User talk:Markacohen

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Ukiyo-e do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition

A tag has been placed on The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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 this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Huadpe (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion

I can understand your motivation in this diff, but I put it to you that this is not mocking the Shoah itself; rather, it mocks the idiotic methodologies and systems of "thought" of the deniers. Read the Onion article again with that in mind. DS (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

enlightenment

Making fun of revisionists methodology is as the English might say, "Taking the Piss". How about adding several links which break through toward a greater understanding of the issue rather than make the Holocaust a Circus - in other words add value to the page by adding quality to it.

Well, we don't want to overload the page with satire links; I think one is enough. Incidentally, you may be vastly amused by the work of the Mad Revisionist, which uses the revisionists' techniques to show that Dresden was never firebombed, that there was no Irish Potato Famine, etc. (Oh, and don't forget - when you leave a message on a talk page, even your own, always sign it by leaving four tildes, like so: ~~~~) DS (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't Sack Rome or Jerusalem

Please keep your personal attacks to yourself as ad hom attacks are the lowest form of genuine debate. Dr. Hawass is a total egoist and media ham. My statement was not meant to be an insult or vandalism, but statement of fact. Listen to what international scientists from around the world who are interested in bringing modern techniques to egyptology, but can not unless they go through Dr. Hawass self aggrandized media hammery. Genuine criticism is not VANDALISM! Markacohen (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note, WP:BLP applies everywhere on wikipedia, including userspace, and regardless of what you, or I, think about Dr. Hawass you cannot write that 'Dr. Hawass is a total egoist and media ham'. Would suggest you remove that line. Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --RCS (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I vandalizing web pages? Can you give me specific instances? I am adding valuable content to the pages linking to actual pseudoscience so it can be debunked. Markacohen (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a United States Created Encyclopedia, putting links to pseudoscientific material of revisionists is NOT illegal and should be linked to so the information can be debunked, stop vandalizing my pages. Markacohen (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the AN/I discussion on this here. Wikidemon (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a Jewish-American born and raised in the United States of America let me step forth to clarify and bring well thought out lucidity and truth to the issues at hand here and then hopefully from this point onward we can try to be intellectual adults (without weaselishness (a new non-judgmental word is born)) about these very important issues and not descend into the primitive ways of our ignorant human ancestors which often lived under closed minded dogma, as was the case in Europe when the Christian Church was in power for so many centuries and forced its dogma on humanity. Now the Christian Church is no longer in power or declining in power (thank goodness), but there are new forces emerging out there with some degree of power which attempt to force their dogma on humanity, these are the people with little power who censor additions in wikipedia or others with greater power who pass dogma laws in their respective countries preventing the open intellectual discussion of topics in their countries - Dogma. Let us move forward in our self directed evolution as a world human species and rise to a higher level of consciousness, hopefully far above these unenlightened primitive ways of our ignorant close minded ancestors. Let us step forward and say there are no Dogmas and Taboos, we as enlightened humans have the freedom to discuss all topics even the ones which are very emotional, sensitive and could possibly hurt the feelings of some people. Let us step forth and be intellectually brave and courageous, and not cowards.

The Ad Hominen attack in your accusation of Vandalism directed at me, when I have not committed any Vandalism is unacceptable and shows your lack of knowledge on how things work on Wikipedia. Putting in relevant and factual information in articles pertaining to the specific article topics is what wikipedia is all about. Your accusations of Vandalism because I put specific relevant links in an article about the relevant topic is an Ad Hominem personal attack and reflects your own personal emotional biases against allowing links to the relevant pseudo scientific information. Maybe because you don't want people to be able to have access to these materials and debunk these pseudoscientific materials. Your own personal biases are lack validity and merit.

Now Let me explain in deeper details, the wikipedia servers are in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) and FLORIDA, which are bound under the United States and Florida Constitution which recognizes FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States is FREEDOM OF SPEECH. What Freedom of Speech means is we have intellectual freedom to explore all topics whether controversial or taboo - including topics which are not allowed to be discussed in other countries because of ignorant unenlightened dogma laws which prevent open intellectual discussion. Thus, with the knowledge that Wikipedia is located in the United States, Wikipedia is not subject to the anti-intellectual dogma laws of other countries, like member states of the EU for instance. So your statement that there can not be links to Revisionist web sites is 100% False, your countries have their own ISP blocking these materials anyway, which is sad and pathetic.

