User talk:Lenerd

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am a constructive editor the reasons given for this block are bogus. I have worked to remove POV from articles, I have attempted to translate articles from the Catalan Wikipedia (José Maldonado Gonzalez, Luis Jiménez de Asúa) and for that I am blocked indefinitely without warning? All of my edits are in good faith and none of them could ever be seen as vandalism. To be reprimanded for my first edit made over a year ago[1] is ridiculous. It also seems that the blocking admin has a personal conflict with my userpage, which he makes apparent in his "reason" for indefinitely blocking a constructive user without warning, and may have led him to make me one of his 13 blocks in the past 4 days. I have always respected others Wikipedia:Etiquette, I worked to remove POV from 2 articles (Sarah Palin, Che Guevara)Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and have been blocked because one editor has searched my entire contributions in an attempt to find any reason at all to block. The Wikipedia:Vandalism specifically excludes "making bold edits" intended to improve Wikipedia, which some of my edits are and may have rubbed the blocking admin the wrong way. And concerning the image I uploaded I was informed that it was from Abu Gharib and it still has not been proven that I was wrong but if I am then it would still be "unintentional misinformation" at most on my part which is not vandalism. Why am I being blocked when my edits are in compliance with Wikipedia:Five pillars? I have worked tirelessly to fix articles and revert vandalism myself while assuming good faith and I would appreciate it if I could continue to do so unmolested by admins on a power trip. Frankly, this is bullshit and I am pissed.

P.S. since I am blocked and can only edit this page I would like to make my defense of Pig Empire, "To steal from a brother or sister is evil. To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral.", Steal This Book. And Page 198 of The Linguistics Wars By Randy Allen Harris "...label was Woodstock Nation, which was coined in a formal declaration of independence from, and state of war with, 'the Pig Empire' (Hoffman, 1971).." Also, it stood for over a year as a link to the economy of the United States at most it should return to that. And did they really use Russian Google to research it?

Notes:

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

Administrator use only:

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

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am a constructive editor the reasons given for this block are bogus. I have worked to remove POV from articles, I have attempted to translate articles from the Catalan Wikipedia ([[José Maldonado Gonzalez]], [[Luis Jiménez de Asúa]]) and for that I am blocked indefinitely without warning? '''All''' of my edits are in good faith and none of them could ever be seen as vandalism. To be reprimanded for my first edit made over a year ago[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Empire&action=history] is ridiculous. It also seems that the blocking admin has a personal conflict with my userpage, which he makes apparent in his "reason" for indefinitely blocking a constructive user without warning, and may have led him to make me one of his 13 blocks in the past 4 days. I have always respected others [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]], I worked to remove POV from 2 articles ([[Sarah Palin]], [[Che Guevara]])[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], and have been blocked because one editor has searched my entire contributions in an attempt to find any reason at all to block. The [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] specifically excludes "making bold edits" intended to improve Wikipedia, which some of my edits are and may have rubbed the blocking admin the wrong way. And concerning the image I uploaded I was informed that it was from Abu Gharib and it still has not been proven that I was wrong but if I am then it would still be "unintentional misinformation" at most on my part which is not vandalism. Why am I being blocked when my edits are in compliance with [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]? I have worked tirelessly to fix articles and revert vandalism myself while assuming good faith and I would appreciate it if I could continue to do so unmolested by admins on a power trip. Frankly, this is bullshit and I am pissed. :P.S. since I am blocked and can only edit this page I would like to make my defense of [[Pig Empire]], "To steal from a brother or sister is evil. To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral.", [[Steal This Book]]. And Page 198 of The Linguistics Wars By Randy Allen Harris "...label was Woodstock Nation, which was coined in a formal declaration of independence from, and state of war with, 'the Pig Empire' (Hoffman, 1971).." Also, it stood for over a year as a link to the [[economy of the United States]] at most it should return to that. And did they really use Russian Google to research it? |3 = ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am a constructive editor the reasons given for this block are bogus. I have worked to remove POV from articles, I have attempted to translate articles from the Catalan Wikipedia ([[José Maldonado Gonzalez]], [[Luis Jiménez de Asúa]]) and for that I am blocked indefinitely without warning? '''All''' of my edits are in good faith and none of them could ever be seen as vandalism. To be reprimanded for my first edit made over a year ago[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Empire&action=history] is ridiculous. It also seems that the blocking admin has a personal conflict with my userpage, which he makes apparent in his "reason" for indefinitely blocking a constructive user without warning, and may have led him to make me one of his 13 blocks in the past 4 days. I have always respected others [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]], I worked to remove POV from 2 articles ([[Sarah Palin]], [[Che Guevara]])[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], and have been blocked because one editor has searched my entire contributions in an attempt to find any reason at all to block. The [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] specifically excludes "making bold edits" intended to improve Wikipedia, which some of my edits are and may have rubbed the blocking admin the wrong way. And concerning the image I uploaded I was informed that it was from Abu Gharib and it still has not been proven that I was wrong but if I am then it would still be "unintentional misinformation" at most on my part which is not vandalism. Why am I being blocked when my edits are in compliance with [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]? I have worked tirelessly to fix articles and revert vandalism myself while assuming good faith and I would appreciate it if I could continue to do so unmolested by admins on a power trip. Frankly, this is bullshit and I am pissed. :P.S. since I am blocked and can only edit this page I would like to make my defense of [[Pig Empire]], "To steal from a brother or sister is evil. To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral.", [[Steal This Book]]. And Page 198 of The Linguistics Wars By Randy Allen Harris "...label was Woodstock Nation, which was coined in a formal declaration of independence from, and state of war with, 'the Pig Empire' (Hoffman, 1971).." Also, it stood for over a year as a link to the [[economy of the United States]] at most it should return to that. And did they really use Russian Google to research it? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am a constructive editor the reasons given for this block are bogus. I have worked to remove POV from articles, I have attempted to translate articles from the Catalan Wikipedia ([[José Maldonado Gonzalez]], [[Luis Jiménez de Asúa]]) and for that I am blocked indefinitely without warning? '''All''' of my edits are in good faith and none of them could ever be seen as vandalism. To be reprimanded for my first edit made over a year ago[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Empire&action=history] is ridiculous. It also seems that the blocking admin has a personal conflict with my userpage, which he makes apparent in his "reason" for indefinitely blocking a constructive user without warning, and may have led him to make me one of his 13 blocks in the past 4 days. I have always respected others [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]], I worked to remove POV from 2 articles ([[Sarah Palin]], [[Che Guevara]])[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], and have been blocked because one editor has searched my entire contributions in an attempt to find any reason at all to block. The [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] specifically excludes "making bold edits" intended to improve Wikipedia, which some of my edits are and may have rubbed the blocking admin the wrong way. And concerning the image I uploaded I was informed that it was from Abu Gharib and it still has not been proven that I was wrong but if I am then it would still be "unintentional misinformation" at most on my part which is not vandalism. Why am I being blocked when my edits are in compliance with [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]? I have worked tirelessly to fix articles and revert vandalism myself while assuming good faith and I would appreciate it if I could continue to do so unmolested by admins on a power trip. Frankly, this is bullshit and I am pissed. :P.S. since I am blocked and can only edit this page I would like to make my defense of [[Pig Empire]], "To steal from a brother or sister is evil. To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral.", [[Steal This Book]]. And Page 198 of The Linguistics Wars By Randy Allen Harris "...label was Woodstock Nation, which was coined in a formal declaration of independence from, and state of war with, 'the Pig Empire' (Hoffman, 1971).." Also, it stood for over a year as a link to the [[economy of the United States]] at most it should return to that. And did they really use Russian Google to research it? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Talk Page

