User talk:72.229.30.16

Warnings

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shalom Restaurant, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Shalom Restaurant was changed by 72.229.30.16 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-02-13T20:15:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Copysan (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You deleted the section in Joseph B. Soloveitchik on his relationship with Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Please do not remove large blocks of texts from articles without discussing your reasons on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Joseph B. Soloveitchik). Also, since this is the second time you deleted this content, please note that Wikipedia has a Three revert rule designed to prevent editors from repeatedly changing content and that violating it can result in editors being blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Our consensus policy requires discussion with other editors before major article changes once it is clear that editors disagree. Please make an entry on Talk:Joseph B. Soloveitchik explaining your reasons for believing this content should be deleted and discuss this issue with the editors who disagree with you prior to taking any further action. Thank you. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

campusj

Why did you take down my request to delete this article? I think deletion is a very justified measure in this case of a triviality that is now a nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your prod tag has been removed for a second time as the article makes explicit claims of notability. While I appreciate that you have decided that the article should be deleted, I firmly disagree. Your next step is AfD. Alansohn (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Joseph B. Soloveitchik constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Hershel Schachter. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Wow, I'm sorry, man. I saw the word "infelicitous" and thought it said "infectious". I'm really sorry. I removed the warning from your page, and re-inserted the stuff into the article. Again, I apologize. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it more presentable because the grammar was really not there. Also saying he came under fire for wanting to shoot the rosh hamemshala seems a little bit like a poor choice of words.

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Hershel Schachter. Will ^(talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only know what I know from google. If you have sources for all those opinions of the Rabbi then please add them yourself. You can add then and then source them tommorrow, since this is a page under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eat-more-radish (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Josh

Hi Josh,

welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you have made a lot of contributions to Hershel Schachter and related articles. I would like to thank you for your work; I know that the article will be greatly improved with your help.

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (72.229.30.16) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Jon513 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halakha

The reason I changed that spelling is because that's the way it's spelled at Halakha. I think wikipedia ought to be consistent with regard to this. All the different Romanizations are based upon a transliteration of a Hebrew word. Also I made the first letter lower-case since this is an ordinary Hebrew word, not a proper noun. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert the controversy section now. I have already contacted administrators about your unilateral vandalism. You cannot remove material sourced from newspapers and replace it with your unsourced OR personal reflections. First, to those of us on the outside the Rabbi is only know via his newspapers controversies. If we discuss a politician, the newspaper stories are what count not your personal original reflections about his views. Second, the controversies were important enough that the Jewish Week article referred to prior controversies. The critique by Professor Lawrence Kaplan can be a new section called "revisionism" but you cannot remove a sourced piece of valid criticism because of your un-sourced point of view. --Eat-more-radish (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked!

You have been blocked for a period of 12 hours for repeatedly replacing reliably sourced content with personal reflections. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am trying to make this article more fair, using the talk page, trying to adhere to NPOV, and instead of focusing on this you choose to block me?! This article had half the information it does now a day ago. In added the entire controversies section and have tried to keep it fair. My only crime has been to try and make the article more aesthetically pleasing-- and look at it, it really needs some help since right now it is a morass of bullet points.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am trying to make this article more fair, using the talk page, trying to adhere to NPOV, and instead of focusing on this you choose to block me?!  This article had half the information it does now a day ago.  In added the entire controversies section and have tried to keep it fair.  My only crime has been to try and make the article more aesthetically pleasing-- and look at it, it really needs some help since right now it is a morass of bullet points. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am trying to make this article more fair, using the talk page, trying to adhere to NPOV, and instead of focusing on this you choose to block me?!  This article had half the information it does now a day ago.  In added the entire controversies section and have tried to keep it fair.  My only crime has been to try and make the article more aesthetically pleasing-- and look at it, it really needs some help since right now it is a morass of bullet points. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am trying to make this article more fair, using the talk page, trying to adhere to NPOV, and instead of focusing on this you choose to block me?!  This article had half the information it does now a day ago.  In added the entire controversies section and have tried to keep it fair.  My only crime has been to try and make the article more aesthetically pleasing-- and look at it, it really needs some help since right now it is a morass of bullet points. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Could you provide sources for your recent edits? If you can show that your recent edits were verifiable, then we could probably reduce your block. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which edit? there were a whole bunch, most of which were stylistic.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.