| Revision as of 22:51, 18 September 2014 editHighInBC (talk | contribs)Administrators41,786 edits →Cassianto← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:49, 19 September 2014 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,112 edits →Concerned with your edits to the policy page: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
| :I see you just got blocked. Ping me if you want to continue this conversation, however I think we have resolved the issues here. ] 06:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC) | :I see you just got blocked. Ping me if you want to continue this conversation, however I think we have resolved the issues here. ] 06:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Most of your comments up above are riddles with fallacies. For example, your statement, "if the community is not responding to your concerns it is because you are wrong" is a good example of the problem. The accuracy (or cogency) of my arguments has no bearing on any response. Your other comments are equally problematic. You write, "I have asked repeatedly for evidence of the purported problem with edit warring admins and you have failed every time to give this evidence." I have never seen you write this before, and if you did, then I must say, you are not paying any attention. {{ping|Lithistman}} and myself have documented persistent edit warring by the same admin in two different articles, and I'm sure you know this because we've discussed it and we've provided the necessary links to the discussions. You're either engaging in willful ignorance or intentional obfuscation, but either way, I just can't waste my time with someone who keeps denying the evidence that's been presented. Let's just agree to disagree and keep our distance. I'm really pressed for my time, and I only want to spend my time discussing with other editors who don't play games and are willing to acknowledge the facts as they are discussed. You've denied the problem exists, and that's fine, you're welcome to that point of view, but I'm not going to waste my time with someone who goes through life denying reality. At this point, you're wasting my time and I really can't do that anymore. Goodbye. ] (]) 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Cassianto == | == Cassianto == | ||
Revision as of 00:49, 19 September 2014
_by_Ron.jpg){kind=small}
 Talk page archives - Archive index | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
- Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
Re. Chefallen - Adam Neira discussion re. Tekhelet. Please read the details of the case below...Thank you...
11:15 am Paris Tues. 16th Sep. 2014
To Chefallen,
Please inform me how I can send messages to you in the correct manner via Misplaced Pages, and also how to use the Talk page for Tekhelet. BTW, all the correspondence you have written plus edits, deletions and changes have been recorded. I keep excellent records. Jurisprudence and issues of truth and justice interest me greatly. As a litigant I won a very important court case on Feb. 2nd 1998 at the Melbourne Magistrates Court. (There was twelve months of preparation for the case ! I defeated two QC's) My grandfather was a well respected solicitor in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
Anyway let me go through a few things with you now...I will respond to your little asides and put downs. (Not sure who is paying you either. It would be fun to meet you face to face in a bar for a little chat nu...) Your writings begin with C : Mine are prefaced with AN :
C: Adam, you have an opinion about tekhelet
AN : Gee thanks for the condescension. I don't need or seek your validation. G-d knows what I am up to.
C : and that's fine. You might even be able to find
AN : “Even be able to find”...Wow ! You make it sound as if everyone wears the blue thread. Go to the Western Wall of the Old City on a Friday Shabbat and count the number of observant Jewish men who are wearing tzitizit. You will see maybe 2% maximum who wear the blue thread. I’ve spoken to various Rabbis and their assistants over the last six months about the issue. I visited Lederman’s Shul in Bnei Brak on the afternoons of the 28th and 29th May for five hours total. You must be aware that Rav. Chaim Kanievsky has not made a psak on this issue.
C: support for your contention that "there is no unanimous decision by all of the current leading Jewish sages that the claims of the Ptil Tekhelet organisation are true" if you were to go about adding this to the article in an encyclopaedic way
AN : What is an “encyclopaedic way”. You are trying to undermine my presentation by getting bogged down in semantics. Sabotage by pedantry and nit picking.
C : that is, adding the statement in a neutral tone of voice
AN : What is a neutral tone of voice when writing ? Your use of language is very poor. Of course when you are presenting evidence to a court you present facts. A fact is not “neutral”. It is just that. A fact !
C : and citing reliable sources, (not yourself) or your original research.
AN : In a court of law evidence is presented by witnesses, prosecutors and defenders. The evidence can be in the form of written words, witnesses, objects, DNA etc. etc. On all these counts in front of an honest judge with my claims on tekhelet I will be proven to be a “Reliable Source”.
