User talk:67.81.154.219

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This host, ool-43519adb.dyn.optonline.net, is registered to Optimum Online, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

For what its worth, I think NYC's actions were inappropriate and, to some extent, hypocritical. DavidCharlesII 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Note

Please see my comments on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you desist from being a lone ranger dispensing rogue justice and stop your fixation on my talk page from here on in. I will report you if you do not (1) stop (2) TALK with me (instead of arbitrarily vandalizing my page). Thank you. 67.81.154.219 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, blanking your talk page is not appropriate, period. Report me please, make my day, thanks! --Tom 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, dude, but I, like many others, will delete disruptive vandalism on my talk page. You certainly have no right to revert my decision to delete inappropriate, bad faith remarks. If you are so gung ho about it, dude, go after NYC, too. Otherwise, its obvious that you are vandalizing. And, unlike you, I am giving you warning and writing you about this problem, instead of just deleting things. Dude, that is just NOT cool, man.

[edit] Yisroel Dovid Weiss

Please do not add unreferenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yisroel Dovid Weiss. Thank you. -- Avi 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, unsourced original research which serves only to disparage the subject. -- Avi 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it is HIGHLY relevant information that goes to his credibility in calling himself a Rabbi. It does not serve to disparage the subject as much as it serves to establish facts--facts which is known to everyone. It can harldy be called original research.

[edit] ISP Notice and warnings

Please do not remove the ISP notice from the top of the page. Further, please do not remove warnings from IP talk pages. As the IP can be used by multiple people, editors need to know the nature of the IP so that they may construct the remarks/warnings accordingly and also, warnings need to remain on the page to ensure that the editor to whom they are directed has seen it. Thank you. -- Avi 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet tag

That this IP is tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email), it do not mean that the ONLY editor is user:DavidCharlesII, but that user:DavidCharlesII is suspected to edit from this IP, 67.81.154.219. So, as the IP may be used to evade 3RR and blocks, and the suspected user has a history of sockpuppetry, the tag should remain until proven or disproven. Any OTHER editor may wish to register for their own account to prevent being caught in a block should DC2 use the IP to evade certain rules. -- Avi 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I am not responsible for DC2. I am not aware of ever being charged in violation of 3RR regulations. It is a malicious, malevolent lie. And it DOES NOT BELONG ON MY TALKPAGE!!!!

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, in that even registered users do not "own" their talk pages. Al Achas Kama V'Kama (a majori ad minus) IP users, who share the talk pages. If this is a static IP, you have just al but identified yourself as DC2. If this is dynamic, you have no idea if DC2 used this page. Mimah Nafshach (Either way), your statement of discontent is, unfortunately, irrelevant. -- Avi 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to "well intentioned" editors: I have no tolerance for pretense. I have never been engaged in disruptive editing. "Warnings" about the same are clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules as they are disruptive, rude, and most significantly, vandalism. I will bring this up to every single moderator if anyone continues to post such obviously disingenuous and inappropriate posts. This, obviously, includes Brendel's clearly ridiculous, false accusation which indicates he read none of my actual edits. I will accept an apology any time, as I am far more gracious than you. 67.81.154.219 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:OWN and WP:TALK. For better or for worse, there are really no special rights users have over their talk pages, and any currently accepted practice, really only applies to registered editors, and not IP's, as IP's could be any of thousands of people. I'm sorry that you are feeling attacked; may I suggest you register an account? Regardless, I hope you take the time to read our policies and become a constructive editor, even if you prefer to stay an IP. However, the project will take measures to protect itself and the intgrity of the encyclopædia where necessary, which includes necessary warnings and blocks. Thank you. -- Avi 15:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My edits have been helpful, in good faith, and entirlely factual. I am a highly constructive editor. Furthermore, not a single block was necessary or appropriate. It was merely a pretense to offend a vandalize.

