User talk:Bilinski

SoLando's instructions in connection with his attempt to white out dark points of history are not welcomed here. Warn somebody else.

Your additions

Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks and remain civil. No one is attempting to "white out" history and if that is your riposte to requests for the verification of potentially controversial, non-neutrally written additions, progress will not be achieved. Concepts of truth are arguably subjective and the word has a tendency to be hijacked by those promoting a personal agenda so often resorted to when challenged or not embraced by fellow editors on Wikipedia. Asserting that what you write is true doesn't legitimise your additions to the article Menachem Begin, nor does accusing other editors of engaging in a campaign of censure. All additions to Wikipedia must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources and written in an encyclopedic and neutral formulation. Being a soapbox isn't Wikipedia's raison d'etre. We must leave our personal emotions and political adherence at the door and respect the primacy of neutrality and verifiability. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 10:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To SoLado: Begin's involvement in multiple massacres as leader of Jewish insurents a/k/a freedomfighters a/k/a terrorists is verifable. Based on my observation you are acting on the basis of personal emotions or what I deem to be more probable, you are guided by willingness of not being objective. Your multiple attempts to white out historical facts are ridiculously childish no matter what causes them.

I urge you to moderate your language, remain civil, and refrain from engaging in what amounts to personal attacks. Discuss the issues, not people. I shall not dignify your "observations" with a direct response, but I again advise that you avoid maintaining such a tone in your interactions with others.

I repeat: no one is attempting to "white out" history. If it's verifiable, produce sources. Without the presentation of reliable sources, such additions will undoubtedly continue to be reverted. Attribution is paramount for the determination of content validity and appropriateness. Stating something is true or verifiable without producing sources explicitly supporting your contentions completely lacks authority. These words have a habit of being hijacked by those driven by agenda unable to substantiate their assertions.

In addition, text must be neutrally written in accordance with WP:NPOV. Articles must be accurately representative of sources used, balanced, and factual. I recommend reviewing the blue links available on this talk page.

As an administrator, I'm bound by this position of trust to strive to be impartial, contribute objectively, and enforce policy when required. We must all abide by that, irrespective of status or personal sentiment. Opinion and agenda cannot enter the realm of the article space, nor must it be allowed to motivate our contributions to the project.

Please sign your comments with 4 tides (~). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 04:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to do the same. Disallowing truth is not a practice that should be encouraged by users or especially administrators of this forum. Truth, if harsh is written harshly, if beautiful, written beautifully. In scrutinizing your actions, which in fact emerged from you inability to accept truthful additions to Menechem Begin topic, I can and will use language that is appropriate to accurately depict your lack of impartiality. Impartiality you call to be your principle as an administrator.

Bilinski (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not permissable to employ language that constitutes incivility, especially language that, in my humble opinion, is seemingly an atempt to defame my character with spurious accusations. Repeated personal attacks can result in a block, and so I warn you to refrain. I will acknowledge that it would potentially be a conflict of interest for me to block you, but it is conceivable that other administrators would endorse my position and decide themselves to institute a block for repeated offences.

You do not appear to have familiarised yourself with Wikipedia policy, pertaining to both content editing and user interaction. Please review the numerous blue links on your talk page. Indeed, you must distinguish between what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Wikipedia is not a forum but an encyclopedia. All additions to the project must be proportionate and written in a balanced and neutral formulation. The project and its articles do not align with "sides"; instead it is expected of editors to write neutrally, without text being coloured by partisanship, and defer to the verifiable. That is why your additions have been reverted, and why I have requested that you verify the content using reliable sources and ensure compliance with content policy. Please attempt to do so without accusing others of conspiring to suppress the "truth". I've explained that such terms and accusation have so often been hijacked by those with an agenda on Wikipedia that it will not register an impression. Substance, please. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I have reviewed your contributions to the project, and am concerned by certain edits that I must say would be consistent with those harbouring a potentially disruptive agenda on Wikipedia, illustrated by this "addition". I'm baffled by the qualification as the religion of those who assassinated him is irrelevant, just as the religion of those who commit any form of action not motivated by religion is meaningless. We would not, for example, qualify the 1967 Six-Day War as the Jewish invasion of Egypt, the Vietnam War as the Christian invasion of Vietnam, and the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia as the Muslim invasion of East Timor. Those are terrible examples, but they are illustrative of my point. It's utterly nonsensical and extremely contentious when not discussing religiously-motivated events; e.g. the Crusades, the invasion of Andalucia, the Spanish Inquisition, and the persecutions by the Roman Empire against many religions. Please see WP:Tendentious editing. I continue to assume good faith that you wish to be a constructive editor. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 11:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Response: Big surprise to me, that religion plays such a large role in your review of my submissions. You are not the first one to include reference to Jewish nationality before Einstein's name, while constantly erasing it from descriptions of such acts like murder of Count Folke Bernadotte led and executed by Jews. Any discussion with you seems to be meaningless in light of your frequent demonstrations of inability to act objectively. Your attempts of censorhip are tasteless.

Bilinski (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of being (spuriously) presumptuous, I suggest you discuss the issues. Deflection - especially when that evasion entails attacking other editors with baseless accusations - is something that Wikipedia contends with on a daily basis and it never engenders respect. Screaming that others are attempting to "suppress the truth" because it has been requested of you to comply with policy demonstrates a profound misconception of what Wikipedia is (it is not a battleground in which we all exclaim our truth is the truth. We defer to the verifiable and reliable). It also suggests you are not suited to editing in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia, in which editors are not assumed to be infallible and right just because they can't reconcile divergent positions and the questioning of their edits with intense (?), personal convictions.

