User talk:MelangePasty

Welcome!

Hello, MelangePasty! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dloh cierekim 09:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nomination of List of Jewish American fraudsters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Jewish American fraudsters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fraudsters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 14:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm Toddst1. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Note that merely wikilinking an article about someone is not sufficient for this criteria. Details are vailable at Wikipedia:NLIST#Lists_of_people, but the relevant point is "every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." The burden of providing such a citation is by the editor who adds the person to such a list.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at WP:ANI. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please do not edit closed discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have removed your editing privilege as I felt you were not here to build an encyclopedia, something some of us are trying to do. If you feel I acted in error or if you reconsider what you were doing, you may post an unblock request and another admin will examine the case. To do so you would post {{unblock|your reason here}}; before you do so you should read WP:GAB. Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I started typing the comment before the discussion was closed, and it went through. Mobile editing does not include the close tags in the edit target. Check the times. MelangePasty (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reason for unblock presented. Independently, I concur with John's assessment that you were not here to build an encyclopedia based on your behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reason is that I was blocked was for editing a collapsed section at about the same time you did, which I didn't know was collapsed. Your block seems to stem from a personal distaste for my content, rather than a policy violation. I can assure you that my additions are strictly allowed by policy, and that objections are spurious and stem from IDONTLIKE any material critical of Jews, which is classed as an 'attack', while any material critical of any other ethnicity (eg. Italian fraudsters) is accepted. Rather than allow me to argue this valid point you have levelled an excessive indefinite block on me because of a genuine edit mistake in the space of about 5 minutes, closing a discussion as I added replies and then falsely accusing me of disruption, which any other editor would simply be warned for, even if your conduct was not correctly observed to be inappropriate. I request another admin to review. MelangePasty (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with other admins that you don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, and there is no point in wasting the community's time with a DRV that will not go anywhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 3 December 2013 (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.

I'm afraid I have to agree. This is a block based on ideology, not actions. She has not been warned about her ethnic views and apparent antisemitism at all, and an infef block for editing a closed discussion is way over the top. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong. But the concern is that this editor is not here to improve the project, but to advance their (or, at the least, a particular) ideology. Jumping straight to "you're all biased", as MelangePasty did here, indicates that ideology does play a role - and that's a valid concern. Valid enough, at least, to justify a block (though more warnings would have been justified as well). But an indefinite block is not an infinite block, so my question to MelangePasty would be this: If unblocked, how do you plan to proceed? Clearly there are strong objections to the Jewish Fraudster list, so that's probably a non-starter. What next? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The objections at deletion were spurious. I went to bed after opposing at review and awoke to find the review closed after 3 hours based on spurious logic. (Mostly 'attack page' nonsense). Can I not argue the point? I would take it to deletion review. MelangePasty (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between arguing the point and dismissing opinions that disagree with your own as spurious and nonsense. At DRV, your task would be to argue that there is an intersection between being a Jewish-American and being a fraudster. Not that there are fraudsters who are Jewish-American, but that the fact that they are Jewish-American made them distinct from American fraudsters in general. The argument that other articles of this type exist (Italian-American fraudsters, for example) is not an argument in favor of this article - quite the opposite, several editors made comments that those other articles should be deleted as well. I don't get the impression, from the comments at AFD and ANI, that those arguments will do anything other than confirm the consensus that there is no place in this encyclopedia for the article you propose. Rather than fighting a solo battle against the community, you might consider looking for alternatives - maybe you can present this information as part of another article, or in another context, that avoids the implication that these people were fraudsters because they are Jewish.

In the context of your block, you aren't blocked for a misplaced edit in a closed section. You're blocked because your edits give the appearance - rightly or wrongly - that you intend to edit in a manner that disparages Jewish persons, some of whom are living. That's the argument you need to address to get unblocked. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided reasoning for why they were spurious. Nobody is going to delete Jewish American Nobel Prize winners. Nobody is going to delete Italian fraudsters, despite what you say. It's nothing to do with an "intersection" or an implied causality. It's simple categorisation. That's what lists are. I think editors have a personal feeling there may be some deeper connection, so want to censor this list due to political correctness, where any negative information about Jews is "anti Semitism". In fact censoring any negative information is pro Semitism and not neutral. Fine, what can I do about it. But please remember that I am right and you are all wrong. MelangePasty (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, though - of the three individuals you listed in the article, all three have articles. All three are listed as being Jewish, and all three are also noted as having been convicted of fraud. The information is there - it's not a question of "Don't let on that these fraudsters were Jewish". We do, prominently. But there is a difference between showing that these people were both Jewish and fraudsters, and making a list that says "Hey guys, look at these Jews who committed fraud." Your suggestion that editors believe that a deeper connection exists (between fraud and being Jewish) is not supported by any evidence, nor does it do anything other than to reinforce the blocking admin's reasoning. "I am right and you are all wrong" doesn't help either, honestly. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your silly argument ("the information is there") could be used to delete any list. Please stop pretending to be objective or logical about this and admit that I am neutral and editors here are pro Semitic.

And it was you that claimed I must argue there is an "intersection" or inherent connection at DRV, again completely spurious and could be used to delete any list. I make no such claims, I was merely cataloguing information.

In short I have been blocked for completely false reasons and your behavior is a stain on any kind of logic. MelangePasty (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I had any doubts about the correctness of your block, you have successfully dispelled them. I'll leave you to it. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone had any doubts about whether Wikipedia mods are utterly biased and borderline retarded you successfully dispelled them. Go hang yourself. MelangePasty (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]