User talk:MindStorM

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

I think its best to take it to the talk page to discuss removing such a large amount of material. Thanks!Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the same unencyclopedic content a week or so ago, and only the original contributor complained. Then they add even more unencyclopedic garbage, and you are now saying it shouldn't be removed because there's "too much"? Nonsense.MindStorM (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you were bold and removed it, then someone else restored it (twice), the next step in the normal WP:BRD cycle is the discussion, which you seem to have missed out on - I looked through past discussions on this topic in the talk page archives and couldn't find anything. I'm not sure that the section should remain in the article, on balance I would be happy to see it go, but nothing gets removed because an individual editor cannot accept it. Mikenorton (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the term "unencyclopedic" above marks you as someone with prior Wikipedia experience and a presumptive understanding of the way collaborative editing works. --Tenmei (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching 3RR again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

You need to add brief explanatory notes to the serial edits you are making at Gaman (term). This assists in the process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

If you continue to remove sourced material, you will be blocked. This is your final warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Germany Citizens' Movement

Hi there, MindStorM. You currently seem to be involved in an edit war over the article on Pro Germany Citizens' Movement. I strongly advise that you desist in this behaviour - it is unconstructive and will quickly get you blocked. Also, I suggest you phrase your edit summaries in a more co-operative way: at the moment, it looks like you are trying to own the article. If you have an issue with the article, please follow the dispute resolution guidelines, starting by initiating discussion on the article's talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Germany Citizens' Movement

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pro Germany Citizens' Movement. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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.

And please be CIVIL and do not try to insult other users through edit summaries ("cultural marxist"). It is very obvious that you are not able to maintain a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view regarding this subject. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I am very tired of Wikipedia's LEFTIST, CULTURAL MARXIST biased "consensus". What "neutral person" who knows these nationalist political parties would agree that they should be called "far right" instead of "nationalist"? No, rather this site is dominated by biased leftist editors, and that explains these things. Sure, ultimately it is because published media is also dominated by leftists and cultural marxists, but the published media is not "NPOV". That is why this site fails. It necessarily sides with the cultural marxist power structure. MindStorM (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MindstorM, engaging in edit wars, attacking biased editors and asserting the failure of Wikipedia will not help matters at all. As I said in my above comment, we are more than happy to discuss with you ways in which the article could be improved, but discussion needs to take place. If you are serious about improving the article, go to Talk:Pro Germany Citizens' Movement and start a discussion there. Until a consensus is reached, I would advise again you editing the article in question. If you refuse to discuss the issue and continue to edit war, you will probably be blocked from editing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of verified content

Hello MindStorM,

as verifiability is a main principle of Wikipedia and consensus can only be reached based on reliable sources, please accept that you cannot remove verified content simply because your personal opinion or point of view differs. Please understand that if everyone tries to push his personal views, co-operation, which is inevitable for a project like Wikipedia, is impossible. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your and other leftists' POV is already represented in the info box. MindStorM (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MindstorM, please stop removing sources information from Pro Germany Citizens' Movement. At least 3 reliable sources attest to the party being far-right; if you want to challenge this, please first find a reliable source which supports your challenge. Calling the party far-right does not violate WP:NPOV if it is reliably soured. I ask you to either provide sources for your claims or desist in editing the article. You have been given plenty of warnings: if you continue, I shall take this to WP:ANI. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Union (Israel)

Please stop trying to change the description of the NU. You have been reverted by three separate editors now, which should suggest you are editing against consensus. Your arguments about nationalist parties being far-right have been rebutted and any further reverts will result in a 3RR report. Number 5 7 09:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted some of your changes to Far-right politics, in which you equate nationalism with far-right politics. Please stop this POV pushing. Thanks, Number 5 7 11:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Your arguments about nationalist parties being far-right have been rebutted"