We in USA dont tuck our PP's between our legs and run away the way they do in Europe, and I dont mean that as an Ad Hominem attack, but that's how I view it when people try to prevent access to information or pass dogma laws preventing the free intellectual inquiry into historical events. You see we in America we strive to not censor people and ideas, because our great founding father Thomas Jefferson said there is No Truth with which I fear. When you censor research and information into historical events, it means you fear it, you're afraid of it because it possibly proves you wrong.

We don't censor Revisionist material on Wikipedia or in the United States, we bring it forth, we shine the light of truth, research and science on it, then we debunk revisionism as pseudo science. This is how it works in my country, in your country maybe you revert to the old primitive ways with your pathetic dogma laws, in America we have no such ignorant pathetic dogma laws for the most part, we shine the light of truth on the pseudoscience and the people researching it gain greater truth and depth.

So allow me to debunk your first statement that Revisionist Material in Germany, France, etc... so that it can't be published on Wikipedia. You are patently incorrect in this thinking, Wikipedia is not subject to Anti-Revisionist Laws which exist outside the United States, so this will represent my debunking of your statements and hopefully you will stop your irrational behavior as a result of your incorrect view and thinking about wikipedia. Markacohen (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first amendment to the constitution prevents CONGRESS from impeding freedom of speech. It has no application in a privately owned and operated website. See WP:FREESPEECH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.242.63 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My request are not about freedom of speech, my request is to put valid links in an article about the Leuchter Report to the actual Leuchter report itself.

[(Redacted) per WP:COPYVIOEL - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC) The Complete PDF Version of Pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report] PDF[reply]

[(Redacted) per WP:COPYVIOEL - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC) The Complete HTML Version of Pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report] HTML[reply]

These are valid, important, relevant references that belong in the article and the reasons I heard as to why they were deleted over and over lack WP merit in my humble opinion

Markacohen (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Leuchter report. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for edit warring on Leuchter report and Germar Rudolf. Regardless of your position on content for either of those two articles, reverting to a preferred revision is not an acceptable way to resolve a dispute. Edit warring may, but does not have to, include reverting more than three times on a given article or it may involve an apparent refusal to compromise enforced by sporadic reversions. You may appeal this block by placing the text {{Unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page. Please read the guide to appealing blocks prior to appealing. Upon the expiry of your block you are welcome to resume productive editing. Protonk (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock| Adding Relevant Links to these articles.

How do I send users like you private emails to contact you?

Markacohen (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a menu on the left-hand side of every user's talk page, if they've enable email (and Administrators should have done that), you can email them from the menu. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please 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).

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

Request reason:

Adding Relevant Content to Articles on Leuchter report and Germar Rudolf. I am trying to add relevant links to external works which were created by these authors on their respective wikipedia pages, but I am dealing with people who are using emotionalism to have these specifically relevant items to the articles Deleted. Can someone who is higher up an neutral on issues of politics and emotionalism step in and come forth for resolution here. I now recognize the reason I was blocked was because of the 3 revert rule, in the future, I will go through the normal resolution procedure when people vandalize pages you work on by deleting valid information from them. These people also deleted the links I added to the talk page to discuss them. Go to the talk pages of these two articles and you will see the discussion I tried to start was also deleted.

Decline reason:

First of all, the fact that you call this vandalism and deleting valid information is deeply troubling. There are legitimate issues with those links. Second, I looked at your so-called attempt at discussion, [1] and the whole discussion was predicated on your assertion that one of the editors opposing you was a "neo-Nazi". You were adding links that were relevant to the article, but hosted on a holocaust-denying hate site. Even a hint that users concerned about such edits are "vandals" or "neo-Nazis" is completely unacceptable. When your block expires, you may return to editing but if you keep going down this path, you will end up permanently blocked. If it was me, the next block would be for a month. Mango juice^talk 14:15, 20 April 2009 (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.

Markacohen (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'discussion' involved calling other editors (including me) neo-Nazis and vandals. I deleted the neo-Nazi accusation here [2]. He is still accusing editors of vandalism even in his unblock request. 4 editors have now reverted his addition of links to hate sites on the Leuchter report article. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller, WilliamH and RCS et al

Dear DougWeller, WilliamH and RCS - and anyone else in your crew.

I would like to apologize and retract my statement of calling these other editors Neo-Nazis, because personal attacks have no value in our open discussion of building an informative and valuable wikipedia.

