User talk:Borgmcklorg

Advice
For speedy deletion, only the reasons given at WP{:CSD are valid, and they are interpreted narrowly. For the notability criteria in sports, see Notability (sports).  DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your input regarding the Oslo Killer
I agree with your comments regarding neoconservative extremism. The MSM is deliberately obfuscating what motivated and inspired the Oslo killer because most news sources have a neoconservative slant. Neoconservative extremism was also a factor in the attempted assassination of US member of Congress Gabrielle Gifford.

If this person was motivated by Muslim extremism, I doubt the media would obscure it as religious extremism. They label him a Muslim fundamentalist, implying all Muslims are fundamentally violent extremists. Maybe the correct phrase should be Neoconservative Fundamentalist.

Here is a letter to the editor that I am mailing out. I composed it myself, but feel free to use it if you feel a need to send letters to the editor:

Dear Editor,

The Oslo killer who committed the Oslo massacre is a Neoconservative Extremist. His manifest which describes the rational for his actions references extreme neoconservative theorists and websites which promote irrational hatred and fear of Muslims. The Oslo killer's belief that Muslim immigration is a mortal threat to western culture is a common neoconservative ideology. Neoconservative extremists like the Oslo killer believe that Muslims will continue to immigrate and breed until they outnumber non-Muslims in western nations. When that happens Muslims will use democratic means to impose Sharia law and enslave non-believers into Dhimmitude. Extreme neoconservative ideology promotes the idea that western nations must protect themselves from the Muslim cultural threat through forced assimilation, banning Muslim immigration and cultural isolation. Based on this extreme neoconservative ideology, the Oslo killer concluded the real enemy to Norwegian culture aren't Muslims who can't help being what they are. The real threat are Norway's political leaders who embrace multiculturalism and are blind to the threat posed by Western Islamization. The Oslo killer's extreme neoconservative ideology regarding the Muslim threat to Norwegian culture was his primary motivation to attack and kill as many Norwegian politicians and members of their families as possible. Since the Oslo killer's extreme neoconservative ideology was the primary motivation for his atrocity he is correctly identified as a neoconservative extremist. Other examples of neoconservative extremism include the gunman who attempted to assassinate US House of Representative member Gabrielle Giffords and every website and person named in the Oslo killer's manifest which promotes irrational fear and hatred and illegally incites violence.

Name withheld by request (you don't want to become a target yourself Fiolou (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re talk pages
You need to be aware that WP:BLP policy applies on talk pages, as well as in articles. You cannot label people as 'attackers' etc as you just did with these comments,. I have reverted your comments, and ask that you take more care. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely discussion pages should allow more leeway, furthremore, the 'attacker' wording is backed up by readily available wording in reliable sources on the case.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also never labelled anybody as an attacker, you might take a little more care in how you cast things.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - same place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 31 hours
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Specifically, you have again violated WP:FORUM in replacing your comments which are in regard to the article subject and not the editing of it. Since this very closely follows an ANI discussion where such actions were debated and a consensus found that they were inappropriate then your actions were clearly Disruptive and I have issued this sanction to try to ensure that it does not continue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop it
If you mention a "central ethnicity" for corruption again I'm going to block you indefinitely. I'm already regretting not just doing it now, and I haven't even hit save page yet. WP is not the place to spout your stupidity; if you can't at least pretend to be civilized, then please find another website to do to so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're blocked indefinitely. Please tell any like-minded friends how biased Wikipedia is, and how they aren't welcome here either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care much but will probably appeal in a while, indefinite block for what exactly? Seeing that Strauss-Kahn is getting a free boost from leading administrators here and putting up one or two points to oppose that? You can create drama in your own mind, I was just trying to contribute to something calling itself an encyclopedia.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You also destroyed over an hour of gathering citations from reliable sources and adding a very short passage to that page (all encyclopedic, sources were two mainstream newspapers and a gossip blog, Gawker, accepted here as a reliable source), but I guess that was your objective.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I endorse this block based on the user's blatantly anti-Semitic comments. If any administrator ever considers overturning or shortening this block, please notify me in advance so I can participate in the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the endorsement, Wikipedia watchers know you have your relatively high place in the NY legal system, but nobody complained about that or suggested you are a bad guy, and neither have I (although with the ban, have to say that you must have made a lot of mileage from editing Wikipedia at work on client's time). After going through a lot of history, I can't see where I have made a 'blatantly anti-Semitic comment'. Are you talking about something other than the Semitic family of languages?Borgmcklorg (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to be informed too, given Borgmcklorg's mischaracterisation of me (and other contributors) on the AN/I nooticeboard: . Evidently, he/she sees any disagreement as evidence for a conspiracy. Not the right attitude for useful participation on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Misrepresentation, as was the article concerned. A lot of people disagree with the approach here (and have disagreed on wikipedia). Mr. Strauss or Mr. Kahn can hardly claim poor treatment after the first period, a lot of people get arrested and jailed on false charges in many countries, so we are supposed to be sorry for an extremely privileged man who is arrested on possibly genuine charges for a very entitled view and stays in a luxury hotel while waiting for an aquittal slowly being guaranteed by the corrupt NY judiciary?Borgmcklorg (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)