User talk:WorldReporter

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, WorldReporter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV).

The explanation is under the section Violations in the Wikipedia article about Hannes Vanaküla right here under my user talk page. WorldReporter (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hannes Vanaküla. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used user talk. I sent E-mails to user Digwuren and also created user talk under Digwuren's user talk page, but user Digwuren deleted it. In the user talk, which was deleted, I also brought out our discussion we had previously via e-mail.

I also revealed this deed in my edit summary of 15:43, 9 February 2009 under the history of the article about Hannes Vanaküla in Wikipedia:

----

QUOTE 15:43, 9 February 2009 edit summary of WorldReporter

15:43, 9 February 2009 WorldReporter (8,001 bytes) (I left out hostile sect accusations, which were made without any proof (I left out the slander) and left out tagging of insulting titles. Digwuren edited text without answering my comment in user talk)

----

WorldReporter (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, someone claiming Russians are interfering with his psychic powers et al. fits into conspiracy theorists with no BLP violation. I read the article after seeing your warning to Digwuren and numerous, numerous reverts of your-labelled "vandalism". I see no issues with the articl. Repeatedly labeling edits as "vandalism" and undoing them rather violates AGF and makes it more difficult to take your edits as not simply trying to push your viewpoint. PetersV TALK 03:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the rules of Wikipedia.

There is not said that Hannes Vanaküla is a conspiracy theorist in media nor in self-published sources of Hannes Vanaküla. So the classification "Conspiracy theorist" is Your personal opinion and doesn't belong to Wikipedia by the rules of Wikipedia WP:BLP WP:NOR - the article doesn't belong under the Category:Conspiracy theorists.

Adding Hannes Vanaküla into Category:Conspiracy theorists despite multiple warnings is an act of vandalism according to WP:VANDAL. You have been warned of vandalism.

The discussion on the article talk page is here: Conspiracy theories WorldReporter (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violations in the Wikipedia article about Hannes Vanaküla[edit]

Because user Digwuren deleted our previous user talk under his user talk page, I start it again here under my user talk page.

I read the rules of Wikipedia and discovered that the sources for material have to be reliable. There is brought out sect accusations in the article about Hannes Vanaküla. The problem is that these sect accusations are made without any proof (slander). If these sect accusations are brought out in the encyclopedia of Wikipedia, then readers will take these as reliable accusations because only reliable sources can be used in an encyclopedia. It unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla. In the article, user Diqwuren has also implemented tagging of insulting titles such as self-declared mage, and a cult leader without a proof.

Sources for sect accusations under the topic „Media Exposure“ are not reliable sources WP:BLP WP:RS – A biography of a living person is not this what some people have said without any proof in a TV show "Pealtnägija" in which even the programmer of the TV show "Pealtnägija" lied about Hannes Vanaküla (the documented proof about that fact exists) and also not this what one yellow newspaper has written about this person without any proof on the basis of this TV Show only. An encyclopedia article must compose of facts about the person, not of this what someone has lied about this person without any proof. A lie about the person is not a reliable source for a biography of a living person. By the principle of Burden of Evidence, which Wikipedia follows, the burden of evidence WP:BLP Wikipedia: Burden of Proof lies on the one who accused Hannes Vanaküla not on Hannes Vanaküla. As I have understood ,Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not a toilet wall where people can write and smear each other with lies and without an evidence.

Secondly, the article is not written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and is downright defamatory WP:LIBEL. The author of the article wrote that Hannes Vanaküla has been described as a charlatan, but he has not pointed out that media has also declared Hannes Vanaküla as a mage[1][2][3][4][5], a prime witch[6][7], a witch[8], a shaman[9][10] and a clairvoyant[11][12]. Also the sources the author Digwuren has used for this article contain this kind of declarations. The source of the first reference, which the author of the article has used to backup his claim, actually controvert to the claim of the author of the article – actually, media decleared Hannes Vanaküla as a mage not a self-declared mage[13]. Some text under year 2008 activties is a lie. In fact, Digwuren’s opinion that his score was not noteworthy is Digwuren’s personal opinion, which hid important facts. As I have read the rules of wikipedia I know the place of such a statement is not in a biography of a living person in Wikipedia. Hannes Vanaküla’s score was noteworthy as there were over 20 sensitives in the beginning of the TV show Selgeltnägijate tuleproov (Estonian: Ordeal for seers). He got the seventh place and his students got the fifth and the third place. His explanations for reasons of his failure were not complicated. Again, You did not follow the rules of Wikipedia. Most of his explanations for reasons of his failure were plain and logical. By the way, he did not blame russian sorceres in media. Do You have some reliable sources to prove that?

Under bibliography Digwuren has written: „Hannes Vanaküla’s zany publicity stunts, such as begging in the nude for people to buy the book, caused some media interest.“ This is also a lie. He was not nude (he was partially nude)[14] and he did not beg – he said: “buy now, my book.“[15] There has been no other puplicity stunt, which has caused media interest. So You can’t write as You wrote. Or have You got some source to prove that? And naming it zany is Your individual opinion, it has been named as a parody in media[16].

I could have inserted much more references but I did not want to waste my time there where the burden of evidence lies not on me WP:BLP Wikipedia: Burden of Proof.

The article violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP). WorldReporter (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 February 2009 11:27 user Digwuren instead of joining into the dispute over the violations in the article about Hannes Vanaküla in Wikipedia, about which he was informed by an e-mail, he made another edit with the article. With this edit he added a topic "political discussion".

