User talk:Beobjectiveplease

Rabbi Pinto

Dearest new user, please stop editing Pinto's account - Wikipedia doesnt exist for you to edit pages. Dont touch it as your sole purpose here seems to be this account. Babasalichai (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why Do you exist as a single user account only for Pinto ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 12:25, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pinto

Two concerns on Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. First, you appear to be engaged in an edit war over the contents of the article. This is not allowed per Wikipedia policies. In general, if you disagree with another user about the article, you must go to the talk page and discuss the issue, working together to achieve consensus. Simply reverting back and forth is not allowed. In fact, we have what we call a "bright-line rule"--3RR. This says that you may (almost, and the exceptions don't apply here) never revert the same article more than 3 times in 24 hours. You (and the other user) have both reached that limit; if you go over, you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Please stop, go to the talk page, and discuss the changes.

Second, in a recent edit summary (this one), you said that the other editors additions were libel. While you may not have done so intentionally, it is important that you never make what could be construed as a legal threat on Wikipedia. I don't think you intended that as a threat, and probably weren't aware of that policy, but even a single additional comment of this nature will almost inevitably result in you being blocked. We consider legal threats to have extremely chilling effects on collaborative editing, and thus they are entirely prohibited. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The user you're referring to has been installing biased edits on the page for months and he has been doing so via multiple accounts. This is not news, of course, as I have had a number of discussions with other editors about the aforementioned user. Please look at the history and the discussion page -- it's all there. Also, this user has repeatedly sent me messages saying that "I am not allowed to edit particular pages." Look at my user page. I am repeatedly threatened by this individual (from his various accounts). The user has been blocked on a number of occasions for posting what is perceived as potentially libelous material. Per Wiki, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." The user posted "potentially libellous" material that was "poorly sourced" and I removed it. Also, I do believe that my edits are not an "edit war," as what I have done falls under 3RR exemptions. According to Wiki's 3RR exemptions, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." While we should not rely solely on this exemption, if you view the history of the page in question, the user you refer to has a history of vandalism and biased edits. For that reason, discussion often falls on deaf ears. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

Beobjective, I think you are on the right track. I have watch-listed the article as well, though it is not my exclusive interest, and have noted your level-headed attempts to keep the edits factual and neutral. Your presence is welcome on the page, and you are not obligated to edit other articles. You are welome to do so if you have time, as you have some skills in this area. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa, thanks for the kind words! I do believe that my edits have been in support of a neutral POV and will begin editing other Wiki pages soon. I definitely think I can contribute much more to the community and, at the least, can help flesh out some existing entries. Thanks again!

I fail to understand what part of the edits are in accurate. Did he not host a fundraiser at 15 CPW ? So whats so wrong here. beobjective doesnt like AOL as a source ? AOL you think is libelous and doesnt fact check items ? Thats the source you claim isnt accurate ? Give me a break. And when 1 speaks of 3RR is not beobjective the one responding to my original edits ? This is a controversial leader and it simply should be reflected as such. Babasalichai (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You failed to read the articles. The fundraiser wasn't hosted by Pinto. It was hosted by Bracha and Binstock. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

Please do not again remove sourced material from AOL and as user Qwyrxian states Second, in a recent edit summary (this one), you said that the other editors additions were libel. While you may not have done so intentionally, it is important that you never make what could be construed as a legal threat on Wikipedia. I don't think you intended that as a threat, and probably weren't aware of that policy, but even a single additional comment of this nature will almost inevitably result in you being blocked. Be objective and balanced. USer Dianna collaborated and made edits. Babasalichai (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The AOL line about Pinto was an opinion, not a fact. The author's use of the word "quite" complicates things further. Wiki guidelines state that we must not include opinions as facts in Wiki entries. If we do that, the content suffers (obviously). Be objective, please. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