Now, I would like to talk straight here, these group of editors keep deleting valid links which are specifically relevant to the specific articles, which I read on wikipedia is considered vandalism. Vandalism includes deleting information which is valuable to the article. These guys even went so far as to delete my request to discuss the links in the talk area / discussion area of the article in an attempt to bring open discussion and resolution to these issues.

My problem with you/these guys is they keep throwing around the no linking to neo-nazi web sites card, as a reason to delete links which are valid to the articles, from my understanding wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which seeks to be neutral and informative, saying something should be deleted because it is neo-nazi has no merit, the links pertain to the article. I am asking for someone higher up in the heirarchy to please bring clarity and resolution to these issues.

to sum it all up in a single thought: I was adding valuable relevant pertinent links and information to these articles, and these guys vandalized my articles by removing the valuable content. I ask that my block be removed, so I might move forward with the resolution process of having first, the links I posted deleted from the discussion area of the article, and then to discuss the relevance of the links, and then to escalate the issue higher and have the links forced into the article and if necessary have the offenders accounts blocked till they can play nice :)

Markacohen (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply in a single thought: It's not vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. To add a few thoughts: they're not "your articles". Wikipedia works by consensus. Part of achieving that consensus is give and take regarding the contents of the articles. If you cannot achieve a consensus by calmly discussing your editorial disagreements, you'll have no chance of actually making your changes stick. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JPGordon

Dear JP Gordon,

On the Wikipedia Vandalism Page it says the following:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

I am calling the removal of specifically valid relevant links to the actual document itself an act of vandalism, per the Wikipedia definition of vandalism and wish to take this through the proper channels to have these acts labeled as such.

The articles are not mine "your articles" was meant to mean the articles we are collectively building in consensus. I agree with your sentiments, I will not break the 3 revert rule and not make personal attacks again. I apologize for breaking these rules, and will go through proper channels in the future over disputes.

my other issue is this, I made an attempt to post these links in the talk / discussion area of the article, and even they were unfairly deleted by the offenders.

Markacohen (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it what you want, but Wikipedia policy is pretty clear: the community expects you to assume good faith; thus, to accuse another editor of a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia is quite a major step. "Vandalism" is a fighting word around here, and using it inaccurately will not help your position one bit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This word Vandal.. was used against me as well, why no punishment for the people who made this attack against me? Age of membership, politics? what gives? how does this work?

anyway, i apologize for using the word vandal against other editors, I will assume good faith in the future. I will not make personal attacks using this word again, as it is counter productive.

Markacohen (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

group vs. individual

This is not meant to be a personal attack, just a thought that emerged in my consciousness. I also find it interesting the "group" where you have a group of friends revert someones work, so they dont have to worry about the 3 revert rule, only the individual "suffers". I see that equation? I revert, but the crew shares in the reverting so they dont break the 3 revert rule... that's pretty slick, and I mean no personal attack in this, just an observation. ut oh here it comes the accusations... "now your making a personal attack saying people are working together in a conspiracy". i direct it at no one, just an interesting observation.

Markacohen (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One person's conspiracy / slick group of friends / tag-team editing is another person's consensus. If you're losing an edit-war, the solution isn't further reverting, or complaining, but discussion. If that doesn't get the result you want - particularly if you feel that you're dealing with a non-representative, minority group of editors - then seek wider input using our dispute resolution tools. 216.136.12.34 (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what do I do about the situation, when I try to discuss things, and they delete the links I want to discuss.

I will study the resolution tools over the next 2 days, so we can get these issues resolved according to the rules and regulations, I will not make any personal attacks and will seek the proper channels and hierarchy to get things resolved.

Markacohen (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Juice

Dear Mango Juice,

Thank you for responding, I ask that you please consider reversing this block against me.

I realize I was blocked because of the 3 revert rule, and for calling the alleged vandals neo-nazis. I want to apologize for breaking these 2 rules, and request to be unblocked.

I specifically apologize for calling these alleged vandals (people deleting relevant content from the article) neo-nazis, personal attacks add no value to our community goal of building an informative online encyclopedia. I will not call these alleged vandals (people deleting relevant content from the article) neo-nazis again, and I apologize for using this perjorative term neo-nazi.

