User talk:85.65.219.226

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a second warning, your comments belong on the talk page and not in middle of the article. putting comments in middle of the article may be considered like vandalism and may lead to you being blocked. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

eliezer,

i took your advice and read the welcome page. your article is in violation of the npov policy and all my comments point out such violations.

furthermore, wikipedia's policy (that you instructed me to read) says i have a right to edit this article and is not vandalism.

i am expressing my views and challenging your numerous npov violations - none of which is vandalism on this web site and all of which is encouraged per the welcome page.

accusing me of vandalism and threatening to have me blocked is certainly not civil - yet another violation of the web site. you need to accord me the same respect you expect when expressing your controversial views. that's the spirit of this web site and you cannot monopolize the article page.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. James084 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for nserting your personal commmentary into the main article space, after being warned not to. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining what vandalism is

Your edits might not be vandalism in the normal understanding of vandalism. However, wikipedia has a special understanding of vandalism. An analogy of the wikipedia understanding of vandalism would be, leaving your clothes in the incorrect place (like on the wrong shelf). That is why you get so many warnings. ems 11:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Reinckens

My email is Rick@GodOnThe.Net.

Can you tell me specifically what tag you were referring to? From your entry it looks like you are saying there was a "caveat tag" in the Talk:Messianic Judaism page (or possibly the Messianic Judaism page), which I could not find. The way I read the discussion, Eliezer claims I posted that and he removed it. Now he is claiming he was referring to the Caveat in the Messianic Religious Practices article that is not a tag. Is the MRP tag the one you were referring to? If so, he lied about removing it, as he has never edited the MRP page.

Please understand that I have filed a complaint asking that his administrator status be revoked and that he might even be banned for lying about authorship of his edit and attributing it to me. So, if there is a different caveat and that is what you are talking about, everyone needs to know.

I did put the MRP tag and it needs to stay pretty much as is, including the italics. As you probably realize, Messianic Judaism is a very hot-button topic with Jews who are involved with Judaism. Even a plain notation (e.g., without italics) would give the average reader a grossly distorted impression of the relationship between Mesianic Judaism and rabbinc Judaism. Some Orthodox claim that Conservatives are not Jewish and both Orthodox and Conservatives claim that Reform are not Jewish. But their views are much less strong than their virtually unanimous view that MJ is not Judaism. Also, the real topic of the article is religious practices, so the caveat in it's current form really isn't a big deal.

I also put it there and that strong for practical reasons. I don't want the MRP page to turn into another MJ page with constant edit wars between people who know nothing about MJ practices. If the caveat is not that detailed and outstanding, the page will be a constant target of non-messianic Jews wanting to make it clear that what they consider a cult is not Judaism. Even if the caveat as written is not "politically correct", it does accurately state the facts with enough emphasis to avoid misunderstanding by average readers.

RickReinckens 21:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
See my additional response in the Talk:Messianic Judaism page.
RickReinckens 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)