Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 18 October 2007

Welcome!Last edited: Last edited by:16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) DavidCharlesII (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account! Your host, dsl093-254-200.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net (66.93.254.200), may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Messages

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. As a member of the Misplaced Pages community, I would like to remind you of Misplaced Pages's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Kofi Annan. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Thank you! Sciurinæ 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. -- Szvest 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. If you wish to make neutral and unbiased contributions, feel free to do so after the block expires. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Please read WP:NPOV. You appear to be a fanatic Litvishe yid. Your edits on Norman Lamm and Shlomo Riskin can be described as vandalism. These rabbonim may not be our type, but they are qualified Orthodox rabbis, like it or not. For YOU to retract their semichah (which is what you were trying to do with your edits) is crazy. I propose that if you want to be so frum, you start by throwing your computer out of the house. Further, your edits to Elazar Shach and Neturei Karta are highly POV and the second is vandalism. I completely agree with PinchasC's blocking of you. --Daniel575 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

Misplaced Pages has no discussion board. You are referring to 'terrorists' while others would refer to them as 'anti-Zionist peace activists'. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA for factual information, not a place for your own political views. Further, if you are DavidCharlesII (talk · contribs), sign in as such. And sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes: ~. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta: again

You again vandalized Neturei Karta. You have proven what you are: a fanatic Litvishe yid. You changed "Neturei Karta does not consist of Hasidim, but of Litvish Jews" into "Neturei Karta consists of Hasidim" (not exact, from the head). This is a plain lie, as everybody knows. They are Graniks. You are calling the Gra a Hasid. I think he would be very grateful of you calling him a Hasid, don't you think he would love it? Quit this behavior. This your so so-manieth warning. Quit it now. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not my type to butt in (I did, because this is what appears before I could even log on), but I highly resent your use of "Litvish" as though it some kind of negative adjective. Factually and historically, it cannot be regarded as such. Without the Litvaks you malign, you would not have Torah or mussar. Whatever your political bent may be as a chussid, let us all try to be positive with one another. If you notice, I have been working on myself, too. And my contributions, generally on the discussion pages, have been positive--aiming toward the goal of enhancing Misplaced Pages's services. I took your constructive advice--for which I am profoundly greatful--and I hope you recognize that what I am writing here is in the same spirit.

Second, the Gaon was called a chussid by Litvaks. He still is today. Let us not demonize him. Even the baal HaTanya (I write this because you are a Lubavitcher) wrote out against such behavior.

Respectfully, I remain, DavidCharlesII 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Lubavitcher. Quite the contrary. I do not identify with anything, but I am close to Dushinsky. That's not quite the same as Lubavitch, hehe. Further, your remark "Without the Litvaks ... you would not have Torah" is also quite intolerent to say the least. The reason for my remark (twice) about this user being Litvish is because, unfortunately, some Litvishe people have an EXTREMELY rigid way of thinking, with no independence or own intellect at all. This is the profile the previous user fits into. Chassidim user their brains a lot more than these Litvaks. For example, as you can see, this user changed "NK are not Chassidim but Litvaks" into "NK are Chassidim". Such things are plain vandalism. Obviously he wrote that because he hates chassidus and wants to blacken chassidim by calling NK 'chassidim', which is plainly not true. They are Graniks. The Gra was not a chossid. If you find out who it is, please give him a very harsh notice that Misplaced Pages is not the Yated. And lastly, I am not demonizing the Gra (ch'v), I am merely noting that this (Litvishe) user was calling the Gra a chossid, by calling NK chassidim. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Chasidim user their brains a lot more than these Litvaks.

I would counter that this is quite intolerant, as well. It is interesting that you fail to see kanoim among Chasidim. You really need examples?

