Logicalgenius3
Welcome edit
|
Disambiguation link notification for March 22 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bauakademie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Master builder. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Manual of Style edit
Hello, I've reverted your edits at Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra. Please read Wikipedia's manual of Style before making any supposed style corrections. In particular, links are sparingly used, italics is used for foreign terms, and capitalisation is only used for job titles when strictly necessary. Graham87 12:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- You do not understand the provisions of MOS:JOBTITLES, especially the difference between particular titles (proper names) and their generic meanings, similar to those of MOS:NAMECAPS I have just expanded, so you (and others) can learn from. Please, make sure that you really understand them before teaching others and reverting edits. The links I added did not met the criteria of the undesirable categories listed under WP:OVERLINK and thus your opinion that "sparingly used" is personal, thus insufficient to make the revert of my edit, and thus constituting a violation described under WP:OWN.
- Please, do not ruin else's effort for minor mistakes. If you have time, just do correct them, if not - do not revert all, but leave a message, because removing remaining, not mistaken, added, and significant content without any reason (but your own indolence), like mine removed by your revert, constitutes a prohibited act of blanking vandalism (WP:VANDTYPES). --Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not make edits to the MOS that change guidelines that pertain directly to an edit conflict you are already involved in. Primergrey (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
June 2016 edit
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Art Nouveau— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Chopin nationality edit
Hi. I would like to thank you for stating your point on Chopin's nationality. I am glad you have started a new discussion, however, please make changes to the article after the discussion has ended and the resolution settled. Best Regards. - Oliszydlowski (TALK) 12:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are not in position to thank me (nor anybody else) for contributions to Wikipedia according to the Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Got it?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please support you claims with reference. Just because Chopin spent over 15 years in France, is not sufficient to make him French. You need sources that state he was or considered himself French. Also you need to start a discussion before altering anything to the article that might be either controversial or against other users' modifications. Because of your constant edit war on the article, I'm warning you that I am going to report you to the Administration for vandalism Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Vandalism#Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia
- Oliszydlowski (TALK) 12:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- According to MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1, nationality is "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a [...] or permanent resident when the person became notable". Thus, Chopin was a French national, because until the age of 20, when he left Poland for good, he was practically next to nobody. But, because the themes of Chopin's oeuvre were Polish, then considering Chopin Polish-French is most accurate description according to the Wikipedia's above-mentioned standard. In the view of this clear Wikipedia's standard for nationality, your above demand for a reference in the matter is moot and ignorant.
- Thus, it is you who displays Wikipedia:Vandalism#Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia by ignorance of Wikipedia's standards incl. WP:OWNERSHIP (see previous message), and who engages in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing by reverting correct edits due to such ignorance.
- You display a lack of understanding of strict English incl. legal matters. Thus, I am only warning you this last time before taking the matter to Wikipedia's arbitration. Got it?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016 edit
Hello, I'm ZH8000. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Albert Einstein, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ZH8000 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- According to MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1, nationality is "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". Thus, according to his long-term citizenship and residences in 2 countries as well as the country of the main discoveries in 1905 and life-long fame in USA, Einstein was German-born, Swiss-American. He was not German despite retaking German citizenship in Weimar Republic, because was striped off of it in 1933 and did not retook it after 1945. In the view of this clear Wikipedia's standard for nationality, any personal preferences and votes on the subject are moot and pointless.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it is not, because if you want to adhere "strictly" to the regulation you cite, then you get Swiss-German almost all of his important work in physics falls into that period (during mircacle year of 1905 and special relativity he was Swiss and during general relativity (1915/1916) and his years as the world's leading physicists in the early 1920s he was German/Prussian). Be that as it may, this discussion should be moved to/continued at the article's talk page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are right and I have just corrected to Swiss-German-American (see the additional comment on the talk page); not German-Prussian, but only German (see Constitution of the German Empire#Citizenship and Weimar Constitution#Section 1: The Reich and its States formally and collectively known as German Reich implying German citizenship regardless of a federal state of residence such as Prussia).--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it is not, because if you want to adhere "strictly" to the regulation you cite, then you get Swiss-German almost all of his important work in physics falls into that period (during mircacle year of 1905 and special relativity he was Swiss and during general relativity (1915/1916) and his years as the world's leading physicists in the early 1920s he was German/Prussian). Be that as it may, this discussion should be moved to/continued at the article's talk page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albert Einstein may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * [[German Empire|German]] (1914–1918), [[Weimar Republic|German]], 1918–1933)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Warning edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frédéric Chopin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing to collaborate on, as there is a clear Wikipedia's standard in the matter - as stated by myself, ZinedineZidane98, and Cassianto - in Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Chopin.27s nationality: Added Solution F.2C G.2C and H with Support also for B, which other editors violate. Don't you read the talk page discussion before placing warnings or don't you understand the merit of the discussion? I do not just believe that I am right, as I do not rely on believes, but I have a reference to Encyclopedia Britannica, which proves that ZinedineZidane98, Cassianto, and myself are right and everybody else, regardless of their number, is wrong also as per the clear Wikipedia's MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1 stating that nationality is "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". This is not an ambiguous matter for a discussion, but a clear cut synonymous/one solution aspect. Go it?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- The only place edit warring will get you is to ANI. Please stop. Also, what makes you think I agree with you? CassiantoTalk 22:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cassianto, (1) you stated 'Everyone who is part of consensus are "random"'. "Random" means - according to Webster's Dictionary - "lacking aim or method; purposeless; haphazard". Thus, people who are part of consensus and thus whose aim is to support that consensus option and thus have aim are the opposite of "random". Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English?