My issue Mango Juice is this: If we are talking / discussing about the Leuchter report, there should be a link to the actual report, if the actual report is on the Internet and pertains to the article, it is valuable that I add the link to the specific article reference, so people can read the information and make their own judgements. I think deleting references that specifically pertain to the wikipedia article is vandalism (people deleting relevant content from the article). I also think its vandalism if people delete my request to discuss the links in the talk / discussion area of the article. If you review the talk / discussion area on the Leuchter report and Germar Rudolf as a small example of the areas they vandalized, by deleting my legitimate discussion.

Now on the issue of the information being on Holocaust Denial web sites, holocaust denial is not illegal in the united states where the wikipedia servers are located, in fact it is perfectly legal to openly discuss the holocaust. The USA has no dogma laws prohibiting the open discussion of the holocaust, nor laws against claiming that some of the historical claims are exaggerated or fabricated. Wikipedia can not abide by the laws of every country in the world, they abide by the laws of the United States, Florida and California.

my goal is very simple, there should be a link to the actual Leuchter Report on the article about the Leuchter report.

What are your neutral thoughts on these matters.

Markacohen (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Vandal Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. In other words, you are saying that editors removing your links don't simply disagree with you about their inclusion, but that they are deliberately trying to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. That's a personal attack on the editors who've reverted your links, including me. I made my reasons clear. I guess I should also point out that administrators (eg me) who vandalise don't last long as administrators. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller, I say this with neutrality in an attempt to appeal to you, imagine there was a book called the earth is flat, and there was a wikipedia article about this specific book that thinks the world is flat, and I put a link to the book itself in the article, and you came along and deleted, thats how I see this situation, i mean no personal attack by this, its just how I personally see this. I posted a link to the Leuchter report on an article about the Leuchter report, this boggles my mind you would delete the link, i mean no personal attack by this, but using the reason the "hate or hitler card" as a reason to delete the link boggles my mind. Its like me putting a link to meinkampf on an article on meinkampf and you deleting the link because the book is hateful or on a hate site. This is not an attack against you, but the action, I disagree with your action, im utterly shocked that a hate or hitler card could trump adding a valuable link to the leuchter report, I make no personal attacks against you, i just disagree with the action and and the reason why. I cant find anything on wikipedia that says if an article is about a hate book, you cant link to a hate site where the original work is. Can you please show me where on wikipedia it says this? I want to learn and grow and be a productive member of wikipedia. Markacohen (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Im saying the things I am saying based on your own words, that because the document in question is hosted on a holocaust denial site that it is not relevant is misleading, this specific issue deals with linking to the actual document the wiki article is discussing.

What I am saying that by you deleting these links because of your lacking in merit reason and possibly your own personal bias or whatever you want to call it, you are compromising the integrity in my opinion of the specific articles in question on wikipedia. In other words what I am trying to say is your reason for deleting the links lack valid merit in these specific instances and that I believe it is a form of vandalism to remove specifically valid and pertinent information from an article. This is my opinion, that you are committing vandalism, and my request is to be unblocked so I can take this through the proper channels of wikipedia, rather than call you names (which I do not want to do, nor be called names myself). So instead of me alleging you are vandalizing these articles, i would rather not take matters into my own hands, as it got me blocked and is against the rules, I am now requesting to be unblocked, so I can take this matter through the proper channels, follow the rules, be a community and consensus oriented editor on wikipedia. Does this make sense? I tried to say the same thing multiple different ways, if you want clarity on any issue, please ask, I will try to go into more details.

Markacohen (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangos Second Comments to me

The issue with linking is not US laws; of course it's not illegal to deny the holocaust in the US. The issue is Wikipedia policies; specifically, we're very wary about linking to sites that push an agenda. The policy to be concerned with is WP:EL. I think this apology is a step in the right direction and will help when your block expires. However, you still seem to feel it's justifiable to call people vandals if they are removing relevant content: it is not. Vandals are people that make changes that degrade articles purposefully. In other words, it's not enough that someone remove relevant content for them to be considered a "vandal", they have to be doing it because their intention is to damage Wikipedia. We can't ever know about a user's true intentions when they claim to have a good-faith reason... so we always assume good faith, as otherwise discussions degenerate into edit warring. I'm not reviewing your new request, but in my opinion, I think this is a 48-hour block, and nothing you've said makes be believe we ought to lift it early: if nothing else, leaving it in place will demonstrate to the victims (the ones you called vandals and neo-Nazis) that we take the issue seriously. Mango juice^talk 14:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mango,

What do you call a person who means well, but lowers the quality of an article by deleting important, valuable, pertinent and specifically relevant information from an article - without making a personal attack? Vandal is the closest word I can think of, but I dont want to use this term if its considered a personal attack, i do not want to use insulting words or personal attacks, and if using the word vandal is a personal attack I wont use it anymore.