I don't see that rebuttal anywhere in the discussion page, so nope, no one rebutted anything I said. However, my point was not that nationalist parties should be called "far right" but rather that calling f.e. Pro Germany Citizens' Movement "far right" and not doing the same with f.e. National Union is clearly inconsistent. MindStorM (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MindstorM. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:MindstorM. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support you MindStroM

I support MindStorM - Wiki is a place of useless biased database — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.26.134 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MindStorM again. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

As you appear to have resumed your disruptive activities which you were warned and previously blocked about, made a number of personal and political attacks on other Wikipedians, and are openly and self-avowedly saying you're right and going to keep it up, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing Wikipedia. This type of behavior is disruptive and exceeds reasonable bounds for participation here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This is a poorly justified and unfair indefinite block, and I appeal for an unblock. "resumed your disruptive activities" After the first block expired, I made a single article edit in which I changed "qualitative and quantitative position" to "position". That cannot be considered "disruptive activities". "made a number of personal and political attacks on other Wikipedians" Before the first block, I did make it obvious in my edit summaries and talk page that I don't like cultural marxists, and after the block expiration I said roughly "I don't like you" to someone. That may be against the "civility" rules, but it's very poor grounds for an indefinite block from editing. "self-avowedly saying you're right and going to keep it up" This is a false accusation. What I said some time before the first block was "I will oppose calling this and other similar political parties far-right". That isn't against the rules of this site and probably wasn't the reason for the first block either. In summary, I removed the term "far right" from the intro of the Pro Germany article, removed the leftist sociologist's account, and lost my temper with the users who reverted those edits. I also made a "POV" edit in the "Far-right politics" article, and got blocked. Then I came back and said roughly "you don't like me and I don't like you" to the users and admins who had me blocked. It would appear that there has been some kind of misunderstanding on the part of the admin who blocked me, since they seem to have based this indefinite block largely on false or half-true accusations. Perhaps that misunderstanding was genuine. Perhaps wikipedia admins are not all raging leftists. Perhaps pigs can fly if the "consensus" agrees. I also have a strong gut feeling of how this will go: someone from the revered admins of this site will come and say "you clearly deserve that indefinite block for that political and personal attack on wikipedia admins you just did. Had you been polite, I might have considered unblocking." Only a verbal kowtow will do, if that. I hope I'm wrong, but I never am. In the case there is an admin who sympathizes with me and agrees that this block is unjust and unfair, I apologize. Bottom line is, this block is not necessary, and I will avoid removing or changing "sourced" sentences or paragraphs, but I will do other kinds of edits just like most other editors. I might also leave my views out of the edit summary and talk pages, because it seems breaking "civility" rules is a bigger offence to some admins than actual disruptive editing. MindStorM (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, you put it as well as I could, so - "You clearly deserve that indefinite block for that political and personal attack on Wikipedia admins you just did. Had you been polite, I might have considered unblocking." Also, we're not interested in "I might also leave my views out of the edit summary and talk pages" - you will leave out your kind of incivility and personal attacks if you are ever to come back and avoid future blocks. Basically, what I see is a confrontational attitude based on political POV-battling, and that is not what we want here - we want a collegial atmosphere in which we seek balance and consensus through the use of reliable sources and civil discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