C. However, what is not fine is the following: Disruptive editing Deleting sourced statements such as , and adding material sourced to or referring to yourself, such as here: , ; see WP:COS is disruptive editing and unacceptable.
AN : Any typographical errors I have made or with editing errors are a result of unfamiliarity with the Misplaced Pages platform. But the factual, content rich parts of my updates are correct. They are not “Disruptive Editing”.
C : Soapboxing An article is not a discussion forum or a platform for your personal views. So adding long (or even short) commentary such as is unacceptable.
AN : When discussing certain complex subjects especially ones as esoteric and clouded in mystery as Tekhelet, one must present certain commentaries. A responsa in Jewish law IS a form of commentary/counsel.
C : Sockpuppetry If you edit an article using your user name, then using your IP address User:87.91.50.226 to repeatedly make the same edits that have been challenged by other users is in contravention of the Wikepedia policy on sockpuppetry.
AN : If you read the history of my edits, you will see that only in my eagerness to present my findings did I edit via an IP Address without logging in. This was a result of enthusiasm not an effort to be anonymous. FYI, over the last 14 years I have been actively presenting my counsel on a vast range of subjests on many media platforms all around the world. I am proud to say I always use my real, legal name. Unlike others I don’t snipe from afar.
C : "Ownership" Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars andpersonal attacks, and is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. No-one owns an article. So telling me "Please desist from editing my revisions to the "Tekhelet" page" and "Desist forthwith from removing my edits/updates" is way out of line.
AN : Interestingly, the Intellectual Property for making tekhelet in the first place was private. Someone, i.e. the High Priests family, did own the Intellectual Property. When the truth comes out about Tekhelet and how it was rediscovered the Misplaced Pages Page willn need to reflect this. If Misplaced Pages is to be reputable form of media it must protect the rights of various companies and organisations to their intellectual property. You will not find various pieces of confidential information, e.g. the secret recipe for Coca Cola on Misplaced Pages. When you are slandered, libelled or defamed it is quite within your right to stand up to the abuse. Also, you should maybe look up the concept of lesee majeste.
C : Threatening other users. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Misplaced Pages prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. It's completely unacceptable to make direct or indirect threats such as "A warning to you...Be very careful who you cast aspersions on" as here: and and here . See above; you do not own the article and do not have the authority to tell another editor not to edit it. That behavior constitutes bullying, violates the civility principles of Misplaced Pages and is not tolerated.
AN : You are being disingenous. Trying to suggest that by defending myself and my findings from slander, deletion, silencing and abuse that is somehow bullying. You are trying to frame the debate and use the “rules” of Misplaced Pages to fix the outcome. Thus it is not a fair court hearing. See the following article for how someone, i.e. MK Litzman also tried to “set someone up”. www.timesofisrael.com/lipman-denies-making-death-threat-against-haredi-mk/ I am also a very polite and civil person, but one must react to abuse on one’s person...
C : September 2014 You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages. I've reverted your edits to the article based on all of the above and as noted in the edit comments. If you want to change something in the article, open a discussion on the talk page and state what you want there. If you gain consensus from other editors, we can add it in. If you simply revert to your changes again, I will take this case to the administrators with the request that you be banned from editing Misplaced Pages as someone who does not seem to be willing to work collaboratively and within the policies of Misplaced Pages. Chefallen(talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
AN : I repeat...I am happy to work within the parameters of Misplaced Pages, if it is a fair court setting, and my findings and research can be presented, so please inform me how the Talk forum works.
How does one access it ?
Is it a “to and fro” process ?
Does one post one’s questions then they are answered ?
I await your responses to my questions here.
I repeat...I keep extensive, detailed notes of all important events and proceedings in my life. It is a habit I have developed since a young man. G-d loves truth and justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNeira (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not Chefallen. I think you have the wrong page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Autoblock
I noticed that, recently you blocked Rajesh Khadka447. The IP used by him is a shared IP of a mobile company Ncell (I guess because I could not edit from Ncell network). I have also got affected by that autoblock. Can that autoblock be lifted? — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Considering you were blocked in the past for sock puppetry I am inclined to think that perhaps the autoblock is working as intended. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am going to ask Callanecc what they think about this before I decide what to do. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Concerned with your edits to the policy page
Hello. I have noticed three issues with your edits on the talk page for Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring, and I'm coming here to raise them with you in order to resolve them. If we can't resolve them, I'm afraid I'll have to escalate this matter.