- Cassianto, (2) you stated that it is "resorting to cliché essay linking" when providing by ZinedineZidane98 and myself as reliable source the article in Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin) written by famous musicologist Leon Plantinga who wrote 4 books on music of the later XVIII and XIX C? Who are you to dismiss the Leon Plantinga's article in Encyclopedia Britannica? How many books you wrote on the later XVIII and XIX C music? If you could dismiss a Leon Plantinga's article in Encyclopedia Britannica, as not a reliable source on later XVIII and XIX C music incl. Chopin, you could dismiss any reliable source to write whatever you please in violation of the essence of Wikipedia and its basic rules. Who are you to dismiss Leon Plantinga's credibility on later XVIII and XIX C music incl. Chopin?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin provides also the alternative authorship of that article by Arthur Hedley who "was a British musicologist, scholar and biographer of Polish-French composer Frédéric Chopin". Still, my question remains, who are you Cassianto to dismiss Arthur Hedley's credibility on Chopin?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The only place edit warring will get you is to ANI. Please stop. Also, what makes you think I agree with you? CassiantoTalk 22:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 07:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It was just one personal question "Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English?" never repeated, as considered by myself too personal, and one funny mockery/ridicule of the vulgarity of User:Drmies, and not an attack on his person, picked up, fully supported and thus confirmed, as justified, by many on his talk page in User talk:Drmies#What does "a-holish" mean in English?, so at most 1 personal attack, if a question qualifies as such, and thus definitely no persistence meaning enduring continuance not possible at only 1 instance, as requiring at least 3 instances, as only 2 qualify as only repetition and not continuance.
Decline reason:
I really don't care whether you regard "personal attacks" as an apt description of your persistently posting pompous self-important messages ridiculing other editors or not. Whatever you think of them, they are not constructive contributions to discussions relating to editing the encyclopaedia, and their only purpose is to belittle other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My edits to properly describe Chopin's nationality as Polish-French and not only Polish were very constructive. The alleged consensus for Polish only (Solution A) was a prohibited result of a vote and NOT based on even a single reliable source (0 of "The sources indicated in the lead and in past discussions" claimed in the "consensus" result Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RfC Close table by User:Sjones23). "Cleverly", the only reliable sources provided, and all for Chopin being Polish-French, were spread by User:Sjones23 amongst 3 Solutions B, C, and D in order to and thus reducing the significance of their overwhelming combined weight against adopted Solution A (premeditated trick to defeat them). Additionally, one of these provided sources was primary, namely an image of the original Chopin's French passport (http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin7.htm on Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 10#Refocusing on the Issue by Frania W. obviously omitted in the above-mentioned vote table), which "prima facie" proved that Chopin was French (Solutions B, C, and D) and disproved that he was only Polish (adopted Solution A) and Solution E. Thus, User:Sjones23 and the rest of supporters of Chopin as only Polish conspired using illegal voting to force through Solution A, as no reliable sources supported it and still do not, as it is false. That was quite difficult to unraveled, because of the additional support also from administrators who do not check the absence of reliable sources for this Solution A sham (a lot of work) and blindly support it, such as User:Drmies, for which I ridiculed/mocked his vulgarity (WP:CIVIL). The opposition also from User:2Awwsome (Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 11#Edit request) was illegally crashed by the vote 12:0:1:0:3:1 for A:B:C:D:E (curiously 6 results for only 5 options).--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Logicalgenius, you keep arguing that you were right to do what you did, but apparently the almighty admins disagree with you. Continuing down the same path is not likely to be helpful. But I'm really not here to offer you advice; you pinged me, so I'm looking at what you wrote. Well, I did not take any kind of position on the nationality question, despite what you said here. Those factual misstatements, which you use here as an attack on my integrity as well, are also not going to help your case. That is all. BTW, I did not think you were mocking my supposed incivility; I thought you were seriously giving me a lesson in English. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