Hello and welcome. I left you a message in response to your POV concern on Che Guevara. I hope you will work with myself and other editors on the article, in order to see that your concerns are addressed (if they can be).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As a suggestion (which you can heed or discard). It seems that you are passionate with relation the content in the article (which is great) ... but I fear that you choice of wording may be strong and pov to the point of being easily "revertible" by others. I would hate to see your possibly constructive edits be deemed illegitimate because of the way they are presented. Maybe next time, stick closer to the wording of the sources, shoot for neutral wording, and do your best to reign in your "zeal." Let the information speak for itself ... there is no need to give the appearance of editorializing.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the La Cabaña page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong

Asking someone to quit vandalising, is not an attack in my book. Sf46 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't specifically say "queer" another user did. I did say "ditto" to what he said, meaning that I didn't think the vandalism was cool. While I do understand that the word "queer" when used in the wrong context can carry a homophobic connatation, I don't think that the othr user or myself were aiming for that particular meaning of the word. If you are so thin skinned that you think every use of the word carries such an offensive meaning, then you are the one with the problem.

As you can tell from comparing your userboxes to mine, you and I are almost complete opposites on nearly every issue. I do see one or two boxes that I'm going to take from you though. Sf46 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism

My edits are clearly not vandalism. Removing unrelated chatter has been an established practice. Please take care to read edit summaries and if you feel the need to revert, treat good-faith edits accordingly. Also, you are clearly using templates wrong. The warning templates should generally be started off at 1 or 2. This is a clear and established practice except in extreme cases. Also, it is generally encouraged not to template regular or long time users. If you feel a warning is necessary, a personal warning regarding the situation is much more appropriate than a rubber-stamp template. Also, using escalated warning templates that threaten blocks is innapropriate since a block will not occur except in extreme cases such as vandalism only accounts, before at least the third incident.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Personal Analysis"

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't added any "personal analysis" to the article on Iraq, nor have I committed any vandalism. The article is written in poor English and I am correcting that. It also contained some redundancy and POV issues, which I have corrected. I have committed no "vandalism" or "experimentation," and my edits should be allowed to stand. --Antodav2007 (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

College World Series

Why did you call my edit to College World Series as vandalism? I removed two sections detailing highlights of the 2007 and 2008 CWS. Each year's CWS has its own page, so I fail to see why special sections were necessary in the main article of the CWS itself. The presence of those sections is an examples of WP:Recentism. And I explained why I was doing so in my comment edit. I am not a vandal, and do not appreciate being called as such. I am going to re-remvoe those sections, further explaining on a talk page if you prefer.--67.101.103.239 (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Wikipedia has a very strong policy against including questionable and poorly sourced allegations against public figures in its articles. I strongly suggest to this extent that you familiarise yourself - and thoroughly - with the detailed policy on the subject. It is highly inappropriate to attempt to use Wikipedia, as you have done here, to make original claims about a public figure: in this case, accusing a Republican governor of being a socialist. I would also remind you of the new enforcement policy for BLP articles, which now states that someone who persists in adding such material can be banned, either from the article or if needed, from the project, by any administrator. Rebecca (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for dispute. Articles on living people must not contain claims about that person that are controversial, poorly sourced and non-neutral. You have been pointed in the direction of the policy should you wish to read more about it. More specifically, in regard to this case, there is no neutral way in which you can originate a claim on Wikipedia that a Republican governor is a socialist. The only way in which it might be acceptable is if a prominent public figure makes the allegation and it could be sourced to them. I'll reinforce what I said before: re-adding this material will see you very promptly blocked. Rebecca (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Was this you editing while logged out? Kelly ^hi! 07:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lenerd, can you please weigh in on this article again. It seems that the powers that be continue to ignore the articles comparing her policies to Chavez. 66.230.102.243 (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