- You have twice changed/modified my comments in the noticeboard discussion in a way that makes my comments completely unintelligible. Please review the following diffs: I will AGF and chalk this up to problems with your browser. However, I must ask that you use your preview function to prevent this from happening again.
- You have, IMO, failed to AGF and you've made several accusations without merit on the talk page. This tends to distract from the discussion at hand and changes the subject. Please do not continue to do this in the future.
- Your use of a changing color in your signature makes it seem like multiple editors are commenting when it is only you. This gives artificial weight to your comments and can be very confusing for other editors. In the future, please consider sticking to a single signature in policy discussion to prevent this false appearance of consensus. I will ping @Mark Miller: and @Lithistman: to see if they too share these concerns or have others to add to this discussion.
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize for my posts accidentally mangling your posts, it was entirely by accident. I have used a similar signature for years and I do not think it appears to by multiple people, my username is clearly spelled out and my "ping" message is highly distinct. You pinging people who you know have been disagreeing with me only serves to vindicate my belief you were attempting to draw people into the discussion in a non-neutral fashion. I did not mention canvassing in a vacuum.
- Have a nice day. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response. I'm afraid we see the world in two, entirely different ways. I'm really not looking for an apology, nor do I require one. I'm asking you to stop editing my comments. If that means using the preview function, then great, but please do not continue doing it and then apologize for it later. I don't want apologies, I just want the behavior to stop. In regards to your sig, you have failed to heed my criticism, insisting that no problem exists. I've just told you about the problem and in response, you denied it. That's exactly why I pinged two other editors to comment. For your information, Mark Miller and I disagree more than we agree, and as far as Lithistman is concerned, I met him for the first time yesterday, and I have had a very limited discourse with him. For you to view outside input into either a policy discussion or a dispute as "canvassing" and "non-neutral" speaks to a fundamental disconnect with how we use talk pages and discuss topics. I haven't canvassed anyone on Misplaced Pages at any time; asking for input and sharing discussion links with interested parties is encouraged. To summarize, you see things as "us and them", "friends and enemies", and "black and white". What you need to understand is that others do not. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- The failure of mediawiki software to catch every edit conflict is a long standing bug for many years. I told you it was an accident and it happens to the best of us.
- To avoid the appearance of canvasing next time you seek to add people to a discussion go to a neutral forum and request the public to give their opinions. You did ask in a neutral manner but you cherry picked individuals.
- You talk of black and white yet you want to make special policy that singles out admins when existing policy already treats them equally. You are trying to make the policy into an us/them situation with words like "especially", well it does not get more black and white than that. It is very clear you have an ax to grind with admins.
- When 23skidoo blocked you the community saw it was wrong and responded by unblocking you and admonishing the admin. If the community is not seeing the bad behavior in another admin action that you are seeing then perhaps you should consider the fact that you are seeing things that are not there. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to correct many of your misunderstandings beginning with the first one:
- Please do not blame your inability to use the preview button on the software. Looking at the page history, you modified my comments in two separate edits, for no reason. I assumed good faith that you pressed the wrong keyboard combination and copypasted something where it wasn't supposed to be. However, the fact that this happened twice on the same page, and only to me, made me wonder what was going on. I assume it won't happen again because you will be using the preview button in the future. As I said, I have AGF so far, but if it does happen again, I will escalate this matter.
- I can invite anyone who is interested in a policy discussion, and I did just that. Mark Miller explained to you his interest in these matters, and Lithistman is concerned about admins edit warring as much as I am. They were invited for related reasons. Nobody was inappropriately canvassed and I will ask you now to stop making that accusation and implication. I am well aware of how to invite people to discuss on Misplaced Pages.
- I have not proposed any special policy, that is your own POV, and it's one I will continue to dispute. I have proposed that the very appearance of admins in an edit war is problematic because they are the ones tasked with enforcing edit warring in the first place. Further, the community is unwilling to sanction admins for edit warring. Most editors understand this problem. You claim that existing policy treats them equally, but I just explained how it doesn't. In an edit war, an admin can threaten to use their authority or request the authority of other admins. An editor has no such authority, and cannot "wave their badge around" as Lithistman observed. Also, in an edit war, an editor is at a major disadvantage when he/she is reverted by an admin, and an admin will often threaten that editor on the article talk page and on their user page, again as observed by Lithistman. I have no axe to grind with anyone, and I've already warned you about making these kinds of accusations.
