Babasalichai
Welcome edit
|
I edited it a bit to have the proper reference structure and some wiki links. You still have to work on it, but it's a good start. Good luck! §FreeRangeFrog 05:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- ... and I added a web citation format to the 1st reference as a sample, there are more reference templates you can cut and paste at WP:CIT. Happy editing! Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
February 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Prsa miami has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bwordpress\.com (links: http://prnewser.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/prsa-conference-weekend-recap/).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
prodding edit
When you prod an article, it is required to say so in the edit summary--similarly for speedy or afd. and its required for good reason: it helps editors and us admins to identify the relevant edits when we check them. DGG (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Aish HaTorah removals edit
Hi Babasalichai. I have readded the material regarding The Jewish Week report to the Aish HaTorah article once again. It is properly sourced (see the discussion on the talk page where multiple individuals said that it was properly sourced.) I suggest that you report me and my readding of the material (which I feel is completely proper) to whatever forum you want to in order to bring in additional non-partisan opinions. I understand that this material is appropriately cited and non-partisans are likely to come to this shared conclusion. I think you feel that I and some of the others on this talk page are being unfair to you -- thus it might be worth getting additional opinions from non-involved non-partisans to assure you that you have not been singled out unfairly. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
October 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Waggener Edstrom Worldwide has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Process edit
If you want to go about getting an article deleted, the best place to start would be reading through Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Just blanking the article, as you did, is most emphatically not the best way to proceed. If you have any questions, please feel free to post either on my talk page, or at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
The article Raisecapital.com has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable per WP:WEB and WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MuffledThud (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
April 2010 edit
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 5W Public Relations, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Look, we've done this a couple of years ago and we're not going to do this again. Mosmof (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Leave well enough alone.... You are once again going with your agenda.
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to 5W Public Relations, you will be blocked from editing. Mosmof (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What was deleted ?
The article Elie Hirschfeld has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No evidence that this person meets WP:GNG. Cited articles are either sources related to the subject or passing mentions.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mosmof (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Elie Hirschfeld edit
I have nominated Elie Hirschfeld, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elie Hirschfeld. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mosmof (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Stewart Rahr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Appears to be a vanity page. The only source of note is a Forbes "richest people" list profile. The article itself is a joke - the second paragraph begins, "Rahr's life is a true American rags to riches fairy tale come true story."
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mosmof (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Responded edit
Please see my response to your question about the editing of the 5W article at User talk:EdJohnston#5W Public Relations. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Stewart Rahr edit
I have nominated Stewart Rahr, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Rahr. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mosmof (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Edward Mermelstein for deletion edit
A discussion has begun about whether the article Edward Mermelstein, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mermelstein until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mosmof (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
November 2010 edit
The recent edit you made to Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto has been reverted, as it introduced unsourced or poorly sourced negative or controversial biographical material. Please do not continue to add such information. Thank you. Diannaa (Talk) 01:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
How is it unsourced ? It comes from your exact sources ? Not accurate and stop whitewashing.
Please do not add unsourced negative or controversial biographical material to pages, as you did with this edit to Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Diannaa (Talk) 01:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Which unsourced articles ? They are all sources you have introduced and all come from the items you have introduced ?
- Hello. You cannot add stuff about some guy dying because the rabbi cast a curse. This sort of thing that could result in a lawsuit against Wikipedia. If you add it again, you will be blocked from editing. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add unsourced negative or controversial biographical material, as you did with this edit to Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. Diannaa (Talk) 01:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yworo (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Please agree to stop warring at Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto edit
You appear to have violated the WP:Three revert rule at Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. You may still be able to avoid sanctions if you will (a) promise to stop edit warring on this article, and (b) agree to stay off the article for seven days.
Page: Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Babasalichai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 00:43, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "Relevance particularily given the reference which appears.")
- 00:55, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "If not relevant why is there source in the article and NYT article about the purchase ? $28.5 Million not relevant for a business Rabbi ?")
- 01:26, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "* Cowan, Allison Leigh. "A Short Second Life for a Building With History" in The New York Times,")
- 01:27, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "Added reading made a reference. How can a NYT feature not be relevant")
- 01:31, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "Made more balanced")
- 01:35, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "Balance - These comments both come from accepted sources which have already been introduced and referenced.")