November 2016 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in multiple edit wars. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Muffled Pocketed 06:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at User talk:Diannaa.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dr. K. 03:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Dr.K., I have just corrected logical and grammatical errors in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as stated in my edit summaries, because it is not correct in English (and any other language) to say "reliable for", as "reliable" meaning "trustworthy" relates to the source and not to destination/application (trustworthy by the means of its quality and thus independently, regardless of anything else, always) that is disqualifying adding the preposition "for" afterwords. Subsequently, you reverted the edit claiming that "[c]hanges to core policies while in edit-warring disputes across several articles is tendentious editing". Do you claim by your statement that bad English is not bad while "in edit-warring disputes"? Did you read my edit summaries and understand them? In other words, do you mean that, while "in edit-warring disputes", an editor is disqualified from correcting errors? Please, explain that conditioning by you of errors (also in English) that makes them irrelevant/disappearing/invalid/etc. while "in edit-warring disputes". Please, explain how the errors stop being errors while "in edit-warring disputes". It is difficult to understand Wikipedia's legality of your actions.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason of blocking me is a conjunction of 2 elements, namely (1) tendentious editing of a nigh-policy + (2) to push a holocaust denial blog as a source, of which all have to be true in order for the conjunction (reason) to be true. *SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice not aware that the blog is partisan, biased or skewed in the editings of Rudolf Höss of 22:15, 13 November 2016 and Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture in regard only to alleged torture, and have never used it again, but many other related sources not in question. My use of said blog was by chance and limited to those 2 occurrences. I edited Context matters on Nov. 14 as well as on Nov. 15 when I was accused of Tendentious editing, because "in edit-warring disputes across several articles" and not "to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", as alleged in the blocking reason, and when I was already finished with Rudolf Höss incl. any relation to the said blog. If only those 2 edits were supposed to be tendentious, then they fail to meet the requirement to be "more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out", because they were only 2 and badly thought out admitted by me in talk page sub-section by saying "Correction:" and "convinced me that the phrase "reliable for..." was placed purposely in Context matters". If tendentious were supposed to be also my massive edits in the created by me talk page section, where the said blog did not play any role, than those massive edits were not "partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole", as required, in regard "to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", because the said blog was not there to establish "partisan, biased or skewed" editing in regard to itself, as stated in the blocking reason. Thus, the said reason is unfounded. *ADDITIONAL BLOCKING PROBLEMS: User:Ian.thomson asked for support for this blocking on the WP:noticeboard/Incidents, where speculated: "...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog" (I said earlier My objective here is to strengthen Wikipedia by removing its policy/guidance provisions allowing disregarding primary sources) to magnify my isolated comment as "reflective on his [my] conduct as a whole" while User:Ian.thomson contradicted himself by saying "has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated", and misrepresented by saying "his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English" when I stated earlier that I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Slawomir Bialy. English is not my first language, etc., etc. Also there, User:Dr.K. allowed himself to be libelous by referring me as "This guy is [...] cocky denialist". *ARGUMENT A: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice without awareness that it is a holocaust denial blog, because at the 1st glance it looked credible also for showing the "Poland lowers official Auschwitz toll" article at its top, and I neglected to read carefully the whole, but - instead - just searched for the word "torture" and carelessly went directly to the part I was interested in just before making my 22:15, 13 November 2016 edit. I still was not aware that Robert Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, all support holocaust denial, because User:Poeticbent summarized only that "Robert Faurisson is not considered a reliable source", but was not specific why. Only after User:Dr.K. pointed out on 22:25, 13 November 2016 that "rem. source from blog created by exposingtheholohoax", I started to read the blog, but still it seemed to me not biased, as full of references appearing credible. Nevertheless, I dropped the said blog from my subsequent edit of the Höss article (see link above), but following the User:Diannaa suggestion of 00:38, 14 November 2016 ("you need to go to the talk page"), I only included the said blog for the 2nd time among the 2 references to Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture to answer somebody's question posted months earlier still not seeing anything bad in the blog. I took the same User:Diannaa's advice of 21:56, 13 November 2016 while editing the Auschwitz article and started pushing the