- You seem to know very little about the 23skidoo block, so I suggest you go back and review it in the appropriate place(s). 23skidoo appeared to be using his position as an administrator to protect and defend what looked like either promotional or paid editing, particularly in terms of SEO. Because of the fluidity of this incident, it was never actually proven, but the allegation (and evidence) was pointing to some kind of involvement on the part of 23skidoo. When I was unfairly blocked for trying to put a stop to this, I was specifically asked by another admin if I wanted to pursue sanctions against 23skidoo. I explicitly made it clear that I did not, because I do not view things as black and white, or us and them as you claim, and furthermore, I had no axe to grind with him or anyone else. My goal was to solve the problem at hand, which at the time of my block was fixed with the help of the community. I would have to revisit the relevant pages to see if the problem has returned or not. In any case, the 23skidoo incident shows quite clearly that I don't have an axe to grind, as I could have pursued the removal of his tools and I chose not to do so. How you could possibly mix this incident up with the current problem under discussion is astounding. There's no possible connection between the two.
- There is currently a problem with admins edit warring and failing to receive sanctions, and that's what's under discussion. Both Lithistman and myself have been repeatedly reverted by the same admin within a period of one week in two different articles. That's clearly indicative of a problem. When the admin was confronted, they denied edit warring. Yet, if any other editor had engaged in this kind of disruption, they would have been immediately blocked. But not admins.
- I would like to correct many of your misunderstandings beginning with the first one:
- That's the problem we're discussing on the policy page, and if you refuse to see it or address it, then that's your right. But your behavior there seems to be focused on distracting away from the discussion, whether it's by modifying my comments, changing the subject, or making accusations, anything but actually addressing the topic. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- You just said that you knew Lithistman was involved in an edit war with the same admin as you. You knew they held a certain opinion on the matter when you contacted him/her. That is what I am calling canvasing. You were not getting consensus so you dropped a few messages on user talk pages of users you knew would sympathize. Don't claim it was neutral while saying yourself that you knew they had strong opinions on the subject.
- You cannot invite anybody to join the discussion, that is the whole point of WP:CANVAS. I suggest you read it, if such behavior continues I will seek broader attention to your actions.
- Stop fussing about my accidental change to your edits. I told you it was an accident, I explained what happened. Let it go.
- The only reason I mention 23skidoo was to point out that the community does in fact act when an admin steps out of line. I repeat my suggestion that if the community is not responding to your concerns it is because you are wrong. I have asked repeatedly for evidence of the purported problem with edit warring admins and you have failed every time to give this evidence.
- You are trying to change policy. You are trying to change admins being treated like any other editor to admins being "especially" cautioned for this and that. That is a new thing and it has not gained support.
- You are trying to change the policy and you are failing. Don't blame me. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see you just got blocked. Ping me if you want to continue this conversation, however I think we have resolved the issues here. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Most of your comments up above are riddles with fallacies. For example, your statement, "if the community is not responding to your concerns it is because you are wrong" is a good example of the problem. The accuracy (or cogency) of my arguments has no bearing on any response. Your other comments are equally problematic. You write, "I have asked repeatedly for evidence of the purported problem with edit warring admins and you have failed every time to give this evidence." I have never seen you write this before, and if you did, then I must say, you are not paying any attention. @Lithistman: and myself have documented persistent edit warring by the same admin in two different articles, and I'm sure you know this because we've discussed it and we've provided the necessary links to the discussions. You're either engaging in willful ignorance or intentional obfuscation, but either way, I just can't waste my time with someone who keeps denying the evidence that's been presented. Let's just agree to disagree and keep our distance. I'm really pressed for my time, and I only want to spend my time discussing with other editors who don't play games and are willing to acknowledge the facts as they are discussed. You've denied the problem exists, and that's fine, you're welcome to that point of view, but I'm not going to waste my time with someone who goes through life denying reality. At this point, you're wasting my time and I really can't do that anymore. Goodbye. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Cassianto
Thank you for removing his attacks on me. Caden 22:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would not have it any other way. It was clearly out of line. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)