Who says the block was aimed against you? This is a dynamic IP. I suggest you register an account to prevent yourself being caught in fallout. -- Avi 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back on Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

You're wrong, buddy. I apologize, but the title of the article is "gadol," not "haredi gedolim." Notice that it says, "used mostly by...Haredi Litvish Jews to refer to the most revered rabbis of the Generation." Not only that, but whose to say he wasn't haredi? Ever heard of Rabbi Moshe Meiselman? As none of the other names have sources, I don't have to bring one, but just for you, I've decided to footnote a source claiming R' Soloveitchik was a gadol hador! (remember, source doesn't have to be accurate, just WP:VER). Have a great Shabbos and good luck with staying out of politics (oh, and just for your personal reference, I am haredi)! --Yodamace1 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
PS "Stay out of politics." Just look at your edits! Rav Schach, Yisrael Weiss, Norman Lamm, The Rav...the gall!!! Please stop editing Wiki with WP:OR, WP:POV, and without WP:VER. --Yodamace1 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Your tone says it all.
No, it was CHANGED to "Gadol," as opposed to "Charedi Gadol", probably for (again) political reasons. Obviously, I did hear of Rav Moshe Meiselman, though he is a lone exception. I don't care whether you claim you are Haredi, or not. But it is clear that you are very political. I am completely neutral, the majority of MY insertions are backed up by facts. Either you have to learn a little bit more of the facts, or you have to get out of some thorny political issues, before you censure me about that.
One thing I do appreciate is your raising an important point. I can verify that I am the Gadol Hador with a nonsense article and have that stated in Wikipedia. It could be that I don't mesh well with your forced political views, it could be that (with exception to the Shach matter which where all my insertions were completely backed up in other Wikipedia articles!) I may have been driven more by the truth than verifiability. But don't lecture me about politics. It is a fact that Mr. Weiss is not a Rabbi and that he has never written a work of schoparship. The fact that it can be implied otherwise is a horrific problem because it steches the term of truth into something that it is not.

I never wrote an unflattering truth about Rav Yoshe Ber. I doubt there even is any. But I don't know what the heck you are talking about with reference to Norman Lamm. I have nothing to do with him, never read his books, never read his article, and certainly NEVER edited it. He is not of any interest to me. I would bemoaon the fact you put him together in the same sentence as Mr. Weiss, as the latter is a criminal who was placed on cherem. But hey, let's not get right and wrong into the picture here.

Please review Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thanks. -- Avi 19:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted this because I feel it is an issue of concern. Avi's right, Wiki's not a soapbox...I apologize. I'm working on not getting so heated on the Wiki and I know I've improved a lot. I understand your concerns about WP:VER (we don't care about truth, just verifiability). However, it's still a Wikirule and if you have an issue with it, that's for you to take to the administrators. R' Lamm was under your "User Contributions," so that's where I got the idea. Like you, I believe Weiss is horribly misguided (from what I've heard, he thinks he's a follower of one of the old Edahniks...maybe R' Katzenblogen zt"l?). Anyways, the title of the section was Haredi Gedolim, and my guess is that "Haredi" was added for political reasons. But the article's title is "Gadol" and therefore it is more appropriate for the article to list anybody whom WP:VER considers a gadol. Kol Tov. --Yodamace1 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My issue with Weiss is not merely that he is a terrible human being and that he is ignorant fool. My problem with the ARTICLE is that the very media he manipulates to call him a Rabbi even though he never learned a blatt Gemara in his life should not be the source to call him a Rabbi. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with adding the fact that he "never published a work of scholarship." He didn't. The Article was called Charedi Gadol. To say "gadol" is generic cannot be true because it is, essentially, a Charedi term of art. Much of the spectrum of orthodoxy which reveres R' Yoseh Ber, so to speak, do it not because he was a gadol b'Torah. Their hashkafos on this subject are different. My input there reflected that truism. It was not political, especially as the header was "Charedi"Gadol. 67.81.154.219 14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never even looked at the Weiss article...I just know that it's "politics." I hear what you're saying, but your view violates WP:VER (we don't care about truth, just verifiability) on the Wikipedia. Therefore, me bringing a source for The Rav makes it impossible to delete him from the list w/o violating Wikipolicy. And the title of the section, Haredi, was a POV fork, obviously designed to keep certain individuals out. Remember, the title of the article is "Gadol," so that's what it should be about and anybody who brings a source saying somebody's a gadol is entitled to put that person in the article. Kol Tov! --Yodamace1 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You did not even read the history, yet you know its politics? That is absurd. It was all about factualy vearicty. That's it. Your bringing sources to include the Rav, however, is political, as you wish the world to think he was some kind of personality outside the MO world. 66.93.254.200 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)