"you will leave out your kind of incivility and personal attacks if you are ever to come back and avoid future blocks" So, am I to understand that I have been indefinitely blocked for "incivility"? This admin seems to agree that the other admin was not being honest when they claimed that single harmless edit to constitute "disruptive activities", but on the other hand this admin says that I deserve to suddenly be indefinitely blocked by said dishonest admin from all editing because I expressed my views in a confrontational manner? This is unjust and unfair. I'd also like to point out that even if I am not the ideal editor when it comes to respecting "collegial atmosphere", the same can be said of the overwhelming majority of the editors on this site, most of whom are never blocked even temporarily, not even ones who engage in more disruptive editing than whatever I may have done. Very well, I will also leave "personal attacks" out. Happy now? Hopefully so, because there isn't much justification left for this block. Indefinitely blocking an editor because of a perceived "attitude" is akin to convicting someone for life for thought crimes. Unfortunately, it seems like there is an arbitrary "first admin there decides" system on this site. I can only hope someone nice is there first. MindStorM (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is absolutely zero apparent sincerity ... you'll apparently only be civil if you have to be - as obvious from the "happy now?" Comment. It's also quite apparent that you do not understand the breadth of disruptive editing you put forth, you don't understand why you were blocked, and you apparently could not care less. You're capitulating not because you sincerely believe it, but because you feel you're forced to. No, thank you. Of course, your last statement pretty much seals it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In my unblock decline, above, I was not saying that a specific incivility was your only reason for being blocked - I was just picking up one or two reasons why your unblock request was inadequate. All of the issues which led to the block will need to be addressed, the main one for me being your generally disruptive, highly politicized, and very confrontational attitude towards editing - for example, your apparent stance that everyone who disagrees with you is a raging lefty and/or a Marxist. That is just not the approach we require here, and I don't think any unblock should be considered until you show a genuine desire to change your battlefield mentality and move towards a collaborative and collegial approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

"There is absolutely zero apparent sincerity ... you'll apparently only be civil if you have to be" Am I being indefinitely blocked because of my perceived personality, even though I already promised to avoid incivility? This is terrible. If I merely said "sorry i wont braek any rules ever again plz let me edit", that would probably have been accepted as "sincere", right? What am I supposed to say here? "It's also quite apparent that you do not understand the breadth of disruptive editing you put forth" I made a single edit after the first block expired, and that edit was not something that can be honestly considered "disruptive" by anyone. How does this [1] constitute "disruptive activities" to use the words of the admin who indefinitely blocked me? "Of course, your last statement pretty much seals it." What is this supposed to mean? I said the blocking and unblocking system here seems arbitrary, since I assume there isn't much discussion among admins about blocking and unblocking requests, and after one admin decides, others accept their decision. Perhaps I should point out again that the admin who indefinitely blocked me based the block largely on false accusations, as the only possible offence I committed after the first block was mild incivility. "I don't think any unblock should be considered until you show a genuine desire to change your battlefield mentality and move towards a collaborative and collegial approach" As you know, most editors on this site do not really care about a "collaborative and collegial approach", yet are free to edit without even temporary blocks, but it's as if you are now saying to me "unless you become a perfectly ideal editor, you will be blocked forever". Are you perhaps demanding me to pledge that I consult the article discussion page for the approval of every single edit that I would like to do? Do most editors do that? I don't know how to show "genuine desire to change", but I promised not to remove sourced content and to avoid incivility. If that isn't enough, you clearly are blocking me for nothing but my supposed personality and/or political views. Will you indeed convict me for thought crimes or indefinitely block me for not being a "perfect editor"? That would be most unfair. MindStorM (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Far from providing a reason why you should be unblocked, you have provided a string of reasons which confirm that you should not be unblocked. Also, since the rants you post as unblock requests are a waste of everybody's time, your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict) I was about to say the following before the unblock request was denied, but I'll add it anyway for the record, and perhaps to help explain the problems better
Just to respond to a couple of points...

"Perhaps I should point out again that the admin who indefinitely blocked me based the block largely on false accusations, as the only possible offence I committed after the first block was mild incivility". No, that's not a valid deduction - if a single incivility is seen as furthering the larger problems that were responsible for earlier warnings and/or blocks, it can be valid to judge it as a continuation of those problems rather than a new standalone issue - a previous block does not wipe the slate clean and allow you to start again from scratch.
"As you know, most editors on this site do not really care about a "collaborative and collegial approach"," - I personally don't know anything of the sort. In fact, I strongly disagree with you - in my experience the vast majority of editors do indeed care about our collaborative and collegial approach and strive to further it. Perhaps your seeing everyone else as being uncollaborative and uncollegial is a symptom of your own battlefield mentality?

I also note that every one of your unblock requests so far has been confrontational -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]