- 01:37, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "the NYT article which is an accepted source says exactly this. What is unsourced about it ? Its sourced ?")
- 01:42, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "You are whitewashing info ? this info comes from accepted sources ?")
—EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Another editor, 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is also reverting the article. This IP appears to be you also. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Response to your questions on my talk page edit
- Hi, Babasalichai. I think the WP:consensus is against you on including the price of the building in the article. Here is my rationale for leaving it out:
- Real estate is expensive in New York; this price for a building does not sound that outrageous.
- It is not a private dwelling for the rabbi; it is the synagogue and related offices.
- The building is not owned by the rabbi and thus is not relevant to an article about the rabbi.
- The second point you wish to add to the article is a rumour that the rabbi put a curse on a person, and that person later died. I think this is unencylopedic content, and if we repeat such rumours here on Wikipedia, we could be facing legal repercussions for libel. Therefore this rumour about a curse will never be allowed into the article, not on my watch. Thank you for listening. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
May I ask why if the building was referenced for its importance in the NY Times its not sufficient to mention in the article ? And if its about the organization, so why is the food the organization supposedly donates relevant ?
Talkback edit
Message added 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
December 2010 edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Netalarmtalk 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Being disruptive edit
- You do not need to be opening the discussion in multiple venues. This inhibits a proper consensus and is often called "forum shopping" or "asking the other parent".
- Do not use IPs to avoid scrutiny
- WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.
You are going to get yourself blocked if you don't knock it off. Stop treating it as an injustice or some battle and look at it objectively. Most of the information you want in might be possible if you change the way you are going about it.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you make another comment as an IP and why do you continue to not sign your comments?[1] Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It already says above how to sign. 4 of the ~ symbol (~~~~). And you are still not signed in.
- I have reviewed your recent edits. They are not very good. However, the cost of the structure has received coverage and could easily be added. It should not be inserted in an attempt to besmirch the subject, though. Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you make another comment as an IP and why do you continue to not sign your comments?[1] Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok so can you add it in that case ? Who says besmirch ? Of course its factual that he owns it - Will you add it and be involved in this process ? 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your edits do appear to be an attempt to besmirch him. You can see why people think that, right? I was looking at it a week ago and thinking about it and again today. The article is garbage with a poor structure and a lack of relevant details but so far you are not actually doing anything of value to the project. I would recommend not editing the article for a bit since it is causing frustration and ending in reverts anyways. Propose specific lines and where you want them along with relevant reliable sources over on the talk page there. Let other editors voice any opinions on the best way to incorporate it and go from there. You are so close to getting the boot (I assume) that it is the only way you will have any chance at getting the information in.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I have left it alone this is ongoing for 3 months and I post it all over because its simply all BS which is there and everything I want to add is in their sources, but no one gets on the bandwagon. Why dont you start to post there and am sure others will follow ? Its factually inaccurate by far, and whitewashing information. I wont comment at all and dont need to be involved but it irks me to see it be so incorrect. What do you suggest to interest other people so people actually look at it ? Please can you get involved.
Their reasoning that the food he gives away is relevant but a $28.5 Million building isnt ? Thats absurd. Noone in israel or US knows him thats not relevant ? Its of course also relevant that I was the creator of the page. Babasalichai (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- You probably shouldn't want me involved but I for sure will give input if you follow the advice and post your proposals on the talk page. I recommend a separate section for each line you propose with some good sources and an explanation as to why you think it is relevant. The cost of the building, for example, does not need to be a negative thing.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I want you involved because this is going on for months and a few bullies are simply not giving in at all and thats not fair and its not accurate of what their sources even say. I have posted everything on talk page and they dont at all compromise, comment or reason. Of course $28.5 doesnt haev to be negative, in fact its a super big deal and I havent said otherwise. They wont let me edit but if you agree, cant you post and I promise and guarantee I wont get involved at all ? The building is relevant. So too is his lack of prominence in Israel and NYC. Babasalichai (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I can agree to your proposal on talk page. Babasalichai (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yworo (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Babasalichai, you are very close to a block for edit warring. Please listen to feedback and don't revert the article again unless others support your change. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Have posted to talk page in hopes of a compromise. There is whitewashing going on and anyone who reads their sources will see so.Babasalichai (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Balance edit
Canvassing warning edit
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Netalarmtalk 05:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring at Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Together with your IP, 65.112.21.194, you have made four reverts in 24 hours on this article. Your canvassing and your refusal to accept feedback on this article are also noted. You have been trying to insert negative information about this Rabbi. Since this is a WP:BLP article, any information critical of the article subject needs to be well sourced. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
RfC format edit
I'm not seeing a properly formatted RfC for Rabbi Pinto on the talk page to attract comments. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_through_talk_pages. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Pinto article edit
I was about to leave you a polite message about edit warring, assuming it was a policy that you were unfamiliar with; however, I see above that you've already been blocked previously for edit warring. You have to understand--it doesn't matter how right you think you are, the solution is never to just keep reverting the changes of another editor. You must go to the talk page and discuss the changes until consensus can be made. If you don't immediately stop edit warring, you'll be blocked again, and will almost certainly be longer than last time.