Please accept my apology for using the word vandal to describe someone who I believe lowered the quality of the article by deleting valuable and relevant information from the article.

now on the issue of WP:EL

I quote: No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.

The external links I provided were justifiable because they specifically pertain to the article itself. The article was about the Leuchter report and so I put a link to the actual Leuchter report itself? How more relevant can you get, and how can someone justify deleting the relevant link to the document / article?

Markacohen (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You call them an editor, or by their username. These people are your collaborators, your teammates, you should treat them with civility so that you can work together. It's best to simply comment on the contributions and not on the contributor at all. If you are upset about a change, you can say "I don't approve of this edit because X, Y, Z," which expresses your opinion about the content without name-calling, and invites other users to respond to your actual concerns. Mango juice^talk 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mango,

I apologize for the personal attacks and retract them.

My statement on the issue is this.

I do believe the deleting of relevant links to references specifically about the article is in my opinion something that hurts wikipedia. I will not make personal attacks again as that does not help the situation. I will go through the proper channels in the future and will work in consensus.

Mango can you explain what the procedure is in having a specific valid relevant link put on a page after a group of people kept deleting it so they wouldnt have the 3 revert rule, but I ended up with breaking it?

Markacohen (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start with a discussion on the talk page, this time, one that doesn't start off accusing the other editors of vandalism or worse. Simply explain that you feel it would be relevant to link to the text of the report, since it is the topic of the article. Look at WP:EL to try to support your arguments. If you don't convince your fellow editors the matter is pretty much settled... but you can use WP:3O or WP:RFC to request more unbiased outside input. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Mango juice^talk 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Request to Be Unblocked per Wiki Rules

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).

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

Request reason:

I recognize I was blocked for the 3 revert rule and for personal attacks against the alleged vandals. I will no longer break the 3 revert rule and I will no longer make personal attacks against alleged vandals. I will go through the proper wikip channels and procedures when I feel valid content was removed in an act of vandalism, would you please remove the block and give me a second chance?

Decline reason:

Spend the rest of the time contemplating why what occurred was not vandalism in any way shape or form. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 20 April 2009 (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.

JPgordon, does this mean I am banned forever? or just for 2 days?

Again, I apologize for the personal attacks, will not use the personal attacks again, and I will work towards following the rules and working for consensus.

Markacohen (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the 2 days, you are not banned. I hope you understand that in the specific cases where you have been adding links, when you come back you should try to get consensus on the article talk pages and not just add the links. And read WP:3RR carefully, as 3 reverts isn't an entitlement. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will spend the next two days reading about how the system works and will make sure I follow correct protocol for having disputes settled, rather than going into a revert war, which got me no where fast. Markacohen (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Read WP:Consensus for a start. Read WP:EL for our guidelines on external links. Read our policy (not guideline) WP:ISNOT which should help give you a better understanding of what Wikipedia is - and isn't. There is no clearcut guideline on the sort of link you wish to include. My argument is that the link really doesn't add to the article - anyone who wants to read the documents would know how to search for them, I'm sure. And the links are to hate sites, giving them publicity. Not, in my opinion, a good thing for us to be doing. You could, if you can't get consensus on a talk page, go to mediation I guess, WP:Mediation, but I really think if you can't get consensus, and that looks like the case, you should think about accepting that other editors disagree with you. It happens to all of us. I guess I should point out that looking at the comments on the ANI board, you seem to have some editors wondering about what you are actually doing here -- after all, you are adding a lot of links to hate sites, and that does look a bit suspicious, right? I was concerned -- the addition of the link [3] was reassuring. It also looked a bit odd that you are labelling people as Nazis who don't want to give Nazis and other haters publicity. I found it a bit amusing that anyone would call me any sort of right-winger. Anyway, have a look at the links I've given you. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally Unblocked

I am very happy to be unblocked after 48 hours. My hope and purpose is to continue to grow in my value as a Wikipedia member. I thank all those members who provide me with excellent reading material so I might be better acquainted with the rules, policies, procedures and so forth. Markacohen (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a Directory or "Hate Directory"

I attempted to add these relevant links to an article

[(Redacted) per WP:COPYVIOEL - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC) The Complete PDF Version of Pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report] PDF[reply]

[(Redacted) per WP:COPYVIOEL - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC) The Complete HTML Version of Pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report] HTML[reply]

and they were deleted for various reasons that seemed to be without merit.

