are written upside-down and from right to left. That is explained by the fact that the writer stood with his back to the wall, with his right arm stretched down, and he formed the letters from right to left, in the Hebrew manner.

9. Fabre d'Olivet, op. cit.

10. Eliphas Levy, op. cit. Papus, Tarot des Bohimiens.

11. The Arcana (arcana= mysterious) are the cards of the Tarot: the Great Arcana, of which there are twenty-two, correspond to the letters of the sacred alphabet which was first of all Egyptian and after wards became Jewish. Their invention is attributed to the founder of the Egyptian secret science, Hermes Tot or Trismegistos. Our playing cards today originally came from the Lesser Arcana.

12. P. Christian, Histoire de la Magie.

I urge the administrator to see this comparison of edits so that he/she will realize that my commentary is directly related to the matter at hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_31&diff=432469717&oldid=432469381

Scroll down to the commentary on Robert Wilton to find a direct refutation of the points my opposition has raised.

In addition, the image is not only public domain, but is listed as quite a legitimate image on the Romanov Memorial website: http://www.romanov-memorial.com/HeinesPoem.htm

It is my belief that SarekOfVulcan is abusing his administrative privileges in order to censor information that does not agree with his ideology. He appears to dislike content disputes and thus blocks editors who challenge him. To illustrate this, look at the fact that he deleted some of my other contributions on a talk page that were very well sourced where I merely challenged an article, noting that certain sources were misrepresented: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitic_canard&diff=432470069&oldid=432414696

I did nothing there that violates the disruptive editing protocol, yet my commentary was deleted, merely because it put forth information that contradicts SarekOfVulcan's views.

I hope another, more objective administrator will review this case and prevent wikipedia administrative capabilities from being hijacked.Blastikus (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

{{subst:This unblock request confirms the reason for the original block. Making personal attacks on editors and using poor quality sources to support a fringe theory is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Request denied. }} Will Beback talk 08:20, 4 June 2011 (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.

Another request for removal of block

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).

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

Request reason:

Refer to the above commentary.

Here are the sources I attempted to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_31&diff=432469717&oldid=432469381

They are not in any way poor quality.

I was not making personal attacks on SarekOfVulcan. I merely believed that he violated his privileges as an administrator. Blastikus (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Will Beback's denial above says it all; your sources are completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:33, 4 June 2011 (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.

Yet another request for an unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I fail to see how merely posting a rejoinder with these sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_31&diff=432469717&oldid=432469381

Is grounds for being indefinitely blocked. I was not warned that I would be blocked, the administrator SarekofVulcan just blocked me.

Perhaps the real meaning behind "your sources are totally unacceptable on wikipedia" is "your views are totally unacceptable on wikipedia". This appears to be a case of administrative bias, since my points seem to have touched a nerve.Blastikus (talk) 5:02 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

You seem, in essence, to be requesting to be unblocked so that you may resume making the edits for which you were blocked in the first place, which so far three separate admins have explained utilize inadmissible sources (regardless of what you would prefer their motivation to be). Most administrators are very unlikely to pass down an unblock to someone whose intentions are to resume their prior behavior. It's fair to raise the point that the block itself may be unjustified, but forewarning is not an entitlement, especially when there is significant evidence or other indications besides overt warnings that the behavior is unwelcome. Would you be willing to avoid the behavior that resulted in this block in the first place? - Vianello (Talk) 02:36, 5 June 2011 (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.

The reason for my being blocked is that I was very relentless in making my point, writing very long explanations covering the whole scope of particular subjects rather than sticking particularly to the subject at hand. I will try to cooperate with others if unblocked, rather than ploughing ahead of them in order to make my point. I agree to allow the process of consensus to determine which sources are acceptable vs. which are not if unblocked.

Admission of error - request for unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason for my being blocked is that I was very relentless in making my point, writing very long explanations covering the whole scope of particular subjects rather than sticking particularly to the subject at hand. In particular, I used two sources which are very controversial (The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and Waters flowing Eastward by Leslie Fry). These sources seem to have shocked the administrators who reviewed my case, and most probably led to my request being dismissed by them, but they were not (directly) the reason for my being blocked. The chapter of Waters Flowing Eastward that I cited as a reference for the image I posted was considered so inflammatory by the administrator who blocked me that he posted the image it discussed to be deleted. I disagree, but these things in Wikipedia are to be decided by consensus. Another editor immediately described the image as an "antisemitic hoax", although he did not provide any evidence for this assertion. The modern techniques for photo modification did not exist back then, and the photo is listed in the Romanov memorial website: http://www.romanov-memorial.com/HeinesPoem.htm

In my opinion, it would be fine if the editor could have stated his opposition to Fry's interpretation of the image, but the whole thing was dismissed and the photo page was, in my opinion, vandalized.

The reason for my being blocked is that I posted this extremely long rebuttal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_31&diff=432469717&oldid=432469381

SarekofVulcan deleted it, stating that I was writing unrelated polemics, and when I posted it again, claiming that it was relevant, he indefinitely blocked me, and stated that I was soapboxing.

Despite my disagreements with other editors, I promise to conduct myself differently if unblocked, noting that my view is a minority one, and that I should not engage in outbursts just because the general consensus is against it. I will try to cooperate with others and respect administrators, rather than ploughing ahead of them in order to make my point. I agree to allow the process of consensus to determine which sources are acceptable vs. which are not if unblocked, rather than engaging in attacks.Blastikus (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Consensus is already against it, and you fail to accept that, continuing to making unwarranted attacks. Clearly, your intent is to continue to push a fringe theory that the community has already said doesn't cut it. As you're an SPI who continues to make attacks in unblock requests, I am removing access to this talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:44, 5 June 2011 (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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Possibly unfree File:1950 Communist propaganda poster with Hebrew text.jpg.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1950 Communist propaganda poster with Hebrew text.jpg.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Heine poem written on the wall of the Ipatiev House.gif

The file File:Heine poem written on the wall of the Ipatiev House.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]