Furthermore, I'm a bit concerned with your comments on that editor's talk page and others. Wikipedia policy does not prevent a person from editing only a single article, so long as they edit it properly (neutrally, no original research, etc.). So you cannot seek to have that person stop editing merely because it's their only edited article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- After having been warned (again), you violated WP:3RR (again). I have to request a block for you. You have to learn to stop and discuss on the talk page. It doesn't matter that it's only one editor, it doesn't matter that the only page the edit is Rabbi Pinto. What matters is that you are edit warring, and we must prevent that kind of disruption from the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
We did discuss on the page and noone responds. I assume you will block the other individual as well correct?
Babasalichai (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The other editor did not break 3RR (having exactly 3 reverts in a 24 hour period). I explained this in my 3RR report. However, 3RR is just a bright line rule, not an entitlement, so an admin may well decide to block that person as well under the general definition of edit warring. However, there's a big difference between your case and the other editors--after being warned by me, User:Beobjectiveplease did not again revert the article, while you did. In other words, you saw my warning, and went ahead and edited anyway. Furthermore, you were previously made aware of, and blocked for, violating 3RR. Beobjectiveplease, on the other hand, had never been told about 3RR or edit warring in general, and thus, based on the general principle that we should assume good faith, especially in new editor.
- Second, you did not try to discuss the issue on the talk page. You left two messages since this problem started--one, a completely unacceptable attempt to force a new editor off the page simply because it was the only page they edited. Second, a short comment about one aspect of the problem, based off blogs and your own personal opinion, which another user told you do not qualify as reliable sources. To clarify, I'm not saying that Beobjectiveplease is blameless. I'm merely saying that from what I see, as an outside observer, you're causing just as much if not more problems editing here than the other user. Now, I'm not an admin, so I ultimately will not be the one to decide whether or not you are blocked. Even if you are not, you must stop edit warring, and you must discuss in detail the issues on the talk page. If the other user does continue to edit war, then they will be blocked temporarily to stop disruption. But you must stop. Believing you are right does not justify edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- You need to stop. You are either not understanding WP:BLP policy or you are deliberately flaunting it. Both Dianaa and I have raised specific concerns on the talk page. I strongly recommend that you do not make any more additions without first gaining consensus. You are fundamentally misunderstanding how Wikipedia does "balanced and objective", and you misunderstanding how WP:BLP works with regards to negative statements about living people. You can't just say "AOL says..." Please stop, and discuss. You need to edit collaboratively, not just keep reinserting what you like. Collaborative editing means that since several editors have already told you that what you are adding is improper, you stop adding them (or similar things) until they are thoroughly discussed on the talk page. There's no rush to get information into the article; similarly, you can't say "Well, no one has responded in the past few hours, so I'm going to go ahead and add it now." Wait. Discuss. Get consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Rabbi Pinto. Such activity could lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Talkback edit
Message added 16:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WP:BLP edit
WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, not just on article pages. You may not have been aware of this, but I'm letting you know clearly and directly here. I removed your most recent comment on Beobjectiveplease's talk page as a violation of this policy. Please do not repeat these types of character defaming claims, as doing so will eventually lead to you being blocked. As I said there, you may discuss, on the article talk page only, whether or not sources exist to support adding those opinions to the article. You may not, however, openly defame a living person's character. If you have questions about this, please respond here (so that we can keep the discussion in one place). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case edit
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please stop edit
Posts like this one and this one will not lead to collegiate editing but rather promote an adversarial atmosphere that is contrary to the promotion of good editing. This matter of sock puppetry has already been dealt with by the administrators of the website, and your remarks on the user page are inappropriate. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Dealt with ? How ? Did he apologize ? Did he state he was wrong ? Wasted my time and I knew I was right. Did you bother to scold him ? Babasalichai (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You are really amazing... Scolding me for adversarial atmosphere rather than someone who wrote BS and lied and accused me of doing the same ? but I am to blame ? Come on... Babasalichai (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