How many external links or references are added to an article before it becomes a directory?

Background: The Leuchter Report article here on Wikipedia, is about a Genocide / Holocaust Denial research report / study (also a pseudo scientific and pseudo historical research study) done by American Execution Technician Fred Leuchter. The report purports to claim the Homocidal Gas Chambers during WWII were grossly exagerrated or fabricated.

On the Article Leuchter Report, I put a link to the actual Leuchter Report because it is a specifically valid and pertinent reference / link and the reference link was deleted over and over again in a revert war (I was punished for 48hrs), the deleter said WP is not a directory of links or W is not a hate directory.

So my question is what are the rules, regulations and so forth of linking Hate Sites, Revisionist Sites, Holocaust Denier / Genocide Denier sites from those actual WP articles about those subjects?

My purpose in adding these references is so the pseudo science / history could be seen by open minded adults so they could form a stronger opinion against these topics, but the links and references were "censored" or "deleted" for dubious emotional and political reasons in my opinion and I make NO PERSONAL ATTACKS against the deleters, my criticism of emotional and political reasons is on the deletions themselves, not the persons who deleted them.

Markacohen (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's easy. Wikipedia is dedicated to verifiability (and thus, hopefully, to truth, but that's harder to ascertain.) We do not link to holocaust denier sites for anything other than articles about the sites themselves, if necessary, as examples. I usually state this as "Holocaust denial is dedicated to propagating falsehood; thus, anything on a holocaust denier site is utterly suspect. They lie even about their own intent." Just find other sources for the material; we will not stomach links to vho and zundelsite at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JPGordon, you are preaching to the choir here! No one is suggesting we use Holocaust Denial material as references for the Holocaust article on WP. However, on articles about Holocaust Denial, those references and links are valid. As for what Holocaust deniers believe? They believe they are serious and correct, and they believe their "science" and "history" are closer to the truth than the mainstream established view on the Holocaust, which we know and believe is closer to the truth.

Can you recommend an arbitrator who can put our shared hatred of Nazis, Revisionists, and Hates aside, so we can look at this from a Neutral, Unpolitical and Unemotional stand point? I believe these references / links are valid to the article, and I wish to go through the proper channels of WP arbitration / Resolution in case of dispute.

I really don't think our personal opinions, our politics, emotions and feelings should prevent relevant valid pertinent reference links from an article because our own personal fears, opinions and biases.

There is nothing documented in wikipedia that says we can't link to a hate site on an article about that hate site, or we cant link to a hate report on an article about that hate report.

There seems to be a real lack of neutrality here, and I havent heard what I believe to be a reason with any substance.

Markacohen (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "arbitrators" for content; content is determined by what we call "consensus", though the word is misused (in my opinion). And, no, Holocaust deniers do not get to have their version of their own positions presented on Wikipedia; they lie about that too. That's why we don't use them as sources except in a highly limited fashion. We don't even trust Zundelsite to publish accurate information about Zundelsite. Find another source for that material; it's not like the Leuchter Report hasn't been published elsewhere. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And please realise that some people will never be neutral about such hate sites. This is nothing to do with personal fears, which is insulting, but it does have to do with strong opinions about hate sites. You clearly do not share the same opinions, but that's life on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon - It's clear to me, you and the others editors who share our political views have made up their mind about Holocaust deniers - diminishing the Holocaust is an outright lie. However you are partially correct and partially incorrect, Holocaust deniers do get to have their own version of their own position presented on wikipedia only when we tell the world what they think their own books are about.

If there is an article specifically about let's say, the pseudo academic Leuchter Report itself, the article should of course debunk the claims of the research report, but the article should also present the views of the report, even if they are a lie. The article Leuchter Report should be about what the report claims (even if lies). Right now we have something half political regarding the Leuchter Report, the article seems to lack Neutrality in some places and yet has some Neutrality in others. How does one put aside the taboo nature of something and the politics of something to create a neutral article about it?

