User talk:Chillum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:HighInBC)
Jump to: navigation, search
.Original Barnstar.pngOriginal Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Reversion2.pngBarnstar-camera.pngBarnstar-camera.pngSurreal Barnstar.pngPurple Star.pngResilient Barnstar.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Humour3.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Reversion2.pngBarnstar-camera.pngWikiMedal for Janitorial Services.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngMicroscope.jpgWikipedesketch1.pngOriginal Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Diligence.pngOriginal Barnstar.pngOriginal Barnstar.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngBarnstar-RTFM.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Humour3.pngBarnstar of Humour3.pngOpinion Barnstar Blue.jpgOriginal Barnstar.pngCherry pie with lattice top, April 2006.jpgBarnstar of Diligence.pngWikiDefender Barnstar.pngFeatured article star.svgHomemadebarnstar.pngPeace dove.svgBong glas.jpgSpecialBarnstar.pngBarnstar of Reversion Hires.pngPeace Barnstar Hires.png.

Archive
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...[edit]

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 Wikipedia, 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[edit] Deleting sourced statements such as [1], [2] and adding material sourced to or referring to yourself, such as here: [3], [4] ; 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 Wikipedia 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 [5] 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 Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia Page willn need to reflect this. If Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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: [6] and [7] and here [8]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia as someone who does not seem to be willing to work collaboratively and within the policies of Wikipedia. Chefallen(talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

AN : I repeat...I am happy to work within the parameters of Wikipedia, 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)