BLP policy is not an option edit
As I already explained to you, WP:BLP applies on all pages, across all namespaces, of Wikipedia. Your recent edit to Talk:Beobjectiveplease is in direct violation of this policy, as you wrote defamatory statements about a living person. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked for violating WP:BLP. Please stop this behavior immediately. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2011 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety talk 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)A break edit
I think a break from Pinto (or from WP in general) is exactly what you need. You seem to be unable to discuss the article calmly and collaboratively. Moreover, you have to stop raising the sockpuppetry issue. Sockpuppetry is only a problem when an editor uses multiple accounts to influence a discussion--note that Beobjectiveplease's sockpuppets never commented on Rabbi Pinto's article, so there was no use of sockpuppetry with regards to that article. Furthermore, once an editor reaches an amicable solution about a block, it's time to move on. If you can't move on, then, yes, a break is in order. Relax! There are several million articles you can edit on Wikipedia. I saw a really smart recommendation recently—it is a very pleasant experience to edit articles on Wikipedia which you have absolutely no opinion about. Editing articles that you are emotionally involved with is very hard to do, because you have strong beliefs about the subject, but are restricted by Wikipedia's rules about what can or cannot be said about them. The Rabbi Pinto article is one such article for me--I'm not Jewish, I've never heard of Pinto prior to a few weeks ago, and really couldn't care less what kind of person he is. So it's easy to be dispassionate and NPOV. On the other hand, when I edit articles that do matter to me, it's more stressful and ultimately more work. One way to find a new article to work on is to click the "Random article" link on the left side of the page (that goes to a random article on the site). Often you'll get articles that aren't really interesting or improvable, but click it a few times and you'll find something interesting. Alternatively, the Great Backlog Drive is going on right now, where editors go through categories of articles tagged with maintenance templates and attempt to improve them. Again, these are just suggestions, and nothing you need to follow through on; I know many people who only edit on subjects of interest to them...but there's really no point in being a volunteer editor on WP if it's just going to cause you stress. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Do me a favor - Tell all you say to beobjective. He got caught lying and you people are ok with it. Why dont you check what he attempted to do with other articles. All the editors there besides you are biased. Babasalichai (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case edit
|
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Have responded and have disclosed a family member previously. Whats wrong with that ? Babasalichai (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
March 2011 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerenetalk 10:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Babasalichai (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This was simply a punitive and preventitve block, against Wikipedia rules. The core issue is 2 family users, which was disclosed using Wiki. 1x, in non disruptive edits they edited the same page. They disclosed said issue, and while clearly not being a sockpuppet nevertheless were being banned from Wiki (Would be a meatpuppet anyway, no ?).... and its untrue. Seperate, during the case repeated personal insults were made and an attempt to out User was made. Please read header which starts: Attempt to out user and personal comments unrelated to SPI on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ravpapa Is this appropriate ?
Would ask at the very least for a specific date to be set for this ban to be lifted. Babasalichai (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Evidence at SPI is not only clear and convincing to this reviewer; it gained a good consensus. — Daniel Case (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nomination of Edward Mermelstein for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edward Mermelstein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mermelstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pgallert (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Community ban discussion edit
I am here to drop you a courtesy notice that another editor has proposed to community ban you from Wikipedia. The related thread can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Community ban proposal for Babasalichai. --Dylan620 (t • c) 13:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Banned edit
With this edit, in enacting a consensus of the community reached at the Administrator's Noticeboard, which may be viewed at [2], I hereby inform you that you are banned from editing the English Wikipedia with any account or IP address. Appeals may be made to the community, or to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please use e-mail if you wish to pursue an appeal, as per standard practice, your access to this talk page has been revoked. Courcelles 07:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)