What are your thoughts on in general the idea of putting politics aside concerning taboo subject and making the articles more Neutral? How does this work? We know the Leuchter Report is a lie, but shouldn't the article clearly explain what the report purports in detail? how much detail? We can of course put in a lot of evidence to show its a lie, but how does this all work in balancing the goals of making sure we tell people the article is a lie and balancing the needs of telling the world accurately and with neutrality what the report is about?

Your help is always appreciated

Markacohen (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Markacohen_disruptive_editing_and_forum_shopping. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey USER: Stephan Schulz, thanks for pointing this out. I think everything seems to be Kosher now after this whole heated exchange. I hope we can all move forward and stop with the personal attacks against me. Thank you for all your help and links, as you know I am relatively new here and just learning the ropes. Markacohen (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[4]]

Sock Puppet

Dear FisherQueen.

I am not a sock puppet, and would appreciate if the personal attacks and false accusations against me would stop already. Find something better to do with your time then debase my personal page.

Markacohen (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always best to WP:AGF. I'm looking into this. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I make no personal attacks here and I direct this not toward anyone individual.

I think the accusation was ment to be to be a kind of group think, turns into group attack - lets warm and fuzzy cuddle with the "mob sowing circle" (a generic term for the group of people who consistently lodge personal insults towards muah) against the scape goat (me). This unfortunately seems to be a recurring theme against me as the "sowing circle" (for a lack of a better word) has made numerous personal attacks against me like: sock puppet, agent provacateur, "Jew poser", other overt insults and covert very subtle couched personal attacks against me. I do not know of a more neutral non-judgemental word than sowing circle to use against this group of people who keep lodging personal attacks towards me trying to obfuscate the suppositions and substance of the criticisms I make towards the quality and neutrality of certain areas of WP articles.

Again I want to make it clear, I mean no personal attack toward anyone with the word mob sowing circle, I just cant think of a better term to neutrally describe the group of people who no matter how much I ask them to stop continue to make personal attacks against me.

I really wish the personal attacks towards me would stop.

Markacohen (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult for me to think of any way that account would be likely to make the edits it has without either being yourself or a personal associate of yours. That I say so is not an attack, but simply my best judgment based on the evidence I have available. Can you please link to the diff where you were called 'jew poser?' That would indeed be a personal attack, I think, and I'd like to look into it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen,

I'm very upset at the uncivilized, disruptive, abusive and the endless insults against me on numerous occasions.

You can look in Leuchter Report talk area, RCS called me essentially a Jew Poser or Poser Jew, trying to insult me and my religion by suggesting i'm pretending to be a Jew. This is blatant Anti-Semitism and disgusting. I do not have to explain my culture, religion or ethnicity to anyone. It's no ones business my personal life and I don't like the word Jew thrown around in a negative context.

I was called an Agent provocateur as well on the admin/incident forum, which is a very ugly accusation and a personal insult which is unacceptable, especially in the admin forum.

On my personal page here on Wikipedia you falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet. I take extreme offense in this personal insult which has no substance or proof. I have never been a sock puppet or practiced any sort of sock puppetry, I would like to know why you make these accusations against me (With Proof) and why my personal wikipedia page was defiled with this slander against me.

I would really like all these personal attacks against me to stop and for the sowing circle of specific people to stop hounding me and following me around so they can call me names and make insults.

This is uncivilized and disruptive behavior that has no place on wikipedia, I want an apology posted on my talk page.

Markacohen (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't anti-Semitism. It was a suggestion that you were posing as a Jew, ie not a Jew but someone with an interest in posting links to hate sites, possibly an anti-Semite yourself (the statement was "Don't pose as a Jew!". And you very casually called others neo-Nazis, and you are now accusing a 'sowing circle', whatever that is, of hounding you. That isn't what's happening. I am sure that once you calm down and start assuming good faith, you will find life easier. Please try it. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel if someone accused you of really being a homosexual and told you dont pose as Heterosexual, or someone accused you of being a neo-nazi when you were really a Jew? To me its very insulting. I'd like people to stop throwing the word Jew around like it wasn't important and I would like people to stop accusing me of not being a Jew. Just because I think you guys are too wrapped up in your sensitive emotions to make WP articles Neutral when concerning taboo or controversial areas does not make me not a Jew. For someone to suggesting I'm "posing" as a Jew is very insulting. It's like someone saying to me, Stop posing as a Heterosexual, or Stop Posing as a Man.

