User talk:MichelleSBernard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 07:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Stalking[edit]

You appear to be following me. Keep up the * work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleSBernard (talkcontribs) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalking? Thats a little strong :). If an artilce/bio does not make mention of a person's religion or ethnicity, please do not add a corresponding category about such to the bio. Pretty simple it seems. Also, can you please sign your posts with four(4) tildes(~)? Thank you, --Tom 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I plan on going through more throughly the Jewish Journalists today or tomorrow and adding a couple hundred or so to the category. I will stick to only those whose religion is already mentioned in the article - as I think I did for all but David Shuster. I understand this is probably a personal issue with you, and you perceive it as antisemitism but the category clearly asks for help in populating it, and I did NOT create the category or add the request for populating it. So far you and other users have not brought the discussion to the category, you have instead reverted my tags. Thanks MichelleSBernard (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up, if a person's religion or ethnicity is already mentioned in the article, then its not a big deal to me to add the appropriate category. Some editors do not agree and they can speak for themselves. This really isn't a personal issue with me since I truly try to leave my POV at the door and actually "err" if anything counter towards my own beliefs and background when editing here. I am a deletionist/minimalist/removal of unsourced materialist for the record. Anyways, I try to assume good faith until there is clear evidence to the contraire, which I haven't seen yet. The category talk page would actually be a good place to discuss this and let folks know your intentions. Anyways, --Tom 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You are adding a category that really isn't the correct one. If you know the person's nationality then it belongs there, not just "Jewish Journalist". This is not good. Another editor went around adding "jewish businessmen" to 100s of bios and ended up crashing and burning. Is there a point you are trying to make? Does this help. Again, before adding a category to tons of bios, I would gain concensus that it is helpful and proper so a lot of work is saved. --Tom 18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The category already exists. I am simply adding the tag to people who are members of the category. The point that I am trying to make is to do work to make wikipedia more complete. During the recent Gaza War I came here looking for a list of Jewish Journalists. I found that category, and the Category said that it needs work to be populated. I did work to help populate it. Thats all. MichelleSBernard (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe this was discussed before, maybe I am wrong, that there was/is a category Jewish-American Journalists, which would be more specific. Anyways, this is a can of worms that I am sure others will know more about and will chime in shortly. I will probably have to bring this to one of the many boards that cover this type of editing pattern, Anyways, I will still assume good faith, but would suggest that we get others to imput in order to save alot of time in effort. If consensus is with you fine, but if not, then will see. --Tom 19:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No problems. I obviously disagree with your viewpoint. Please inform me what boards you posts to and I will be glad to follow whatever consensus is reached there. MichelleSBernard (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Will do, --Tom 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


WP:BLP[edit]

Please review WP:BLP very carefully. Do not insert into biographies of living people any material that is not extremely well sourced from highly reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to David Brooks (journalist). Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Last chance, MichelleSBernard. Use the article's Talk page to propose changes, bringing the sources to see if they are reliable. Otherwise you will be blocked. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 12 hours for this edit. Not only is the claim unsourced, but a talk-show host is not a "journalist", and Bauer in particular is apparently Christian. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MichelleSBernard (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Deletion review per Mango was biased and flat out wrong. The article I posted was an ARTICLE, not a letter to the editor. Maybe if Mango had spent some time in actually reading the articles, unlike Jayjr.