The problem is that this formal inquiry, about which he wrote on 23 February 2009 in the topic "political discussion", bases only on the TV show "Pealtnägija"[17] in which the accusations were made without any proof, which is an unreliable source, and which I described in my previous post under this section. In this formal inquiry, such statements as in the clause Jüri Pihl regarding the activities of Vanaküla's sect, asking whether this sect — which they characterised as an 'extremist group' have no proof and are slander, WP:BLP Wikipedia: Burden of Proof as there is no proof that the group is a sect and that the group of people has been engaged in the activities described by the TV show "Pealtnägija" at all. This material about political discussion in the article of Wikipedia is defamatory and it is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified WP:LIBEL. I also remind that by the principle of Burden of Evidence, which Wikipedia follows, the burden of evidence lies on the accuser not on the one who has been accused WP:BLP Wikipedia: Burden of Proof.

If this kind of formal inquiry is brought out in the encyclopedia of Wikipedia, then readers will take the statements of this as non-libelleous because they know it is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified. It unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla. WorldReporter (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss articles, you should do it on the article talk page. Verbal chat 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I made a new section under the article talk page of the article Hannes Vanaküla with a name „Violations of WP:Biographies of Living Persons, Burden of Evidence, WP:Neutral Point of View, WP:Liebel, WP:No Reliable Sources and WP:No Original Research in Wikipedia article about Hannes Vanaküla” WorldReporter (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least you've taken up some of the suggested corrections. I guess you've earned some response.

A large part of your new complaint is about the evil "libellous" enquiry in Riigikogu. However, you're misunderstanding the law here.

Estonia is a parliamentary republic. One of the fundamental aspects of such a political system is that, as a rule of thumb, nothing that the Members of Parliament say in Parliament -- and formal enquiries are part of parliamentary procedure -- can be punishable via the process of law. The MPs have a nearly absolute freedom of speech, constrained only by their own good sense. Among other things, it means that an MP is incapable of libelling while following the parliamentary procedure.

This article is not endorsing the opinions of MPs of a certain party. It is merely reporting a fact that these MPs made these statements in their enquiry -- which, as I explained, is not libellous because it was made in Parliament. Reporting that this enquiry was made is not libellous either because it's true. Thus, this article, as it currently stands, is not in violation of the libel regulations; your argument to the contrary is meritless. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know such a law in Estonia, which states that in such a kind of formal inquiry there can not be libellous statements and all the statements in such a kind of formal inquiry are always non-libellous. So I disagree with You.

But let's get our old dispute about this article into an end before we start a new one - we had a discussion via Wikipedia e-mail, but You haven't replied to me for 16 days. WorldReporter (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riigikogu liikme staatuse seadus §18(1): Riigikogu liige ei kanna õiguslikku vastutust hääletamise ja poliitiliste avalduste eest Riigikogus või selle organites. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The law You cited doesn't say that in such a kind of formal inquiry there can not be libellous statements and all the statements in such a kind of formal inquiry are always non-libellous. The law You cited regulates the judicial responsibility - it basically sais that a member of Parliament can violate the law of Estonian Repuplic with his expressions in Riigikogu without getting punished by the law of Estonian Repuplic (untouchability). So I still disagree with You. WorldReporter (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tire of silly games, so I'll have to take a more, shall we say, magical approach. I've worked out a little spell you might enjoy. It goes like this: Kalev Jaik.

Feel the power already? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you like it? For your reference, the intro goes like this: Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

Kes siis on Kalev Jaik? Majandusteadlane ja filosoof nagu ta ise väidab. Peale selle on pahuksis termodünaamika teise seadusega. Ma arvan, et sellised tegelased nagu Kalev Jaik ja Hannes Vanaküla on mingisuguseks indikaatoriks meie ühiskonnas. Juskui näitaks teatud heaolu isegi, kui mitte heaolu, siis seda, et teistest ei kardeta enam erineda ja julgetakse omi mõtteid avaldada.

Kahjuks mul ei õnnestunud netist ühtegi avatud foorumit leida, et tema vildakad seisukohad ümber lükata. Aga vaevalt see teda ikkagi veenaks oma õpetuste mõttetuses. Lühidalt väidab Kalev Jaik, et kogu kaasaegne majandusteadus põhineb väärarusaamadel, sest finantsvarasid arvatakse olevat reaalvarad, mida nad tema arvates pole. Raha ei saavat tema arvates laenata, kuna raha on vaid omandiõigus ja mitte reaalvara. Ta teeb loogikavigu enda jutus siin: http://www.skeptik.ee/index.php/2008/11/10/kalev-jaik-revolutsioon-majandusteaduses/

”

March 2009[edit]

Regarding your comments on Talk:Hannes Vanaküla: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Verbal chat 06:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to inform others about the possible violation of WP:COI if I must not bring out the facts about You, which You have written Yourself under Your user page[18]. I only brought out the facts, which showed that vice versa You may have WP:COI.

I examined that source You gave: WP:COI is behavioral guideline of Wikipedia, but no personal attacks, which You brought out is not. So I see You just try to hide some facts. WorldReporter (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. It suffices to say that further personal attacks will be reported. Please raise what you perceive as a COI at WP:COIN if you must, but I feel that they will ignore you, and I advise against it. Verbal chat 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hannes Vanaküla. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made only 3 edits on a single page within a 24 hour period (see diff) (see diff) (see diff) and my previous edit to these three edits was made more than 36,5 hours before the first one of these three edits (see diff). three-revert rule allows me to make 3 edits. It seems You have tuned Your program uncorrectly. WorldReporter (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making bogus accusations[edit]

Hi,

your recent attempts to remove facts that you happen to dislike from Hannes Vanaküla via gaming the system of WP:AIV and issuing fake vandalism warnings such as [19] are unacceptable. Cease immediately, and find a more constructive hobby. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, scanning for mentions of birthday in Vanaküla's paper autobiographies would be an example of constructive contribution. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not gaming the system of WP:AIV and the warning was not fake. I have evidence here (see diff). Your accusation is fake. WorldReporter (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]