Your interpretation of my motivations and disruptive edit to my user page is consistent with an agenda inherently incompatible with Wikipedia and one which is utterly tendentious in scope and motive. Bilinski, I'm baffled by your Einstein comment. The religion of any person - regardless of whether it is "positive" or "negative" - is inconsequential if pertinence and significance to the subject cannot be demonstrated. Therefore, it is you who is attempting to assign undue and unmerited importance to religion and ethnicity. Wikipedia is not a platform for the propagation of political ideaology and editoralising. The actions of the individual speak volumes compared to what mere words could ever achieve. Hitler, for example, ensured a grotesque legacy that no war crimes tribunal could ever have surpassed by their articulation. He was his own judge, jury, and executioner.

At the risk of violating WP:FORUM, I have to say that any religiously-motivated bigotry has always, always baffled me. When one hates another human because of religion, one surely in the end devalues their own beliefs and ultimately show only unwitting contempt and ignorance of what they purport to cherish. When someone has to actually be selective in what aspects of religion are accepted and interpreted, perhaps to rationalise their dogma, it suggests bigotry and hate have precedence over sincere religious adherence. But that's my two cents.

My patience and good faith has been exhausted. I am giving you a formal and final warning requesting that you adjust your behaviour when interacting with other users. Disregarding such a warning may result in your editing privileges being temporarily revoked on account of the extent of pre-exisitng incivility and violation of policy concerning personal attacks. If a block is necessary (and one which I institute), I will report my action to WP:AN for community review.

So, ending the above digressions, I ask this of you, without avoiding my requests by portraying this situation as a conspiracy against you in which discussion is conveniantly futile: will you comply with policy? Will you recognise that policy has been violated, that requests have been issued for you to address that, and that your edits have been incompatible with the principles and policies of the project? We are all culpable for our edits, we must be conscious of policy when contributing to the project by separating personal emotions and recognising the primacy of neutrality and verifiaibility. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 01:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User pages

Editing other people's user pages is basically vandalism. Cut it out, and learn to contribute constructively, or you will end up being blocked. David Underdown (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

SirLando: writing to you is nonsense. Your vague and relative perception of truth is a perfect feed for those against Wikipedia's objectivity. These pages are about history and not your interpretation of it. Make some personal page and do subjective edits at will.

Bilinski (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is regretable that you continue to disregard requests for verification. Policy and what Wikipedia is not has been explained to you ad nauseum. Do not re-add unsourced, contentious material to any page on Wikipedia. It will likely be reverted. Editing Wikipedia with a tendentious agenda causes conflict and as you are evidently unwilling to acknowledge your partisanship and editoralising (incompatible with Wikipedia's objectives to be neutrally written, objective, verifiable, and accurately representative of reliable sources), it is unlikely your edits will seem constructive and designed to enhance the project's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you cannot abide by the policies you have been requested to adhere to, I can see no productive future for you as a contributor to Wikipedia. Please consider that and adjust accordingly. SoLando (Talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in absolute disregard of your multiple manifestation of complete idiocy Lando. Please refrain from commenting on my talk. You are "incompatible" with anything leading to conclusive discussion. If I wanted to be exact you act like you were retarded.Bilinski (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am shaking. Bilinski (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Menachem Begin. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It is incredible how this portal have become a tool for whiting out historical facts. I have made edits to include facts at Begin's page with sufficient references to his involvement in numerous massacres of Arab civilians and THE RULE OF THREE REVERTS should not apply to me, but rather to those Jews who claim that Begin's inspired and led massacres of Arab villages should not be mentioned here, like the one who warned me of blocking for my portraying truth of Begin's violence against Arabs.

Decline reason:

3RR is not about being right or wrong. It's about edit wars and their harmfullness to the process of collaborative editing. If you are being reverted, bring the matter to article's talk page and try to reach consensus. If that does not help, use one of dispute resolution venues. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:25, 17 October 2008 (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.

Bilinski (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

For anyone that chooses to review this block, here are the 4 reverts within 24 hours:

• Revert 1 at 14:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Revert 2 at 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Revert 3 at 10:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Revert 4 at 12:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I also see that since I made the block, an anonymous user has made the same change at 14:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC). This is a violation of Wikipedia's blocking policy (section Evasion of blocks) to continue an ongoing edit war and I am extending this block to 1 week. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another IP address has now continued the edit war with this edit. I have placed the article under semi-protection for 1 week. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You can not and are not allowed to block me based on your assumptions. I did not make any additional edits. Who supervises your actions ? Bilinski (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why am I subject to personal attack by this moderator ? I did not make any additional edits on Begin's page which actually is being moderated by some Jewish lobby that does not allow truth to surface. My IP address is visible as I am logged in and blocking me (for additional week) on the basis of assumptions is simply not fair.

Decline reason:

You clearly violated WP:3RR, and the offhand attack in your unblock request isn't helping your situation. — Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:27, 17 October 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What offhand attack ? He extended block for a week based on something I did not do and he cannot claim I did. Original block was for 24 hours. Is this really happening here ?

Decline reason:

There is no cabal, and accusing people of being part of one doesn't generally help you make your case. He extended the block for suspected sockpuppetry/block evasion, which on further review seems perfectly reasonable. It's quite common for people blocked for edit warring to log out and continue to edit, and also common for them to claim they didn't do it. Even if you personally didn't push the buttons, this would constitute meatpuppetry, or others editing on your behalf, which is also not permitted. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:38, 17 October 2008 (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.