Jayjg appears to be blocking me because he disagrees with the edits that I have been making to pages, trying to populate the Jewish Journalists category. There was a request to populate the category and I have been trying to do that. Jayjg appears not to like including people in that category so he is harassing me in an attempt to end my constructive edits. I have been adding the tags only when there existed prior information in the persons bio that they were jewish, and that they fit the definition of a journalists. This appears to be an attempt by Jayjg to use his blocking privileges to advance his own agenda. The information I was adding as sources were reliables, ie beliefnet which is owned by the same company that owns the NY Post and the Wall Street Journal. Jayjg appears to be using the one exemption in the blocking policy of content disputes to shut my constructive edits down, instead of using normal dispute resolution means. This is a horrible abuse of his power, and if I had any say I would recommend that the power be taken away from him, as he has shown he does not have the cool head needed, and stop advancing his agenda through harassment and blocking. Its shameful what he has done. Truly shameful what he has done in going power mad. Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_journalists That was the source for where I clicked on people to add to the category. I guess I shouldn't rely on the sources gathered by wikipedians because they are edited by people like Jayjr, and thus the constructive editors are forced out. I had also taken my case to the discussion page of the people in question, David Brooks, Gloria Steinem, and Gideon Yago, to avoid 3RR and to let others interject. Sourced material was added that you reverted, see [1]. Once this block is lifted I plan on reporting this for dispute resolution and I will be attempting to have your blocking privileges revoked, that is not a threat, that is a promise. I would also like to point out that I was relying on information Jayjr, the man who blocked me, approved of via this edit [2].

Decline reason:

No, actually, it seems that you are the problem, not Jayjg. We have stringent standards when it comes to material about living people, and your efforts at David Brooks, for instance, are clearly a violation of that. You include a letter to the editor: an opinion piece, as if it were a reliable source of fact. You edit warred over it, and when you were finally dragged to the talk page your response bashed others as "pro-Jewish" rather than addressing the issue. Please read WP:BLP and address your own behavior if you make another request. Many people are upset about getting blocked, but we don't unblock them just because they want to file official grievances and feel that the administrator was biased. Mangojuicetalk 07:24, 1 February 2009 (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.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. If you deny that David Brooks is Jewish your living on a cloud, I posted an article from a news organization, I guess thats not good enough for some mango juice. I can see why people don't trust wikipedia, they are oblivious to the facts. I'll be back, and I'll take care of David Brook's article when I'm back up tomorrow.

Ignoring rules

According to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

If you violate the rules after fair and clear explanations, your edits will be reverted and you will be required provide relevance per above. Ignoring the rules will show more bad faith with each and every bad faith edit a separate violation. Comments like "I'll be back," are probably a leading indicator. Econewbie (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet will be brought to attention of the admins tomorrow
No problem. A sockpuppet is permitted under limited circumstances - this is obviously one of those, and your comments so far have shown that to be a wise decision. I announced my purpose and any admin can request my main user name be emailed to them. Econewbie (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Harrassment of a particular user is not a reason to create a socket puppet, but hey we will see. Based on the admin's I have run into so far here, your Pro-Jewish philosphey will bias the discussion before it even gets started.
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MichelleSBernard (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Deletion review per Mango was flat out wrong. The article I posted was an ARTICLE, not a letter to the editor. Maybe if Mango had spent some time in actually reading the articles, unlike Jayjr, he would have realized that. Maybe if he had spent time reading my unblock request he would also see that i was going off as a starting point a page which Jayjr had edited, and by default therefore accepted. I realize this is against deletion review protocol, but honestly, are there any unbiased admins on wikipedia, or are you all like the MSM, pushing your line? I mean Jayjr spends his whole day changing articles to fit a pro-jewish meme, editing in loaded words, and harassing editors like me who try to populate categories he disagress with, and has stated he disagrees with on prior deletion reviews. He didn't like the outcome of the deletion review so he has chosen to harass those who populate the category, its pathetic. Why is that?

Decline reason:

This does not address the edit to Gary Bauer you were blocked for. But, at any rate, your conduct here continues to be disruptive. You accuse others of their alleged "Pro-Jewish philosphey" [1], and you show no indication of understanding our biographies of living persons policy; instead, you announce that you will continue to violate it [2]. To prevent you from causing further disruption and using Wikipedia as a battleground, I have blocked your account indefinitely. —  Sandstein  15:20, 1 February 2009 (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.

Additionial info[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_journalists

That was the source for where I clicked on people to add to the category. I guess I shouldn't rely on the sources gathered by wikipedians because they are edited by people like Jayjr, and thus the constructive editors are forced out.