issue of more accurate number of death toll in Auschwitz by adding 1.3 M deported that still stands (at "least 1.1 million" OF 1.3 now is more accurate than only "at least 1.1" before). Only during writing to the Auschwitz talk page I checked Robert Faurisson and found that he is a Holocaust denier and thus everybody citing him has the same intention incl. the said blog. In search of a replacement, I found reliable sources in Chicago Tribune and National Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau also used in subsequent editing of the Auschwitz. And that is the whole story of my (honest) mistake with the said blog and Robert Faurisson. *BTW, there is still a logical error of saying "Others deported..." without prior naming initial deportees, because "others than who". The proper text should be "An estimated 1.3 million people were sent to the camp incl. 1.1 million Jews". Only then the subsequent sentence starting from "Others deported..." will have a proper reference in 1.1 million deported Jews (do not mistake with the 1.1 million death toll). I still do not understand why my edits of Franciszek Piper and Theresienstadt concentration camp were reverted by User:Kierzek, because "rv blocked editor". Was there anything wrong with those edits? Do not they, my remaining addition to the Auschwitz, and stopping editing the Höss immediately after the User:Diannaa suggestion, show my honest intentions? *ARGUMENT B: I explained in detail on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Correction: Saying .22reliable for.22 in Context matters is inconsistent w.2F WP.27s 1st Pillar that referencing there Chopin and Höss (mainly Chopin and Höss only to illustrate the calculation) was only for example, as the main issue there was tighten directly to the WP's 1st Pillar and I could have put Santa Clause instead of Höss, and it would have worked equally well. Responding TFD and User:Alanscottwalker there took it as such and explained the issue using Chopin only as the intended example, as sometimes it is easier to use example to explain especially difficult issues that mine was. Responding User:Sławomir Biały there was "somewhat sympathetic to this point", but frankly I did not understand, which part of his statement was "this point", as there were more than 1 possibility. I explained there also my limitations and admitted my errors. *BTW: Eric Stover, Victor Peskin, Alexa Koenig describe in detail that "British investigators also faced allegations of torture and abuse in their handling of Nazi prisoners" in the respected book titled "Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror" from the middle of page 35 on, so my WP:NPOV concern on the issue was not unfounded.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This block was a result of discussion on WP:ANI. That essentially makes it unlikely any admin would consider overriding the consensus of the community. If you wish your block to be reconsidered, your next step is WP:ARBCOM. Yamla (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Slightly improved argument for unblocking request edit
The reason of blocking me is a conjunction of 2 elements, namely (1) tendentious editing of a nigh-policy + (2) to push a holocaust denial blog as a source, of which all have to be true in order for the conjunction (reason) to be true. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice not aware that the blog is partisan, biased or skewed in the editings of Rudolf Höss of 22:15, 13 November 2016 and Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture in regard only to alleged torture, and have never used it again, but than many other related sources not in question. My use of said blog was by chance and limited to those 2 occurrences. I edited Context matters on Nov. 14, as well as on Nov. 15, when I was accused of tendentious editing, because "in edit-warring disputes across several articles" and not "to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", as alleged in the blocking reason, and when I was already finished with Rudolf Höss and thus with any relation to the said blog. If only those 2 edits were supposed to be tendentious, then they fail to meet the requirement to be "more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out", because they were only 2 and badly thought out, as admitted by me in talk page sub-section by saying "Correction:" and "convinced me that the phrase "reliable for..." was placed purposely in Context matters". If tendentious were supposed to be also my massive edits in the created by me talk page section, where the said blog (torture) did not play any role, than those massive edits were not [[WP:TE|"partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole"] in regard "to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", as needed to constitute "tendentious", because the said blog's aspect of torture was not used there to establish "partisan, biased or skewed" editing in regard to the blog, as stated in the blocking reason, but only the death toll from other source not in question. Thus, the said reason is unfounded. ADDITIONAL BLOCKING PROBLEMS: User:Ian.thomson asked for support for this blocking on the WP:noticeboard/Incidents for the Holocaust denial promotion, but instead argued WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR against me. User:Ian.thomson speculated that "...