Does Pinto attend shul on Shabbat ? is that relevant ? He doesnt, right ? AOL is a fact - He isnt representative of Judaism, as represented even by Bracha's line about a phone to Gd, right ? Thats a fact. Your objectivity is biased. Babasalichai (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto did in fact host a fundraiser - it failed but he did. Include that and I will accept your other change. A more than reasonable compromise. Babasalichai (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again will ask that you please discuss changes before making them. Other editors made interim changes and you once again went in and just made them without discussion. Lets use a talk page 1st please. I keep trying to communicate without response. Babasalichai (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Am trying to communicate and you refuse to dialogue. Babasalichai (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Beobjectiveplease, you are still edit warring on the article. I have reverted your last set of edits. Those edits are clearly in dispute. Even if you maybe had consensus a long time ago, edit warring to preserve a consensus is not acceptable. Both sides need to discuss now on the talk page. If you make another edit to the article in a short period of time, I will report you for edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My edits are in support of other editors. Every editor on that page will say that Baba is simply injecting biased edits. If you'd like to report me for removing biased edits, you may do so, as that is your right. Also, my edits have actually included some of what Baba has said, so it's not like I'm merely removing everything he's writing. Report me if you must, but, let it be know that I am not the problem here. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

You're not understanding. Edit-warring doesn't care whether you are "right" or "wrong". The point is that the issue is in dispute, so we must discuss it on the talk page. By the simple fact that you, until just a few hours ago, weren't engaging on the article's talk page, that makes you part of the problem. Yes, Babasalichai is also a problem here. I have actually requested that the article be temporarily fully protected, so that no one can edit the article. That would force everyone to discuss everything on the talk page first; once we can come to a consensus, then we can worry about making changes. But you cannot continue to just make changes knowing for certain that you are right. 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I understand what you are saying, but you also have to understand that I have debated these same changes Baba is making over and over again, with him and with others. Much of what he is doing is retroactively removing things that have been agreed upon by the larger community. Also, I have never considered my edits "right." Unlike Baba, I have taken into consideration the edits, changes, and viewpoints of others. My edits are indicative of that. I appreciate your opinion here and will try to discuss these matters more. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

You are simply lying and have never discusssed these with me - Theres been 1 other user and thats all. And the fact that 2 months you bullied me into accepting a change doesnt mean that your version of history is accurate. Rabbi Pinto's reputation keeps changing and as media continues to emerge so too much this page be changed. Not paying his mortgage is the same issue he had with Obstfeld and is now more relevant. And lastly if we are talking about things which have been accepted, everyone had accepted 15 CPW but you singlehandledly edited it. Babasalichai (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Beobjective please, unless you've previously edited under a different account, I do not see you engaging in extensive discussion with Babasalichai in the past. I see about 7 comments on the article's talk page in November and December, and those comments seem primarily to be claims that an IP (who I assume is the same person as Babasalichai) is biased and should be blocked. I see just a few sentences of discussion of the actual contents of the article by you. Please don't act like you've been doing everything right, discussing everything, working off of consensus, etc. I don't even see a lot of "agreed upon by the larger community" on that article's talk page--it's actually pretty sparse. In any event, the article is fully protected right now, so we can all discuss what should be done there. I see problems with the current article (especially the use of highly partisan sources), and I also see problems with much of what Babasalichai wants to add. The way to move forward is to keep discussing, and then reach a consensus. If we can't do that, we can use the steps of dispute resolution, like asking for outside opinions, or asking on for feedback on noticeboards. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is no secret that Baba has been using multiple accounts and I have often discussed edits with those accounts on their user pages, while we have had some conversations on Pinto's discussion board. Baba was even investigated for this and a formal complaint was filed (there wasn't enough evidence, however, to confirm -- although Baba would change between accounts and continue conversations as if he was on one single account). I do think there are issues with the page, in it's current form, but you have to understand that Baba is coming at this with a closed POV. I will discuss with him, but it seems like a futile exercise given the vandalism he has engaged in, the potentially libelous content he has added, and so on and so forth (look at his work on other pages -- the same is being said elsewhere). He has one POV that he seems ready to push and will likely not budge. However, I am amenable to discussing with him, as that it what must be done. Logic will ultimately shine through, I hope. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And have you been using multiple accounts as well? The reason I ask is that when I look at your contribution history, you have never discussed anything on any user pages (outside of a few edits to admins related to the sockpuppet investigation). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken, as I thought I had discussions on other pages. Maybe I was just referencing my edit summaries / Pinto discussion / complaints (and I don't have multiple accounts). Either way, I think it's strange that you Qwyrxian are all for defending someone who is primarily one-sided (for instance, see the 15 CP edits on Pinto's page -- you were clearly mistaken there). I'm willing to listen to other editors and take into consideration what they say---even Baba. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So since you realize that there are issues what do you think should be changed ? Stop with your legal threats its absurd as this content is legit and well sourced. Can we agree idolatry should be added and underworld (rather than mafia) relationships ? Clearly those are both well sourced right ? Also remove some of the puffery from Arutz 7 which is a highly partisan source.Babasalichai (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, to Baba, see my comments in the discussion page. Qwyrxian, Diannaa, and myself have all said that more sources are needed and that these sources must elaborate on what you speak of (e.g., underworld, etc.). Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalachai, he's not making legal threats, and I never said he was. He used one word (libel) which he probably shouldn't have, since it can be related to legal threats. Right now, I see Beobjectiveplease engaging in some highly productive dialogue on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am questioning the use of Arutz 7 as a reliable source and other than you noone has questioned underworld sources - they are reliable sources surely as reliable as you have used Haaretz for multiple articles as well.Babasalichai (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

