User talk:Mr. Kruzkin

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Anderson Cooper. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Onorem ♠Dil 03:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your edit to the Anderson Cooper article as vandalism. I reverted it as unsourced. While some reports have said that he is gay, it doesn't appear to be something that he's chosen to confirm. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Rick Santorum. Thanks. monkeynoze (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Bob Casey, Jr.. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Rick Santorum. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Couric edit

My edit to Katie Couric was cited and factual. Just because you like Katie Couric does not change her long standing liberal bias one bit. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that Katie Couric is liberal, and the MRC has the facts to back it up. Mr. Kruzkin (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For you information, I watch Brian Williams, not Katie Couric. Secondly, you have no creditability whatsoever. Going through your history list, I see that you have not done an edit before the 28th of July. However from the way you edit, it's clear that you're not a first time user of Wikipedia. Which basically means that you had another screen name prior to this one that had been blocked because of your controversial, disruptive, augmentative and vandalizing edits. This screen name you have right here, which you probably made on the 28th, is nothing more than a sockpuppet for your ruthless un-neutral ways. You have been warned many times over in a span of a single day for your disruptive ways. On top of that, you clearly like to pick a bone with all your oppositions of your so-called “neutral unbiased point of view.” You really think you can fool anybody with the kinds of stunts that you're pulling on here? You are nothing more than an obnoxious Wikipedian who makes up worthless nonsense on any major news anchor for your own personal pleasure and satisfaction. Also judging by the way you strongly praise one senator while brutally bashing another, I am going to venture a guess that you’re a highly out-spoken conservative Republican from Pennsylvania, and you just got a target put on yourself. Why on earth would anybody take you seriously at what you have to say? In some ways, I should feel sorry for you. But it’s obvious you don’t deserve sympathy. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Anderson Cooper. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Anderson Cooper were not vandalism. They are completely factual. The picture is confirmed to be his boyfriend, Julio Cesar Recio, and it is cited many times throughout the article that he is gay. I will revert the edits, please erase the warning from my page and do not falsely accuse me again. Thank you. Mr. Kruzkin (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, read through Anderson Cooper carefully. Nowhere does it state that he is gay, though it does mention that "independent news sources have said..." He, however, has never said it himself. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia cannot claim that he is gay. Please refrain from adding the picture of him and his supposed boyfriend when the picture that is there is fine. Please refrain from adding false statements to the article, or you will be blocked. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been screwed by a few of the many partisan hacks on this website. Liberals with agendas have been using wikipedia to make their favorite people look great and make conservatives look bad. Please take a look at the contributions of User:KeltieMartinFan, User:Loonymonkey, User:SatyrTN, and anyone else who reverted my edits or warned me with no reason. I admit that the Rick Santorum and Bob Casey edits should not have happened, but these other "warnings" and edits labeled as "vandalism" are partisan in nature and completely uncalled for. I have cited the overwhelming majority of my edits, and yet those still are "vandalism" or not "NPOV" or violate "BLP". Please help me escape this cesspool. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Conservapedia is thataway. — Mr.Z-man 19:48, 3 August 2008 (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.

You were blocked for edit-warring, not some secret liberal agenda at work. I am not a liberal, so that excuse doesn't work. Horologium (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a liberal, but WP:BLP violations don't care what my political persuasion. You added false statements to an article, were reverted, and (rather than discussing) simply edit-warred. If you would like to discuss changes to an article, please try the article's talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected this page for 24 hours due to Mr. Kruzkin's reversions of the administrator's review. The unblock request was reviewed and declined, and removing the administrator's comments is not acceptable. Horologium (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Al Gore Screaming.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Al Gore Screaming.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. Brianga (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:AndersonJulio.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:AndersonJulio.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:AndersonJulio.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Brianga (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

NawlinWiki (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again I was blocked for only trying to help with the NPOV, not hurt it. All of my edits were sourced and accurate. The Al Gore picture was much more up to date than the one already there, that is why I added it. Additionally, it describes him better than the other photo did because he was actually doing something. Apparently here, NPOV is LPOV (liberal point of view), so I pray someone will have mercy on me this time. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Over and above your somewhat disingenuous rhetoric about this (I think a picture of George W. Bush with bloodshot eyes and a martini in his hand would be encyclopedic and accurate but it wouldn't be kept either ... I mean, do we have a picture of Britney Spears all drugged out?), you included no licensing or source information with the image. We have no way of knowing if this is freely-licensed or not, then, per our policy of promoting free content). If it is fully copyrighted, we can't use it as reasonably up-to-date free images of him exist (one from this Flickr stream, or this one (that one from Davos is great! Why don't you upload it?) is acceptable per WP:NFCC) or can be created, as he does make a lot of public appearances. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

It has now been a month since the liberal morons would not let me edit again. I think I have waited long enough to get a fair review of my unblock request. I was blocked because, with the exception of two unwise edits, made articles more NPOV, not less as they claim. Please allow me to edit again as I will only make helpful edits in the future. Thank you.

Decline reason:

In reviewing your edits, I see highly suspicious POV-pushing behavior. One particular example was your edit to Katie Couric, in which you inserted a whole section on liberal bias, justified by a single citation from a partisan organization. Your edits have run from disruptively POV-pushing to outright defacement. No unblock, especially considering your exceptionally poor attitude. Mango juice^talk 19:30, 2 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is now two and a half months since the left wing loons placed a permanent ban on my editing priviledges. God willing, most of them have now been blocked or reprimanded, so I will make yet another unblock request. I have admitted to the two edits where I misbehaved, and besides those two my record has been flawless despite the ludicrous claims made above. I have done nothing to deserve this block, especially considering I should have been warned only twice. And, if you look atUser:Loonymonkey above, he issued a warning for a page that I had already been warned for, further distorting my record. At least he knows about himself as shown by his name. I am sure the majority of Wikipedia editors agree it is time to lift the ban and let me edit, so please do so as soon as possible. Thank you, and God bless you.

Decline reason:

Personally attacking other Wikipedia users with phrases like "left wing loons" will not get you unblocked. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:50, 19 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Apparently, when some radical leftists were blocked, some more came in. Therefore, I will make yet another request for unblock, if editors are willing to disregard the posts listed above since they are blatantly false. I am requesting a permanent, unrepealable ban on the following users: User:Loonymonkey, User:KeltieMartinFan, User:SatyrTN, User:Onorem, User:Jayron32, User:Mangojuice, User:DanielCase, User:Nawlinwiki, User:Mr.Z-man, as well as any others who have been involved in my oppression. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

Decline reason:

Declined. To prevent further abuse of unblock requests I am disabling your ability to edit your user talk page. Further requests can be sent to the unblock mailing list. — CIreland (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2008 (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.