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog" (against my earlier commitment that My objective here is to strengthen Wikipedia by removing its policy/guidance provisions allowing disregarding primary sources) in support of arbitrary notion that my isolated comment is "reflective on his [my] conduct as a whole" while User:Ian.thomson contradicted himself by saying "has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated". User:Ian.thomson misrepresented me by speculating: "his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English" when I admitted earlier that I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Slawomir Bialy. English is not my first language. Then, the discussion deviated from the Holocaust denial into evaluating me to "become a good WP:GNOME and correct some formatting problems or spelling errors, but is it even worth it? I'm not seeing why his "edits in other areas" would make you think twice about just blocking him. Hijiri 88", as if my alleged tendentiousness was only a pretext to resolve arbitrary preferences. Also there, User:Dr.K. allowed himself to be libelous by referring me as "This guy is [...] cocky denialist". ARGUMENT, Part A: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice without awareness that it is a holocaust denial blog, because at the 1st glance it looked credible also for showing the "Poland lowers official Auschwitz toll" article at its top, and I neglected to read carefully the whole, but - instead - just searched for the word "torture" and carelessly went directly to the part I was interested in just before making my 22:15, 13 November 2016 edit. I still was not aware that Robert Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, Institute for Historical Review, all support holocaust denial, because User:Poeticbent summarized only that "Robert Faurisson is not considered a reliable source", but was not specific why. Only after User:Dr.K. pointed out on 22:25, 13 November 2016 that "rem. source from blog created by exposingtheholohoax", I started to read the blog, but still it seemed to me not biased, as full of references appearing credible. Nevertheless, I dropped the said blog from my subsequent edit of the Höss article (see link above), but following the User:Diannaa suggestion of 00:38, 14 November 2016 ("you need to go to the talk page"), I only included the said blog for the 2nd time among the 2 references to Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture to answer somebody's question posted months earlier still not seeing anything bad in the blog. I took the same User:Diannaa's advice of 21:56, 13 November 2016 while editing the Auschwitz article and started pushing the issue of more accurate number of death toll in Auschwitz by adding 1.3 M deported that still stands (at "least 1.1 million" OF 1.3 now is more accurate than only "at least 1.1" before). Only during writing to the Auschwitz talk page I checked Robert Faurisson and found that he is a Holocaust denier and thus everybody citing him has the same intention incl. the said blog. In search of a replacement, I found reliable sources in Chicago Tribune and National Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau also used in subsequent editing of the Auschwitz. And that is the whole story of my (honest) mistake with the said blog and Robert Faurisson. BTW A, there is still a logical error of saying "Others deported..." without prior naming initial deportees, because "others than who". The proper text should be "An estimated 1.3 million people were sent to the camp incl. 1.1 million Jews". Only then the subsequent sentence starting from "Others deported..." will have a proper reference in 1.1 million deported Jews (do not mistake with the 1.1 million death toll). I still do not understand why my edits of Franciszek Piper and Theresienstadt concentration camp were reverted by User:Kierzek, because "rv blocked editor". Was there anything wrong with those edits? Do not they, my remaining addition to the Auschwitz, and stopping editing the Höss immediately after the User:Diannaa suggestion, show my honest intentions? ARGUMENT, Part B: I explained in detail on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Correction: Saying .22reliable for.22 in Context matters is inconsistent w.2F WP.27s 1st Pillar that referencing there Chopin and Höss (mainly Chopin and Höss's death toll from different sources than the said blog about torture, and only to illustrate the calculation) was only for example, as the main issue there was tighten directly to the WP's 1st Pillar and I could have put Santa Clause instead of Höss, and it would have worked equally well. Responding TFD and User:Alanscottwalker there took it as such and explained the issue using Chopin only as the intended example, as sometimes it is easier to use example to explain especially difficult issues that mine was. Responding User:Sławomir Biały there was "somewhat sympathetic to this point", but frankly I did not understand, which part of his statement was "this point", as there were more than 1 possibility. I explained there also my limitations and admitted my errors. BTW B: Eric Stover, Victor Peskin, Alexa Koenig describe in detail that "British investigators also faced allegations of torture and abuse in their handling of Nazi prisoners" in the respected book titled "Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror" from the middle of page 35 on, so my WP:NPOV concern on the issue was not unfounded.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- 258 mainspace edits, blocked twice, tendentious editing, persistent personal attacks, and now an unblock request way, way to long to read? Seriously, there is not an admin here who would waste their time reading all of that. Please, make your unblock request befitting your username and boil it down to three, short sentences. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Anna Frodesiak, not so easy with just logic and not English to limit the request to 500 words, so it goes to best of my abilities as following.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Shorter version edit
