From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Please make your additions at the bottom of this page. Please feel encouraged to begin a new section if the article has changed. I'll try and start it and call it 'New Topic.' Just change that, or start above it. If you don't see it, I got lazy.

[edit] Comments

Your additions are personal linkspam. See WP:linkspam.—Markles 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I tried to add the only collection of U.S. State Constitution preambles I know of to articles discussing preambles. It was my own site. I disagree with the removal of my additions, and feel unappreciated for my work in compiling such a study. I may have erred by sometimes adding reference links to articles only on the verge of discussions of state preambles.

[edit] Immanuel

[edit] Non-Neutral Comment

I am not someone who has any interest in editing wars or dealing with people's personal baggage that they bring to Wikipeida. Your statement "You're the Reform Jew" in the Talk:Immanuel page shows an incredible bias and is an inappropriate comment. Whatever your personal feelings are about other branches of Judaism, please leave them off a NPOV editing discussion. It is hard to talk an editor seriously who claims Jewish knowledge and neutrality and at the same time offers statements intended to divide and separate. Thank you for working towards a neutral stance as an editor of this online encyclopedia. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Any Reform Jew that thinks they don't have a bias in the overall picture of Judaism has a problem, and the so-called 'personal baggage'. I don't find the fact inappropriate or incredible. I don't find the fact acts to 'divide and seperate'. I NEVER expressed any so-called "...personal feelings...about other branches of Judaism...," but the assumption I did indicates an infidelity. The fact I pointed out the NPOV lacking in JerseyRabbi (talk)'s comments when he or she undid a minor edit I made, and now makes those accusations against me is troubling. This commentary started over about two lines of edit, that now stand with his or her notations of citation needed. Mateek (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your 3RR complaint about User:Kuratowski's Ghost

Hello Mateek. When analyzing a recent 3RR complaint that you made about the Immanuel article, I became concerned about your possible usage of multiple accounts. Using sockpuppets to make it appear that your point of view has more support than it really does is a policy violation. To avoid future trouble, I urge you to limit yourself to using a single account. Deliberate violations of policy can lead to blocks without any further warning. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because the Wikipedia cookie expires when I'm filing here at the 3RR Noticeboard, or I forget to sign innocently doesn't make me intentionally deceptive in any way, which accounts for the IP addresses, and User accounts aren't involved! Since I believe you responded to my 3RR Noticeboard post unauthorized, in conjunction with Scarian, a User under partial block, I doubt you are credible at all. Mateek (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Immanuel

Hello Mateek. If you persist in re-adding the same unsourced passage at Immanuel, you may be blocked for edit warring without further notice. If you can't get consensus from the other editors for your change, then leave it be. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Edit-warring on the Immanuel article. Repeated addition of the same unsourced material, which continued in spite of patient explanations. This behavior followed the submission of a 3RR report on the same article which seemed to involve abuse of multiple IP accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The reader gets an understanding of the common sense subject from my additions. Without my additions, present day usage of the subject of the article are ignored, and my additions are already tagged, and credible, sometimes higher in the article, or supported by other articles on Wikipedia (Ex.: Tanya, Esotericism, Semantics, Jeshurun).

The accusing admin(s) seems to be inept, for failing to solve a common sense issue, as opposed to making Jews look simple (See Immanuel Jewish Usage section) by this block.

A second read of Isaiah may be helpful to find intentionally futuristic language in the text of Isaiah, but certainly not necessary, by any wild stretch of the imagination. I ask a neutral Admin to recognize the need for normal, or even wide interpretation, as opposed to the narrow irresponsible one, restricted to the past tense, being kept by this block.

Mateek (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)"

---

Decline reason: "I'm a neutral editor. I've never met you before, I don't really understand what the dispute is about, and I'm not Jewish. I don't need to understand the dispute to see the problems with your edits- you do appear to be edit-warring rather than working toward consensus, and you also appear to fail to assume good faith, accusing editors who disagree with you of being inept, malicious, or members of a conspiracy against your point of view. If your point of view is truly correct, then you won't be the only one who knows that; eventually, some user who has the sources to support these edits will come who also has the skill of negotiating politely with others. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Reply:EdJohnston repeats his statement about possible misuse of IP addresses, despite my reply a few lines above: "Just because the Wikipedia cookie expires when I'm filing here at the 3RR Noticeboard, or I forget to sign innocently doesn't make me intentionally deceptive in any way, which accounts for the IP addresses, and User accounts aren't involved! Since I believe you responded to my 3RR Noticeboard post unauthorized, in conjunction with Scarian, a User under partial block, I doubt you are credible at all." 22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Admin 'Denial to Unblock':You are 100% correct, in noticing I'm not working toward a consensus at all. I have no interest in going that direction, concerning the removal of general reading comprehension. My good faith was doing a tremendous amount of work in Wikipedia protocol, in warning others THAT PROBABLY ARE WORKING TOGETHER, on their individual Talk pages, and in the 3RR Noticeboard, not to remove my obvious additions. I resent your saying I accused others of maliciousness. I did say inept, but not toward editors. You really don't pay attention. Now that you mention conspiracy, yeah, if something as miniscule as editing a Wikipedia page could be termed that way, then yes.
Your loyalty is transparent, and possibly meritorious in some vague fashion. Unfortunately, I have to be honest, I again found your actions inept.
Mateek (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Topic