User talk:HugoZHackenbusch

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Harry's Place, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Place

Please discuss major changes to articles on the articles talk page, BEFORE making such edits. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Harry's Place, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harry's Place. 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. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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) 17:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK boss you da man HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the paragraph that was removed by Matty (removed without any discussion, i.e. simply an act of vandalism). As I pointed out, the paragraph is supported by many citations which I painstakingly added, and which were viewed by SineBot. Later today - time permitting - I will add a paragraph on the blog's provocative and abusive comments about Caryl Churchill's play, Seven Jewish Children. This will also be fully supported by citations HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look up the definition of vandalism before throwing that word around, alright? I don't understand how a bot can review your changes, maybe you meant somewhere else? I saw no discussion. Regardless, getting the O.K. from one person is 100% not consensus. You don't seem to understand that you can't add the blog in as a reference to itself for these sorts of claims as that means you are simply interpreting what the blog says. We use third party sources for this reason. Also, your citations are from a blog, ie unusable on Wikipedia. I'd ask you to revert your changes and read the policies I have directed you to. Matty (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are there to demonstrate the point that there are a lot of articles on Harrys Place that attack anti-Zionist Jews, which is quite clearly the case, and which is a point not previously covered in the wikipedia article. Sorry, I'm not undoing the additions to the site, and I plan to add a comment on the frequent recent articles about Caryl Churchill. Please do not undo them without prior discussion. Best regards HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are not allowed to interpret those citations. We require third party independent citations to reference claims as stated in our policy WP:RS which I encourage you to review. Unless you can find third party reliable sources for your additions then they will end up being reverted. I've given you the chance to undo them, if you don't want to and can't cite your information then this will have to go further. Following your previous changes one can clearly see you are a vivid opponent to the website and therefore should not be contributing to the article in the way you are. Please read WP:COI as well. I have directed you to both WP:RS and WP:CITE, so it is safe to say you are now aware of our policies and can no longer claim ignorance if you decide to continue your editing style. Could you please direct me to the discussion you made before adding your changes? Thank you, Matty (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "interpretation" involved here. It is perfectly clear that you have some kind of personal loyalty to the blog - perhaps you are even a contributor as there is a regular HP contributor called "Matt" - who takes offense at the fact that I have pointed out what is palpably true, that Harrys Place posts articles that attack anti-Zionist Jews. However, I will add some external links confirming this. So please wait until I have had the opportunity to do so. HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added an external link relating to David Toube's attacks on anti-zionist Jews as requested by Matty. More will follow as I find them. I wonder how far he will move the goalposts this time? HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matty writes, "Also, your citations are from a blog, ie unusable on Wikipedia" This is patent nonsense as a lot of the other references are to HP blog entries, and Matty has not seen fit to complain about them. Also, the wikipedia article is itself about a blog (Harrys Place) so of course there are citations referring to blog entries! Now I have no doubt whatsoever that Matty feels some personal loyalty to Harrys Place. HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Harry's Place is, nor do I care to find out. I'm not a biased editor and i'm not taking a side. Please don't characterise me as you have no idea who I am or what I believe. What i'm doing is telling you that you're incorrectly citing things and should not be editing this article in the first place as you seem to have a very strong conflict of interest and you are not trying to edit from a neutral point of view - from what I can see you are trying to turn the article into an attack page on a blog that doesn't support your beliefs. I said there was a problem with EVERY citation you added as they're all blogs. That is the problem. Do you understand now? Blogs are not accepted as sources. By interpreting primary sources you are violating our no original research policy (you cannot cite the blog directly as this means you are interpreting what it says; a third party reliable source should be doing this - not you). By editing this article in the fashion you are, you have violated our conflict of interest guidelines. You are not going to be able to sway the article to your point of view as we have a neutral point of view policy. Please start finding usable references and cite them properly or I will revert your changes as unreferenced controversial information. I hope you can understand what I am asking you to do this time as I cannot make it clearer. I will be addressing your changes on the talk page, and am still requesting a link to where you discussed your changes. Matty (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would move the goalposts again. This is hypocritical nonsense and you are clearly not objective, Matty. You write: "I said there was a problem with EVERY citation you added as they're all blogs. Blogs are not accepted as sources." So what about all the blog references that were there before I even touched the article (and are still there)? Your comment puts the whole wikipedia article in question! Either accept that people other than the blog's authors have a right to add material or delete ALL blog references (or if you cannot do this, then maybe the entire article should be removed). Wikipedia should not be serving as free advertising space for a controversial political blog, especially one that a) promotes hatred towards muslims and b) is personally vindictive towards many of its opponents, particularly the ones I cited. HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked and the following references, none of them added by me, link to blogs: 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25. Most of these simply link to the Harrys Place homepage, so they are just free advertising. By contrast, I linked to the relevant articles. So looks like you'd better move those goalposts again, Matty (or should that be MattG?) HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove all the references that link to blogs, i'll be doing it tomorrow as i'm going to sleep now. I saw you cited a bunch of your edits from Harry's place but my comments go for everything. I'd also like the snide attacks to stop, not everyone is plotting against you and you're hardly in a position to question my neutrality on this article based on your edits. Basically, what i'm saying is all your edits are currently uncited as none of the citations you made contain valid references (as is the case with most of the article). I'm going to be reverting your edits however because they're also controversial and libel as well as uncited. I've given you the chance to revert them, i've explained to you why they should be removed, if you want to say I have some sort of agenda that doesn't really matter - anyone looking into the issue will be able to see that is not the case. I couldn't care less if the blog attacks baby unicorns to be honest, all i'm concerned about here is whether or not your recent edits which try to case a negative light on the blog meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. For a final time, i'd like the link to the discussion where an administrator said you should make those edits. You claimed it happened but I see no evidence that it did.

Cliffnotes: Your edits breach WP:OR, WP:RS/WP:V and WP:NPOV. I will be reverting them but I don't want to have an edit war because I have no doubt you will just revert me back even though i've clearly laid out why they can't stay. If you want a second opinion on what i'm saying to make sure that i'm not just making things upI encourage you to consult an administrator for advice on what to do or start a new section on the talk page. If you don't revert your edits then I will have to (im giving you more than adequate time to source them though), but if you continue to press your point of view on the article without reliable third party sources and edit war with me you may be blocked for disruption. I don't mind if your edits stay, just make them neutrally and per policy, tone down on the attacks (we all know how you feel about the website), and try not to sidestep what i'm asking you to do. If you really need to reply to this then feel free but theres little point going around in circles over this because you seem to ignore everything I say and substitute in what you want me to say, so i'll let your actions do the talking for the time being. Thank you, Matty (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matty: Please feel free to make whatever changes you deem necessary. However, I strongly recommend that you apply the same standards to the ENTIRE article and not just my additions. Then we might end up with an article that is objective and not just an advertisement for Harrys Place, and I will have made my point. In particular, you should remove the self-serving references that I enumerated above. As a guide to what I think might be considered a more objective article about a political blog that pushes a particular agenda, I would recommend that you take a look at the Daily Kos article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos HP certainly does not deserve more airspace. If you can do this then I am out of here for good. If not, I will be back. Cheers and good luck HugoZHackenbusch (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Harry's Place has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Martin451 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Harry's Place. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Martin451 (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Harry's Place. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Harry's Place. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 17:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HugoZHackenbusch for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. WuhWuzDat 22:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]