User talk:Spitzer19

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Wexcan Talk 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Hello. Wikipedia requires that additions are verifiable and attributed to reliable, reputable sources. I've reverted your edits to Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Nazi Germany. Your addition to the former is controversial, highly dubious from my limited understanding of the man, and uncited. Additionally, the source used to support your edit to Nazi Germany is questionable due to its explicit partisan stance. Please review WP:RS. Your additions can be restored assuming you can verify them in accordance with content policy (linked to in the above welcome message). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Nazi Germany. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second SoLando's opinion above about your edits to Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Your "source" is completely unreliable per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Unless you can find independent, reliable, published sources, you cannot include this material in Wikipedia articles. Continuing to attempt to do so will lead to you being blocked from editing without further notice. Thanks, Gwernol 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User:Spylab, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Veritas (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Force (Italy)

I'm inclined to believe your statement that the references exist. However, you haven't given any link to those references so someone with a passing knowledge of Italian can go check them out independently. Please provide references for the Party's platform, even if it's just a link to a platform page on their website. Argyriou (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please stop deleting sourced information as you have been doing on Neo-Nazism. Continuing to do so amounts to vandalism, and can result in your being blocked. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke once wore a Nazi suit when he was a teenager and has never been part of a Neo-Nazi organization. Furtehrmore, the NY times is hardly a scholarly source. There are no details given to his alleged Nazi involvment.

WP:RS's cite him as having been a neo-Nazi. Stop pushing your POV in this article. If you revert again I will take it to a noticeboard. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do not cite him as to having tried to revive Nazism--Spitzer19 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Please make sure that you are familiar with the Three-Revert-Rule that restricts editors to three reversions to an article within a 24hr time period. This is to prevent edit warring. Instead, discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. Thank you.--Veritas (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism and Nazi Germany

I am really conserned with your edits as you have done here. Even though some Zionist and Jewish people supported Hitler you can not just say that in an edit summary but you need to edit it into an appropriate article and support it with references. Also saying, "Nazi regime's systematic mass murder of anti-Zionist Jews, political opponents, and other minorities like homosexuals and gypsies in a genocide known as the Holocaust or Shoah," just does not make sense.

You said, "Nazi mass murder of anti-Zionist." This is nonsens! Nazies murdered Zionist not anti-Zionist. This looks like violations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense, Streicher actually said at the Nurenberg trial that Jews had to be taken as a model. Nazis didn't want Jews in Europe and didn't want those in what they viewed as the Aryan race to mix with Jews. Zionists wanted Jews to leave the West and immigrate to Palestine. An alliance between them would be logical. AS for your being concerned, this is Wikipedia where information and knowledge is supposed to be open for debate, unless of course you have something to hide.--Spitzer19 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT#FORUM and not WP:SOAP. It is not a place to debate. If you have references per WP:V please add the information to appropriate article. Please avoid original research. By you addiding the information as you did here it shows bias and POV pushing. Make it encyclopedic not POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 05:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a forum, but it is a place where decisions are supposed to be debated so that only the most factual information gets admitted and not a place for people such as yourself to play the soap game by saying how you are very "concerned" just because there is proof that points to things that go against what you believe, or atleast want you want others to believe. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to make assertions and expect others to take them at face value.--Spitzer19 (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you cannot discuss the information you want to add, I said Wikipedia is not a palace to debate what is right and what is wrong. It is not a pace to take sides. It is encyclopedia! Add information with references after you have come to a consensus with other editors. Igor Berger (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2008 (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) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unfounded accusations of sock-puppetry

I believe that you or someone using your PC has used the first username here and the related IP address to avoid the 3RR.

The evidence for which I have provided on the relevant user and talk pages.

The edits made by both you and the suspected sockpuppets are consistent in nature and almost identical in tone, i.e. the removal of a source on this page despite a consensus on the talk page that this source is reliable.

Whether or not the source is reliable is not the matter I question. I believ eyou may have a point but I believe you have used the IP and the other username to avoid the 3RR. BigHairRef | Talk 05:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing personal attacks and vandalism of New Force (Italy)

The following claims you made in edit summaries are false, malicious,and constitute personal attacks that you make to justify your continuing vandalism:

"I read the books used as references and none provide any information in regards to why Neo-Fascism is a more appropriate term for Forza Nuova than Fascism"

"Reverted misinformation that is not supported by the sources given"

Your fourth revert in 24 hours contained this lie: "Reverted misinformation that is not supported by the sources given, and that subsequently qualifies as POV vandalism from user who has violated the 3 revert rule repeatedly."

In fact, here is what the three refs I supplied (and which you keep deleting) say:

ref #1 "This infamous Italian neo-fascist [Fiore] has just created a new political party called Forza Nuova (New Force)"

ref #2 "the International Third Position (ITP), an international alliance of European neo-fascist organizations created and managed by a group of Italian ex-terrorists involved in the 1980 Bologna bombing, led by Roberto Fiore. Its Italian wing is called New Force (Forza nuova)"

ref #3 "A popular language college in London is controlled by the leader of an Italian neo-fascist party who has links to the British National party, the Guardian has learned." and,

"He had already founded Forza Nuova, an anti-immigration party committed to revoking laws that ban the recreation of the fascist party. A year after his return he was quoted as saying: "If you call me a neo-fascist I won't kick up a fuss.""

Your continuing disruptions, vandalism false claims and hostile attitude will soon have you blocked, and if you continue, blocked indefinitely.

