User talk:83.233.154.50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This host, kr-lun-50-154-233-83.3.cust.bredband2.com, is registered to Bredband² of Sweden, 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.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 83.233.154.50). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. -- Avi 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shechita

I'm sorry, but a shochet is not a butcher. As a matter of fact, most kosher butcher's are not shochtim, but get their meat pre-slaughtered, soaked, and salted from the shlacht hoiz (slaughterhouse) and merely cut it and package it. -- Avi 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

[Later note. This was moved here from my user talk page. --Timeshifter 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]

You reverted one of my edits without giving any rationale. That's rather rude, as I gave one for my edit. 83.233.154.50 14:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Please give me the article name. Also, please give me a diff URL from the revision history of the article. Or the time and date of the revert in the revision history. --Timeshifter 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[1] 83.233.154.50 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Criticisms are allowed even from non-experts. As long as the source is a reliable source according to wikipedia. Slate.com counts as a reliable source. That is why I put back that info. I also have since made many edits, and have put in replies from others to that info. I thought your edit was possibly just more anonymous partisan editing. Many editors revert such stuff without an edit summary. If you want more respect please get a user name. It takes literally only a minute or 2. And you remain totally anonymous. --Timeshifter 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't complaining about the quality of your edit, I was saying it's rude. "I thought your edit was possibly just more anonymous partisan editing. Many editors revert such stuff without an edit summary." WP:AGF AND I did enter an edit summary. But while we're at it, I think you are misinterpreting the rules. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (I don't think it's phrased exactly like that because I can't find the WP page but I know that's a Wiki policy/guideline), and somebody without expertise in statistics is probably not very qualified to make a statement regarding studies made in that field. 83.233.154.50 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone has the right to criticize. And it came from a reliable source. The Lancet study authors responded. People can make up their own minds. Wikipedia just puts out the various POVs in the form of X says Y, and doesn't make a judgment in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. I have been editing Wikipedia for a couple years. No offense, but I know the rules fairly well. They basically come down to WP:NPOV common-sense fairness and fair play. Wiki-lawyering is frowned upon. --Timeshifter 16:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I too have been using Wikipedia for a couple of years and I too know the rules fairly well. I don't drag that up as an argument for being right though, as I think that would seem arrogant. 83.233.154.50 09:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please get a user name, and please stop putting harassing messages on user talk pages. --Timeshifter 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved the conversation back here, as my ip changes from time to time. I have not put any "harassing messages" on your talk page, I've only pointed out you should try and assume good faith even if the other part doesn't have an account. Wikipedia welcomes anonymous editors, but your actions surely don't. "Get a username"? Will you treat me politely only if I hide behind some amusing moniker, rather than an IP address through which basically anybody can found out where I live? Am I really the one who is editing anonymously here? All I ask is that you regard "IP editors" with the same regard you would regard somebody who has an account. There's absolutely no reason for the hostility. 83.233.154.50 23:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason I reacted at all is that your user page says you support a Wikipedia "Kindness Campaign", and I wanted to help you live up to that commitment by pointing where you haven't. 83.233.154.50 23:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
See WP:TALK. Users can remove anything they want from their user talk pages. Please do not comment further on my user talk page. I will watchlist this IP talk page in order to see any replies. If your IP changes and I don't see your replies, then that is your problem. You can solve that problem by getting a user name. --Timeshifter 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

(I originally posted what comes below inside the unblock tag but for some reason, it didn't come out properly)

"Deleting information without adequate explanation"???? Lovely abuse of admin powers right there. If the admin who blocked me is referring to the article on the Plymouth Brethren - which of course he is, because it is the one he reverted me on (twice), the only information I ever removed is [2], where I deleted the one sentence "In that respect, there is equality" and [3], where I removed three names from the notable members list (why? see the edit summary). I've used edit summaries and I also posted on the talk page of the relevant article, yet I have somehow not adequately explained what I'm doing? Note also that no request for an adequate explanation was requested, at any time, before or after the block. I'd also like to add that the blocking admin is a self-confessed former member of the Plymouth Brethren (see Talk:Plymouth Brethren! Also, the one who has been deleting information is him, not me. And his far from adequate explanation to remove several reliable sources is "that's not the way I remember the brethren at all". Please unblock me as soon as possible. 83.233.154.50 14:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You have been unblocked by another admin. I concur with the block and was going to do it myself before seeing you were already unblocked. --B 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Request handled by: B 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)