User talk:Joel Slovo
Dikiy[edit]
Stop vandalizing the article. You have apparently no knowledge of Russian, and demonstrate inappropriate POV.--Galassi (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Bolshevism[edit]
Read the intro: "Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism is the conspiracy theory that Jews have been the driving force behind Communist movements, or more specifically Soviet Bolshevism.[1] The expression has been used as a catchword for the assertion that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy, and it has often coincided with overtly aggressive nationalistic tendencies in the 20th century and 21st century. In Poland, Judeo-Bolshevism was known as Żydokomuna and was used as an antisemitic stereotype.[2]". If you want to prove otherwise: get a PhD and publish a well-respected book on the subject first.--Galassi (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are discrepancies as noted by Jewish scholarship and admitted by Jewish sources.Joel Slovo (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Joel Slovo, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi Joel Slovo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
I have been blocked as an error[edit]
Joel Slovo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the edits I have made and propositions for changes I have made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=543295576&oldid=543208565
come from primarily from lists of sources that are available on the internet that are related to this issue - and my verification of these lists. The other lists I used and verified were as follows: http://holywar.org/jewishtr/06money.htm#eventual, http://web.archive.org/web/20120107102813/http://www.jewishracism.com/quotes.htm (for the second item, because the link is archived, you may have to go to the unarchived link to get the relevant citation, however, I did not use linked items, but used other sources in that list, that I made sure were genuine first).
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism#Stalin.27s_1931_condemnation_of_antisemitism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism#Associates_and_family
The other sources cited are those used in the most common overviews of the subject from the point of view of those trying to advocate the theory, and I decided to track them down to see if the claims the authors were making were genuine.
I did not use any of those overviews, but obtained some of the reliable sources they used. I have also attempted to be as cordial as possible, only adding solid sources in my edits. (see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=prev&oldid=539590921)
The other sources I obtained, also solid but more controversial, I listed in the talk page, in order to get consensus. This course of action was suggested to me above.
I'm interested in truth in history, and as noted above there are discrepancies as noted by Jewish scholarship and admitted by Jewish sources - and as noted by other scholarly and reliable sources. To the extent that these claims are valid, awareness of them is important, as they shed light on history.Joel Slovo (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your long statement is not relevant. You are blocked as a sockpuppet of Blastikus, and it is on that account that you must request unblock.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:56, 11 March 2013 (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.
Joel Slovo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Unfortunately it is impossible to request unblocks on the page of Blastikus, so I have to do so here. That old account represented an aggressive editing style that is no longer present - I have been adamant about respecting and cooperating with those I disagree with in this account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Galassi#I.27m_glad , and have used reliable sources and not the fringe sources that I used with the other account. If possible, it would be appreciated if there could be a re-evaluation of the block.Joel Slovo (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See, you are missing the point, possibly deliberately. Your previous account was blocked. That means you, the person behind the account, are not welcome to edit until such time as you are able to convince the site's administrators that you understand the problems that led to the block and will not repeat them. What it does not mean is to just create another account and try again. How to appeal with your original account despite not having talk page access was in fact explained to you, in a notice that even now is visible there. So, right now you are probably looking at a situation where your best chance of being welcomed back is to follow the standard offer for blocked users. Stop evading your block, don't create any new accounts, and don't even try to edit Wikipedia in any way for several months. Then log in to your previous account and contact the ban appeals subcommittee by email or use WP:UTRS to request restoration of talk page access there. We don't unblock sockpuppet accounts, which you now admit this is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (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.