I will control my disruptive tendency, if unblocked. Both clauses of the conjunction: "[1] tendentious editing of a nigh-policy [+ (2)] to push a holocaust denial blog as a source" must be true for the blocking reason to be true. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: I cited https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ only twice by chance in regard only to alleged torture (not the death toll) and not being aware that the blog is partisan, biased or skewed while editing 22:15-13-November-2016's Rudolf Höss and Talk:Rudolf Höss#Torture. I edited Context matters on Nov-14, as well as on Nov-15, when I was accused of tendentious editing, because "in edit-warring disputes across several articles" and not as alleged in the blocking reason, when I was already finished with Rudolf Höss and thus with any relation to said blog. If only those 2 edits were supposed to be tendentious, then they fail to meet the requirement to be "more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out", as I admitted: "Correction:" and "convinced me that the phrase "reliable for..." was placed purposely in Context matters". If tendentious were supposed to be also my massive edits, where said blog (torture) did not play any role, than those massive edits (how I'm WP:NOTHERE?) were not "partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole" in regard the clause (2), as needed to constitute "tendentious", because said blog's aspect of torture was not used there to establish "partisan, biased or skewed" editing in regard to the clause (2), but only the death toll from other source not in question. That's all. WP:NOTICEBOARD/INCIDENTS DISCUSSION PROBLEMS: User:Ian.thomson disregarded the clauses (1)+(2), but instead discussed WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR against me. User:Ian.thomson speculated that "...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog" (against my earlier commitment that My objective here is to strengthen Wikipedia by removing its policy/guidance provisions allowing disregarding primary sources) in support of his arbitrary notion that my isolated comment is "reflective on his conduct as a whole" while User:Ian.thomson contradicted himself by saying "has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated". User:Ian.thomson misrepresented me by speculating: "his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English" when I admitted earlier that I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Slawomir Bialy. English is not my first language. Next deviation into evaluating me to "become a good WP:GNOME and..., but is it even worth it? I'm not seeing why his "edits in other areas"... just blocking him. Hijiri 88" from my alleged tendentiousness seems a pretext to resolve arbitrary preferences. More here..--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- That is still really long. Your latest unblock request has been declined. Please read the reason why and follow the advice there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Anna Frodesiak, but my position is very difficult, as (almost?) all administrators are against me and (almost?) nobody believes that my only intention was to improve WP for all and not to peddle the Holocaust denial. I do not like to appeal to generosity also in this case, as I was working very hard and to best of my abilities to voluntarily contribute to often difficult or neglected parts of WP especially considering my English language limitations. Though, if unblocked, I will control my disruptive tendency learning a lesson here. If administrators do believe that a potentially dumb denier of any fact is able to argue a very difficult change in Wikipedia policy, as I did in the massive and quite complicated edits, than I do not have a case and I am that dumb moron who by a chance produced the highly sophisticated argument. Also, such a change would effect the whole WP where deniers are only an insignificant blip not worth the monumental effort, as not guarantying any success due to the editor's vigilance, etc. Assuming the opposite, namely that I tried to change the policy for all to accommodate the very narrow group of Holocaust deniers is also not supported by the content of my edits of many Holocaust related articles. But when my edits are not accepted to speak for me, than nothing will. I have nothing else to show. My poor record on edit warring was the result of my involvement in contentious issues when I pointed out editors' lack of logic, they felt offended and got uncooperative. Obviously, irritated, I did not show much sympathy nor patience, but I should have, though I always tried to by civil, nevertheless sometimes too close to civility's bounds. Probably the same happened this time and I simply stepped on 1 toe too many. Still, please, try to find a single edit by me not done in good faith nor to my best knowledge. There are none.