I'd like the childish, uncivilized, disruptive behavior to stop, I'd like the personal attacks stopped. I'd like all the games, hitler cards, hate cards and other immature distracting red herring language directed towards me to stop.

and I'd like the "sowing circle" to stop treating me like an outcast and consider that possibly "unlike the rest of you", I can put my personal politics and sensitive emotions aside when it comes to taboo and controversial WP articles. I mean no personal attacks here, I'm criticizing your behavior, not you or any of the others personally.

Markacohen (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award: Worst Insult of Them All

Worst insult I have heard from all the people making personal insults toward me in what I call the "sowing circle" is from Stephan Shulz. I was accused by Stephan Shulz of being a neo nazi in the admin notice forum. Truly, beyond any words can describe the biggest Insult you could direct at a person of Jewish Faith. Despicable, disgusting and unacceptable, maybe you have no idea how much it hurts since you are not Jewish and did not lose relatives in the Holocaust.

Markacohen (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of User:194x144x90x118‎

I appreciate that user connecting me with the edits she had made anonymously, and I'm grateful to the checkuser who looked at the underlying ips of both accounts. Based on that information, I no longer believe these two accounts to be operated by the same person. I apologize for my error. I have unblocked User:194x144x90x118‎ and removed the {puppetmaster} tag from your main page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen,

I am clutching my chest, as if attempting to seize my own heart during a cardiac ischemia, shock, awe and disbelief.

You know I am gobsmacked, it is so rare in this life you find people who after they act in a very rash and thoughtless manner, when they come to realize the error of their ways, they say sorry.

Most people would be silent, or making cheap excuses and substanceless justification to water down a damaging mistake - you simply apologized and removed the offending banner from my personal page.

People with these characteristics are truly scarce and special. I am flabbergasted and you have been elevated in my mind as one of those uncommon people who have the inner strength and character to admit they are wrong and apologize.

Sincere Hugs, digital flowers and digital dank godiva chocolates.

Sincerely,

Markacohen (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment in Talk:Fred A. Leuchter

Your recent comment in this edit is very peculiar: it uses many of the stylistic tropes of Holocaust deniers, and seems to have a subtext that could be interpreted to favour, rather than reject, their arguments. This appears to be at odds with your self-description as a Jewish opponent of Holocaust denial. Can you tell me what is going on here? -- The Anome (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Markacohen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you due to the general agreement that you are being disruptive, pushing a point of view, and acting in bad faith. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_Markacohen.27s_indefinite_block for more information. Chillum 14:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinated with this user

Now before I say anything more I just want to state that I'm not homosexual or anything of the sort and that this is not that sort of fascination or anything like that.

Why would I be fascinated with this user? Because it's something which I don't understand.

This user claimed that he was Jewish and that his mission was to fight holocaust denial with information and debunking and such.

This user took a great deal of interest in holocaust denial and faced a whole lot of opposition here on wikipedia cause many believed that he was a holocaust denier and holocaust denial is a somewhat sensitive issue. What this user did among other things is he participated in discussion regarding a Leuchter report and managed to get a link to that report put up in the article. Now I myself had not really familiarized myself with evidence for the holocaust or holocaust denial but I had read a tiny bit here and a tiny bit there and being skeptic by nature I thought that those holocaust deniers probably had some points in their denial but thanks to Markacohens efforts here on wikipedia I dug a little bit deeper into the matter than I had previously and after reading the Leuchter report, debunkings and other such material my opinion has shifted, I now believe that the cause of holocaust denial is much more fringe than I believed it to be before and that if the holocaust is indeed somehow exaggerated that it isn't exaggerated enough for the exaggeration to really matter.

So what was the deal with this user? Was he telling the truth that he is a Jewish man that was out to debunk the holocaust, if so then well I guess he did have some success at accomplishing his mission or could it be that this was in fact a holocaust denier whose goal was to publish holocaust denial and to change wikipedia articles so that they'd show holocaust deniers in a more favorable light? I must say that I find that sorta doubtful due to the fact that this user didn't seem to suffer from a lack of intelligence and I have a hard time believing that anyone with the slightest brains who'd go to the trouble of familiarizing himself with all that holocaust denial material and all the debunking material would actually come to the conclusion that the holocaust was a hoax and an even harder time believing that the same person would try to push a theory that he knew to be untrue. Believing either isn't easy but there are of course a lot of eccentric people out there whose behavior and motives can be hard to understand.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]