User talk:Popabar

Nice job, popa.

April 2013

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malik: I don't believe what I did was vandalism in any way. All my statements were well cited from primary sources, neutrally presented (at least as edited--partially by me) by the time you deleted them and relevant to the subject matter. Linzer is the Dean and primary instructor in the school, and his blog postings about what he is teaching in the school are completely relevant to a discussion of the philosophy there. Is there any more information I can give you about this?

First, you described it as trolling here.

Second, we generally try not to use primary sources, because they may be subject to interpretation and cherry-picking. Secondary coverage of a subject is preferable.

Finally, the place to discuss content is on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did describe it as trolling there, but I use trolling in a loose sense. I mean that it is likely to upset people, and I do believe that people in this institution do try to hide what they do. But let's discuss the merits. I think the sources I am giving are good; if you look at them, you will see that they accurately and reliably relay the facts that I am citing them for. Finally, I did try to discuss it on the talk page, but the people who were deleting me did not wish to engage me on the talk page, as you can see.

The sections on Gender discrimination and Section blanking hardly qualify as content discussions, but Talk:Yeshivat Chovevei Torah remains the appropriate place to discuss content matters. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think I'm not getting it. Nobody is disputing the accuracy of what I put up there, so I simply asked why they were being deleted. I presumed if anybody had a legitimate dispute about it, they would have responded to that by saying something like "those sources aren't clear enough" or "here are contrary sources" etc. Nobody is disputing it; it's all real.

Maybe you didn't see the page history of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, where Evan2008 explains the problems with what you added. I'll respond at Talk:Yeshivat Chovevei Torah as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Popabar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should not have been blocked. I am being accused of vandalism, but that accusation is undercut by the facts of what I did. 1. I was not doing edit warring. I made a significant contribution, and it was well cited. It appears it may have not been completely neutrally written, but I fixed that. It is also possible some of the citations were not up to the standards of wikipedia rules, but I was not familiar with those rules, and did not attempt to re-edit regardless--I was involved in productive conversation on the issue in the talk page, and am happy to find sources which are good. 2. EvenH. I did override EvanH's editing, but that was because she was not following the rules, and left no reason for her huge deletions. She did not post on the talk page to explain her deletions, and only left a short note in the history log which stated that it was deleted because "Who is Linzer and why should I care". Since Linzer's info is very relevant--he is the Dean and his blog posts are about what he taught that week--I explained that and reinserted the sections. And began a talk section to which nobody replied. That seems quite reasonable to me. 3. The outside forum where I call this "trolling". That needs some context; every webforum has its own sub-culture, and I am a frequent user there and known to post funny jokes and little things which I call "trolling" which are not trolling in the urban dictionary sense of the word. I concede that the intent of my editing here was to make supporters of that institution upset, but I am not aware that posting accurate info for the purpose of upsetting people is vandalism. Nor am I aware that there is a motive test for editing on wikipedia. 4. Since then, I have been "warned" by "Malik" for not taking it to the talk page--even though I had done so. I had taken it to the talk page, and the real vandal EvanH had refused to engage me and instead locked the page. Malik had the courtesy to engage me on the talk page where he pointed out a couple of rules mistakes I had made since I am a beginner--but that was all; he could not find any vandalism. Unless vandalism is defined as not knowing the rule against providing context to a well cited fact with another well cited fact that seems relevant (That alumni Ben greenberg is the rabbi in BMH-BJ as on their website, and a reliable newspaper story says they do not have a mechitza). I think you can hardly consider that vandalism, given that I didn't do after being told. 5. There is something very significant about the fact that I am being accused of vandalism for posting information that is absolutely true, and well known to anyone and everyone with a tenuous connection to this institution, and that the institution would not even deny, but that they are sensitive about. I don't know Malik, EvanH, and King of Hearts, and I shan't speculate on their motives--but anyone watching this would only be able to conclude that they simply don't want the information there. Because there is no other logical reason why the page is being locked during a time when I was not editing the page and was instead discussing it on the talk page, and why I am being blocked during a time that the page was anyway locked. Peace out. Popabar (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Although this block has expired, I find nothing in the unblock request that shows the editor understand any of Wikipedia's policies, whatsoever. Continuing to WP:EW, or indeed any of the behaviours that led to this block should never be repeated or else a fresh (and longer) block will occur (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Not nearly as much as it is obvious that you didn't even look at the history in question. Accusing me of edit warring when I was the one who started the discussion and nobody cared to engage me is astounding. I overrode one person's edit who did not post any reason at all, and one person (EvanH)'s edit who put a reason that merely asked for relevance when the relevance was obvious and also refused to engage in discussion. You people have got seem agenda issues. Popabar (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you put a talkback on my page (for multiple reasons) ... all I said was regardless of the expired block, do not edit-war in the future...I never said you did, and I never said you didn't. Your paragraph directly above doesn't even make any sense when you understand Wikipedia's policies in toto (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, forgive me for not understanding the rules in toto--I'm a new user. And forgive me for taking the implication from your response that you were accusing me of edit warring. Popabar (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]