When more media comes out will you challenge it this week if it talks about underground and raises other questions ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto Websites

Someone may buy websites like pinto.org and place content there, no ? Babasalichai (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they may, but what does that have to do with this article? Such information would probably not be allowed in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why ? if Someone owned the sites and had content there it wouldnt be ok ? Babasalichai (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, self-published sites do not meet the Reliable source guidelines. There are only 2 real exceptions:

1. A site published by the article subject itself (i.e., if Pinto had an "official site" and it was certain that it was made under his auspices), then a limited amount of that info would be reliable. The rules are complex and require interpretation, but it has to do primarily with how factual and self serving the info is. If, for example, Pinto had a website, and it said his full date of birth, we would probably believe that he is telling the truth about that. However, if it said Pinto is the most loved man in the world, that he speaks only the truth, and that he has earned 7 different PhD's, well, we probably wouldn't accept that.
2. A site published by a well-recognized expert in the field could be considered reliable. This person would 1) need to be important and notable enough to have their own wikipage, and 2) be notable specifically in a relevant field (here, that could be things like New York financial dealings, Judaism (or some portion thereof), the history of the rabbinate, etc.). Even then, we would have to be very careful.

Does that answer your questions? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past this person to actually buy a website and post negative material, simply so that he can repost it on Wiki. Good thing this isn't allowed, huh, Baba? That he would even ask this question seems to indicate that there is no end to his bias. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Babasalichai, but I had to remove your comment, because WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. You may not make such claims about living people anywhere. Continuing to do so will result in you being blocked. It is very acceptable to discuss, on the article's talk page, whether or not those claims are supported by sources and can go into the article. You may not state them as fact anywhere, especially away from the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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 could 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) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpupptetry

Amazingly bad behavior on your behalf quite disappointing. When more media comes out and police investigations go public soon on Pinto will you be willing to admit them to wiki ? Babasalichai (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote above from beobjectiveplease shows his honesty and he was caught for being a sockpuppet - keep it in mind: "It is no secret that Baba has been using multiple accounts and I have often discussed edits with those accounts on their user pages, while we have had some conversations on Pinto's discussion board. Baba was even investigated for this and a formal complaint was filed (there wasn't enough evidence, however, to confirm -- although Baba would change between accounts and continue conversations as if he was on one single account)." The person who filed the complaint was beobectiveplease in a different name. Babasalichai (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)