As a show of good faith, you should self revert the false claims you made above. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My claims are not false, your insistence to keep Neo-Fascist in the article is only backed by sources that merely quote the conjecture of the media. That is hardly a sufficient basis to support this concept when you have absolutely no logical case. Neo is used as a prefix to people who adhere to a modified version of an ideology. That is not the case for Forza Nuova.--Spitzer19 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours

For edit warring on on New Force (Italy), you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours. After the block expires, please attempt discussion before reverting. Any further reverts after the block will result in additional blocks of increasing duration. - auburnpilot talk 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spitzer19 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. This is not personal by the way, I thought it only fair to give you a fair chance to respond to tag at top of you page and remove it if the report is in your favour. I have no interest in the pages mentioned in the report and will not be editing them as I have no knowledge on the subject. BigHairRef | Talk 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag, as the Checkuser result shows that the suspicion is unfounded. Argyriou (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Democrats

Enough with your pov edits please. Neo-nazism is illegal in Germany, as are neonazi symbols, expressions, songs, etc...your opinion that the party constitutes "neonazism" does not trump the decisions of the german high court that they are not neo-nazi. If they were, they would be illegal. Your unsourced opinion is not encyclopaedic.

I see from the comments here that you've been wrecking loads of other articles too. Continue and you'll be banned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.35.29 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I NEVER stated that the NPD is a Nazi party, I accurately described them as a racist movement. I suggest you refrain from making any further dishonest assertions.

even if spitzer said that the npd is a neonazi organization, the bvg didnt clear them of that accusation. the bvg stated, that the npd needs to be free of informers, before it can decide upon its legal status.Kalifat (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I see from the comments here that you've been wrecking loads of other articles too. Continue and you'll be banned"

I can see that you have nothing left but childish insults.--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your edit war on this article. You know by now that your opinions are controversial on this matter. Go to talk page and discuss before editing.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not warring, I have been able to defend my position in the discussion section of the NPD article and those who disagree with me weren`t able to refute what I said or even to provide a rebuttal to the facts and arguments that I presented after they expressed their points. Hence, they have no basis to be obstinate when they cannot refute my position and subsequently their edits qualify a pure vandalism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Democratic Party of Germany. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who is edit warring, I backed up my position in the discussion page and made arguments and provided internet links while nobody was able to refute me. I am merely undoing constant vandalisms.--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at National Democratic Party of Germany. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes"

I DID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! You people on Wikipedia are really full of it--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BNP edits

Hi, I want to discuss your edits to the British National Party article.

Firstly The Republikaners is a dead link, the correct article is The Republicans (Germany). Secondly on your claim that the BNP has no affiliation with the NPD but is affiliated with the The Repbulicans,

The BNP's affiliation with the NPD is mentioned in the article;

The BNP has links with Germany's National Democratic Party (NPD). Griffin addressed an NPD rally in August 2002, headed by Udo Voigt, who Gerhard Schroeder accused of trying to remove immigrants from eastern Germany. According to Stop the BNP, NPD activists have attended BNP events in the UK.

Secondly the link you provided doesn't prove that the BNP have an affiliation with The Republicans.

http://www.e-grammes.gr/ideology/europe_en.htm

That page is merely a list of nationalist European parties (not all of which are even European). Nowhere on it does it state that the BNP is affiliated with The Republicans in fact in its affiliation column it shows that the parties aren't in the same European grouping.

Also your change of "the BNP has instead focused against the presence of Islam in Britain" to "the BNP has instead focused its propaganda against Muslims" is unnecessary and POV sounding.

Your edits are controversial and it would be better if you sought a consensus on the article's talk page so other users could have their input first. MaesterTonberry (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link lists nationalist parties in different countries and simultaneously promotes the BNP and the Republicans. The BNP might of had associations with the NPD in the past but we all know that the BNP has been trying to soften its image in recent years. Previously, Nick Griffin denied the Holocaust(atleast claiming that Gas chambers were a proven forgery), promoted forceful repatriation for all non-whites and said that they would not support the English football team if it had black players. The BNP has conceded on all of these positions, positions that the NPD would support. Furthermore, that link I provided does show that the BNP and the republicans are atleast a part of the same movement. The NPD is associated with the European National Front, which are all openly fascist groups like Noua Dreapta(with the exception of the NPD and that is simply because it is illegal to be a Nazi in Germany).--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that their both nationalist parties and apparently part of the same movement doesn't mean their affiliated with each other, please provide some evidence of a connection between the BNP and the Republicans. MaesterTonberry (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in changing the BNP page against consensus, it is likely you will be blocked - and for longer than you were previously. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you persist in changing the BNP page against consensus", I am not going against consensus because all the arguments that have been provided confirm what I have been saying and it needs to be specified that the BNP are a deviation of fascism if Wikipedia desires to be an accurate source of information. Please refrain from dishonest or ignorant comments or assertions if you`re going to write on my page.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit-warring on British National Party. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section of Neo-Nazism

Changes such as the ones you made are likely to be controversial (they had already been reverted once) and should be discussed on the talk page. I have reverted your edit, partly to restore the recent improvements to references and partly because the wording you used was unclear. snigbrook (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Democratic Party of Germany

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at National Democratic Party of Germany. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's a 3 day block due to the history of edit warring, though I've reduced the block to 1 day as the last series of edits were two days ago. I failed to realise the date stamps of two days ago as I was distracted. Please use dispute resolution processes in the future. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]