DavidCharlesII 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted Reb Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik

Given this kanoi's history, it should come to no one's surprise that he also deleted R' Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik ("the Rov") from the Brisk yeshiva page. I could reasonably see someone putting up a discussion about it (which I've addressed on that talk page), but to just go ahead and delete R' Yoshe Ber is going too far. Can we agree that's also in violation of NPOV, please? I think it's only appropriate that this user be blocked. TLMD13 09:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

You have to be living in dream world to think YU is a Brisker Yeshiva. It was inserted by MO kannoim and removed because it violates NPOV rules.

in response to your comment on 67's talk page

I'm not going to get into a yeshivish discussion of what in the hareidi olam constitutes politics because it's not worth my time. What is worth my time is the legitimization of a gadol hador, what one might call "kavod harebbe." Know the following: 1. R' Joseph B. Soloveitchik is called a "gadol" in a verifiable source. It would be against the rules to remove him. 2. I know and never did deny he was associated with the MO world. Were his philosophies MO? I don't know, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. 3. I deleted a POV fork within the article attempting to make Wiki's gadol page censored by titling one of the sections "haredi gedolim." Remember, the title of the page is "gadol," not "Haredi gedolim" or "People Avi Shafran, Jonathan Rosenblum, and Artscroll/Mesorah have written about." If it's not clore now, I give up. --Yodamace1 10:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Postings on article talk pages

Please follow Misplaced Pages:Sign your posts on talk pages and also indent your comments, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. It's much more difficult to follow a discussion when these two things aren't done. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shared IP template

Template:SharedIP is a standard template that is to be applied to IPs that may be shared by many people. It identifies who owns the IP so that vandalism complaints can be directed at its owner. This is public information, and there is nothing defamatory or improper in disclosing it. When an editor at that IP insists on removing it one must wonder why. Empty legal threats don't impress me; see WP:NLT -- Zsero 15:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting pretense: Given that you are one of the most disruptive forces on Misplaced Pages, as is evidenced by your warnings (some of which you erased) it is a wonder that you do not list the name of the company from which you are vandalizing so that YOU can be reported. . . DavidCharlesII 15:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if you have an actual objection to the SharedIP template being here, make that objection and we can discuss it. So far all you have done is shout and call people names; that is not an argument. -- Zsero 15:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are pretending to be overly thich. My argument is that you are discriminating against others. Why don't you have your company identification on YOUR talkpage? That is my question. Get it? The answer is obvious. So get rid of it on this page, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk about thick. Am I an IP? Why would I have the SharedIP template on my talk page? Has any vandalism come from my account? No, I have never ever even been accused of vandalism, let alone received a valid warning for it. All valid warnings I have received remain on my talk page even though I have the right to delete them; frivolous warnings I exercise my right to remove. IPs may not remove warnings, because no particular user from that IP can be presumed to have read them. And they certainly may not remove the SharedIP template, if it's accurate, because it's for the information of others. -- Zsero 15:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Okay, as far as I can tell, DavidCharlesII is objecting to the sharedIP template above because:

• The IP is owned by a company, and vandalism has come from this IP address. The views expressed by this IP are not that of the companies, nor is the vandalism caused by the company.
• Apparently he is also been contacted or something by them to ensure they are not "defamed" or "insulted" by the template or something.
• Other contentions include that the registration is shared by other users, and is not public.

Now, before I do anything else, is this basically the argument being presented? --Haemo 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be pretty much it. I don't know how DavidCharlesII feels able to claim that the IP's registration is not public information. It's available from WHOIS right on the bottom of the page. Vandalism came from this IP, and the SharedIP template was put on top for that reason, so that people reverting vandalism, and putting warnings on this page, will know where it comes from. AFAIK that's SOP. If no further vandalism comes from this IP then nobody will have occasion to look at it. Either way, the IP's owner is not "defamed" by publishing this public information. Now it's possible that this IP is in fact not shared, and all the vandalism has come from the same person, i.e. DavidCharlesII. But that makes the situation worse for him. It's in the spirit of AGF to assume that he wasn't responsible for every edit that has come from this IP. -- Zsero 19:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. I've also posted a message to DavidCharlesII's page to request his opinion about the subject. I'll reserve any judgment for the time being. --Haemo 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)