I had also taken my case to the discussion page of the people in question, David Brooks, Gloria Steinem, and Gideon Yago, to avoid 3RR and to let others interject. MichelleSBernard (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After being warned a number of times about this, including being told explicitly that you would be blocked for adding unsourced material to biographies of living people, you made this edit. Not only is the claim unsourced, but a talk-show host is not a "journalist", and Bauer in particular is apparently Christian. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
NPOV, you meant to say that I was threatened multiple times about that. Sourced material was added that you reverted, see [3]. Once this block is lifted I plan on reporting this for dispute resolution and I will be attempting to have your blocking privileges revoked, that is not a threat, that is a promise.
I would also like to point out that I was relying on information YOU, Jayjr, approved of via this edit [4]. So maybe you should consider blocking yourself, per your own definitions of what constitutes abuse.
This edit [5] by Jayjr really shows how he is abusing his position as an admin to further advance his particular agenda. Removing facts and references in an effort to make Zionists look better. It is pretty shameful actually.

Disregarding rules for the proper use of categories[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories :

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met
  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

It would appear that the 2nd requirement is not met on the majority of edits. I mentioned this on my talk page. Besides that glaring defect, the comments by MichelleSBernard in response, to everyone concerned, shows an extreme failure of NPOV: he has labeled those who challenge his edits as a probable "zionist" and automatically lacking neutrality.

He attacks those who question his edits as bad faith accusations with ulterior motives: "we should not point out who Jewish members of the media are." He has referred to the Gaza conflict as a justification or cause for many of his edits (note his vandalism to Sergey Brin) and unrelated vandalism to Chip Caray. He has also placed extremely hostile references on my talk page without cause and has refused to explain them.

Because of the nature of his edits and his prior willingness to engage in edit wars and vandalism, I created this alternate user name to deal with his edits. Econewbie (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Its called a sock puppet, and it is pretty shameful that a bunch of people with an obvious Zionist bent are ganging up on me like this. My edits were in good faith, if you disagree with the category tags situation you should bring it up on the discussion page instead of attacking me and reverting constructive edits. I am saddened that Wikipedia is turning pro-Zionist through admins like Jay, but that is the case. We have to deal with it in the MSM and youtube, why should Wikipedia continue. And by the way, its SHE.

From the few, fairly recent edits you've made, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kotecki, they seem pretty sophisticated for a new user. How do we know you're not using a sock puppet?

Because I created an account with Wikipedia for the express purpose of removing James Kotecki's entry. I am not a fan of the politico, so I learned what needed to be done to remove the article, created an account, and did it. I didn't hide like you seem to be doing. Is this payback from James' himself, I noticed in some wikipedia video Kotecki even ranted to a class about what I did, truly pathetic on his part. MichelleSBernard (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the question below as I assume you deleted it by accident in your "clean up." I replaced it awaiting a reply. Econewbie (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Kristallnacht? What was your point?[edit]

You added a cited reference to Kristallnacht on my talk page as part of your reply. I failed to see the reason for this added reference as our discussions had nothing to do with Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. Could you please explain? Econewbie (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You had said something along the lines of those in glass houses should not throw bricks, and that is known as the night of the broken glass. If you throw a brick at a glass house, you get ... broken glass.MichelleSBernard (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I also suspect that you are editing your own wikipedia page, but I can't really prove that. I don't feel like starting a sockpupet investigation at the moment as I don't know what your your puppetmaster's name is.MichelleSBernard (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You're obviously an experienced editor. Am I correct that this is not your first (or only) user name? Econewbie (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No, its pretty obvious I'm not experienced. I edit in spurts and fits. This is my first, and only account. How many is this for you MichelleSBernard (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
One of your first edits was to open up an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kotecki. Not bad for a beginner on their "first and only" account. Econewbie (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I created an account with Wikipedia for the express purpose of removing James Kotecki's entry. I am not a fan of the politico, so I learned what needed to be done to remove the article, created an account, and did it. I didn't hide like you seem to be doing. Is this payback from James' himself, I noticed in some wikipedia video Kotecki even ranted to a class about what I did, truly pathetic on his part.
You will even notice that I didn't properly fill out the request, as someone else had to come back and do it for me. There was general consensus on the deletion, no one spoke up in favor of Kotecki. I feel even better about it now that he has left Politico he is not noteable at all. MichelleSBernard (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the youtube video in which you rant against me deleting your wiki page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4MUFoyvYGM
I will repeat again, is this James or one of his henchmen out for vengeance, or are you one of the Yglesias trolls the infest us at HotAir?
No, just an unrelated user who noticed your edits and vandalism to a few articles I watch. I felt compelled to respond by creating a new user name so that I wouldn't have your kind of anticipated replies (i.e. Broken Glass BS) on my talk page. Nor do I edit on anything political or religious - the reverts of yours were my first on those topics. (I'm afraid to ask what HotAir is) Econewbie (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hot Air is a well know political website.