- I am blocked from making an arbitration case request on WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Could you help me by making a request as a party instead of me included as another party there, please? I know I am trying to take advantage of your kindness. This is what sort of genius I am: definitely (class) 3 and not 1. Please, advise.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I will not get involved any further. I am sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Anna Frodesiak, I understand and thanks.--05:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #17291 was submitted on Jan 08, 2017 04:24:43. This review is now closed.
UTRS Account Request edit
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Logicalgenius3 (talk)
January 2017 edit
Logicalgenius3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
1. Why do you believe you should be unblocked? (*) I should be unblocked, because I can contribute while verifying in several languages, as I did for hundreds of articles where I added complex details and corrected difficult to notice inconsistencies incl. tackling difficult and controversial issues of bias mainly on the nationalistic or chauvinistic bases according to WP:NOTNOTHERE. I "have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing of a nigh-policy to push a holocaust denial blog as a source, indicating that that you are not here to build an encyclopedia." It does not make sense, because my pushing for a greater role of primary sources (WP:NOTNOTHERE) is a proof against my alleged "tendentious editing of a nigh-policy to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", because, e.g. the primary sources of the photos of concentration camps prove the Holocaust. I already admitted several times my mistake in slow noticing that the blog was a holocaust denial one, because it looked OK on the first glance. Quoting it only twice before permanently stopping was "an isolated comment that was badly thought out". I admitted my linguistic limitations also by saying "I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Slawomir Bialy. English is not my first language, but also my knowledge of Wikipedia is not deep. So, I struggle with explanation of this quite difficult issue.... but rather logical than linguistic, so my English should be sufficient", that could have been used against me under WP:CIR, but was not. Instead, WP:NOTHERE, which required competence, was, but contradicted my alleged Dunning–Kruger effect ("D-Ke") claiming incompetence, but also contradicted by my said admissions of mistake/limitations, as those suffering of it are not capable "to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately" (see more in pt 3 below). (**) Also, my v. hard work to overcome my English limitations and be better understood while arguing for improving the difficult definition of reliability to better serve the Wikipedia community against any nationalistic (and other) bias (WP:NOTNOTHERE) testifies against the D-Ke. Please, take under consideration how difficult is arguing against a policy and how difficult is to summarize many disputes over multinationals and to conclude that a remedy lies in improving the definition of reliability, and now also realize that such improvement will also serve against any bias including the Holocaust denial. That is not the D-Ke, but only hard work not many are willing to put into editing. Thus, I was a valuable editor... with some temper issues I admit. 2. If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? If unblocked, I intend to edit various articles, as before, according to WP:NOTNOTHERE. I am a refugee from Poland (see my recent edits of the Polish Wikipedia on medicine, psychology and pharmacology) and have the first hand experience with the Holocaust, communism, antisemitism, nationalism, etc. I am professionally familiar with architecture, engineering, art, computers, CADD, and computer programming and management. I usually check Wikipedia when watching TV and seek details on interesting subjects. When finding an insufficiency, I check other sources and then add new details to Wikipedia. I am specifically sensitive to logical errors (my programming habit). I admit, loosing my temper while correcting them was putting me sometimes in trouble. Editors do not like that kind of corrections, but I learnt my lesson and do promise to stay cool in the future. Such admission is also not characteristic for those with the D-Ke. 3. Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I liked editing from time to time and thinking that I was able to improve Wikipedia so others had an opportunity to be better informed. It was making me happy. I believe, that happiness was taken away from me unfairly. If you compare the administrator's discussion over my case titled "LogicalGenius3 citing a Holocaust denial blog and trying to change WP:RS to support it" with the one following it, you will see that the later is strict, precise, and accurate, while mine includes "everything, but the kitchen sink", incl. the D-Ke, as if it had anything to do with the Holocaust denial ("Hd") or supported the used against me WP:NOTHERE implying competence (purpose) while the D-Ke - incompetence. If a person suffers of the D-Ke, his attempt to do a difficult "editing of a nigh-policy" must be futile, and thus calling it a "push" would be exaggerated, as beyond competence, and thus using WP:NOTHERE for blocking me was inconsistent with incompetence characterizing the D-Ke discussed by the administrators, to which some opposed. They also discussed my alleged WP:CIR consistent with my admission of English limitations, but it was not used to block me. Thus, nothing discussed by the administrators gained their full approval. They did not notice that I eventually corrected my argument and cooperated with other editors in good faith in that very difficult issue many well versed in English editors would have difficulty with, consistent with WP:NOTNOTHERE, and intended against bias incl. the Holocaust denial. 4. Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Would it be quite "unexpected" to find out that I am Jewish and that the most of my parent's families died in the Holocaust? How the Wikipedia would look like after permanently blocking a Jew for alleged Holocaust denial? Ridiculous? A witch hunter? A society of mutual adoration of administrators seeking a pretext for revenge after encountering a difficult and complex issue consistent with WP:NOTNOTHERE and throwing them out of their comfort zone?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining this unblock request solely on the grounds that it has sat open since 2017-01-08 and no administrator has seen fit to lift the block. That is, you have failed to convince any administrator to lift the block and there's no longer any reasonable hope that this particular unblock request will lead to an unblock. This is without prejudice. You are welcome to make another request with a more compelling justification. Yamla (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- That you waited until now to try and claim being Jewish as a defense smells odd and is unreliable. Ignoring that, all of your edits after 9 July 2016 (roughly a third of your edits) consisted of edit warring against a clear and long-standing consensus at Talk:Frédéric Chopin, edit warring against long standing consensus at Albert Einstein, and not backing down when multiple native English speakers explained that you were using a clearly inappropriate source or when native English speakers explained that you were making serious mistakes with your misinterpretations of WP:RS. The only reason you stopped was because you were blocked. This is all public record, and is going to be reviewed by any unblocking admin (along with the ANI report and the consensus there that you should be blocked). Your only chance of being unblocked is admitting that you were in the wrong, that there is no one else to blame, and that you need to be topic banned from all articles relating to the Holocaust (if not for policy and guideline pages, as well as determining a subject's nationality). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson:, De gustibus non est disputandum and suit yourself, but the answer lies in the analysis of my pertaining edits also international. I have already admitted several times being wrong by violating several rules of conduct, making linguistic mistakes and omissions, etc., but I have never engaged in "tendentious editing of a nigh-policy to push a holocaust denial blog as a source", for which I have been blocked, and I do not intend to admit it ever, as it was not the case, which must be evident for anyone with a common sense, as my corrected pushing for a greater role of primary sources (WP:NOTNOTHERE) proves my intention against any bias, incl. Holocaust denial, because, e.g. the primary sources of the photos of concentration camps prove the Holocaust. So, not I should apologize more, but maybe you for your vindictive witch-hunt-style inquisition against me. In drastic contrast to your behavior was the intelligent, funny, and very competent scolding me by @Drmies: (see above) you could learn a lot from. This is my last edit and appeal for unblocking. I have nothing more to add for my defense on Wikipedia providing I am... not a dog, as your edit above might imply, but indeed Jewish.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson:, one more thing. The tenet of justice in the civilized world is the burden of proof (law). In other words "[i]n a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. It means that initially I was innocent and you bore the burden of proof without the benefit of the doubt. When me being Jewish is a doubt undermining my alleged guilt than it is your burden to prove that I am not. But actually even the existence of such a possibility (that I am Jewish) has always been that benefit of the doubt without a need to prove it. In other words, if your argument could always have been interpreted variously depending whether I was Jewish or not, then your conclusion to block me has always been doubtful (subject to a various interpretation and thus not synonymous or evidence) unless you proved that I was not Jewish, which you did not. Thus, your accusation has been uncivilized (biased) from the beginning. The burden of proof applies to any bias incl. the Holocaust denial. Maybe you decided to block me, because I tried to strengthen the role of the primary sources against any bias, which you have immersed in and thus maybe like? Despite growing up under the communist rule in Poland, the principals of the civilized world trickled into my scull. On the other hand, you claimed to be a teacher. Bernard Shaw said, "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." Woody Allen added, “Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym.” My question is: can you teach gym... euphemistically speaking? Hey @Drmies:, that joke is for you, do enjoy it.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: my question was to @Ian.thomson: (I have not been aware of your occupation) and for your enjoyment only, as it is now more precisely expressed (oh, my poor English), and yes, but even more harsh for the students or - in general - for the subjects of... .--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you're going to make personal attacks about any editor's career, you can have your talk page access revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson:, @Drmies: made his own joke of my joke (now restored to its original form) and you... did not.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ian, it looks like that point has long since been arrived at. I say revoke.104.169.17.29 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yamla:, you were very kind in the explanation of declining my unblock request, like nobody before, and thank you.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)