Che Guevara

Vandalism is you are engaged in what. At you one belief, at me others. I have resulted the authoritative sources confirming the facts informed by me. If you have facts about humanism or economic talents of Guevara and authoritative sources - result them, and in vandalism be not engaged. Sfrandzi (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalism. You also do not have right to reject data anti-Castro authors as at me - to reject data pro-Castro authors Sfrandzi (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I consider, that discrepancy of my information to your belief does not give you the right me to offend. Secondly, not all were lucky enough to be born in the English-speaking country. The some has not carried: they were born there where fighters for freedom like Lenin, Che and Fidel have derthrown oppressors and expluatators and have constructed a happy and fair society. And consequently they, maybe, know English is worse, but know the price to revolutionaries such is better.Sfrandzi (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's testimony of eyewitnesses and the facts of authoritative sources. If you are dissatisfied with them - you and explain on page of discussion, than you are particularly dissatisfied Sfrandzi (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lenard's edits are not vandalism. Sfrandzi's edits are not vandalism. This is a content dispute. Please discuss it on the article talk page. Please don't revert any more. I think you are both breaking the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Coppertwig (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Fang 23/userboxing/Anticapitalism

Thanks. Also do you have any suggestions on how can i make it better?--Fang 23 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits on In Popular Culture

Actually, I reverted your edits because they were synthesis. "xkcd.com says x" is referenceable; adding "this is not true because of x, y, and z" without reference is synthesis. The fact that you added it in "the middle of the night" or that the article was "a joke" doesn't change it. Tlesher (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong image

An image (Image:Abughraibtortureinstruments.jpg) you uploaded needs to be either deleted or renamed ASAP. It's not Abu Ghraib. It's an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq.

It could still make a suitable icon for the User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right_To_Resist page.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Neither of those would be considered reliable sources.

You could check with the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you like, but I suspect TheSmokingGun is the only one they might approve, and that's not a sure thing either. Then there's still the question of rights.

Since it was the military that found that camp, they might have the original pictures. If so, then those would be public domain.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Declined AIV reports

Thank you for helping fight vandalism. Unfortunately three of your recent reports to Administrator intervention against vandalism have been declined because they did not meet AIV criteria #2 and #3. Specifically the IPs either had not been sufficiently warned (using an escalating level of warnings from WP:UTM that reaches the "final warning" stage), or the IP stopped vandalizing after receiving a "final warning." Please let me know if you have any questions or issues, and thanks again for your help to contain vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Abughraibtortureinstruments.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Abughraibtortureinstruments.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed alterations to your suggested material

Your thoughts are welcome. Talk Page   Redthoreau (talk) RT 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have included previously discussed content and await your opinion. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Friendly note about talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor at User talk:Wintrlnd, I wanted to leave you a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk page. While we may prefer that messages be archived, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous users- from deleting comments from their own talk pages. The only talk page messages that may not be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates (for anonymous editors) ... and these exceptions are just to keep a user from gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What?

What was this all about? -Dempkovitch (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

George Carlin

Please do not blank categories without explanation. --Onorem♠Dil 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the link supposed to prove? If you have a problem with a specific category, try discussing it. Was he not an actor? Was he not a comedian? Was he not etc.... Complete blanking is inappropriate...and so is your laughable warning template on my talk page.. --Onorem♠Dil 23:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Where exactly is the personal attack? --Onorem♠Dil 23:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are indefinitely blocked

After examining only the most recent page of your contributions list as a consequence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National-Anarchism, I have determined that you have engaged in a pattern of unconstructive and disruptive edits. These include, in no particular order: Repeatedly removing all categories from an article for no clear reason ([2], [3]) and then providing a bogus warning to the editor reverting your vandalism ([4]), nominating an article for speedy deletion for an obviously inapplicable reason ([5]), leading to the aforementioned AfD, uploading improperly licenced images ([6], [7]), creating articles that appear to be machine translations of texts of an uncertain provenance ([8]), and making edits that appear to push a political opinion ([9], [10]) in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy – an impression that your user page does nothing to dispel.

For these reasons, I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia until such time as you persuade me (or another administrator reviewing any unblock request that you may choose to make) that you understand our ground rules and that you will comply with them from now on. You may appeal this block by following the procedure set out in WP:Appealing a block, but I counsel you to read WP:GAB before doing so.  Sandstein  19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pig Empire

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pig Empire, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Skomorokh 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)