WTF, a New Block[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MichelleSBernard (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

This is insane. I am constructlivly adding to wikipedia by filling in a category based off a list proved by the person who blocked me. I have been brought into a battle with Jayjr, and he has fired all the guns by blocking me. I have been peaceful, the specific edit in question was a mistake and I regret making it. This is INSANE. When, and if, I am unblocked I plan on continuing to add people to the category, but I will promise that I will only add that category tag to well sourced info, like I did with David Brooks, that was rejected by Jayjr, and when the issue arises I will bring it to the talk page, like I did with David Brooks - and was summarily attacked by Jayjr. That is the proper way of resolving disputes. Jayjr was the one abusing the system because the proper way to resolve disputes is NOT to block users whose religious philosophy you disagree with. This is a bigoted block. This is a racist block. Furthermore, the reason given in the last denial was that I was engaging in a "wiki-battle" on my own talk page, which is preposterous to begin with, and secondly the user who came to my talk page to harass me has freely admitted he is a sockpuppet and was created purely for the purpose of harassing me. I think that user, and his puppet master, should be blocked for engaging in the very "wiki-battle" that you have blocked me indefinitely for.

Decline reason:

Per all of above. Also: tweaking block due to continued disruption and abuse of the {{unblock}} template. {{subst:User:^demon/sig}} (talk)

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.

With respect to your e-mail, I leave it up to ^demon, the administrator who most recently blocked you, to decide about what (if anything) should be done. However, a random sampling of your contributions [3], [4], [5] does not suggest to me that our project would gain anything by unblocking you, and I counsel against it.  Sandstein  22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am forced to agree. If you think that what you did with David Brooks is the appropriate thing, you are very much mistaken. As I pointed out, you edit warred over the inclusion of a very questionable source and then lashed out with accusations of bias when you "brought it to the talk page" after being threatened with blocking. I just wanted to let you know we have the ability to block your access to the Wikipedia email feature, so don't abuse it. Mangojuicetalk 07:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Further response. First, antiwar.com has some things it edits and some opinion it publishes: what you used was an opinion column. Second, I have read that article three times and it doesn't even say Brooks is Jewish: the author even says explicitly that he doesn't know. It's like you googled Brooks and Jewish and came up with that article, but didn't read it. As for your unblocking, you have exhausted all of your appeals at this point and may not make any more. If you appeal to me again in email I will block your email capability. (You could email WP:ARBCOM or Jimbo as a last resort but I'd bet 1000:1 you'll be ignored.) We do not need editors who are overzealous about ethnic or religious categorization and respond aggressively instead of appropriately when told they are being disruptive. We, frankly, have more than enough as it is. Mangojuicetalk 15:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ana Kasparian[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ana Kasparian, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

the subject does not seem to meet criteria for notability (in any way)

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 67.173.185.224 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Ana Kasparian for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ana Kasparian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Kasparian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ana Kasparian for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ana Kasparian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Kasparian (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Otterathome (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)