User talk:Jonathangluck

Accounts

Is the account User:Jonathanglick13 also you? The Interior (Talk) 23:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Shoot sorry yes same... Jonathangluck (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, please read WP:Multiple Accounts and stick to one of them, unless you have a reason for the two accounts. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 23:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes sir - agreed and noted - my Bad... In the meantime when I have an admin reading would you mind looking @Shmuley Boteach page - Through the years a single user account has repeatedly whitewashed the page and I'd like to put a lock on it or at least ban the people who simply vandalise consensus edits and dont know how to ? HELP ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. The Interior (Talk) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP users come from different geographical areas, so they can't effectively be blocked. The registered accounts are "throwaways". To perform a checkuser, we would need an original (sockmaster) account to compare them to. The Interior (Talk) 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that jonathangluck is the one who is vandalizing the account with negative and unsubstantiated claims--all of which are considered libel by agents representing Rabbi Shmuley. Perhaps your account is the account that ought to be blocked, permanently from making any changes to @shmuley boteach. You wouldn't happen to be a rogue employee or a member of a PR company that was recently fired and is now on a mission to slander rabbi shmuley at every turn, would you? Your actions are being reported to Wikipedia complaint departments and again, if they continue legal action for slander of a public figure will be taken. Balada555 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach

If there's only one person disrupting the article, it's easiest to block the account or IP for a set period of time. Article protection is used instead when disruptive edits to the article are likely to come from multiple, independent people. --Deryck C. 23:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look @ said patterns in the Boteach article, it has happened multiple times by various users - all single user accounts - which noone watches ? and now I will be 3RR if said user violated again no ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've replied on my talk page. For coherence, let's move the discussion there. --Deryck C. 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

After reading the report on the BLP noticeboard, I'd like to look into neutrality issues before addressing the deletions of content. Our Biographies of Living Persons policy states that negative info that is poorly sourced can "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So although ham-fisted, these removals may not strictly meet our definition of "vandalism". As such, I think we should look at the neutrality of the article, and if that is addressed, the blankings may well stop. It is very likely these accounts are people directly or indirectly related to the rabbi. In cases like these, it can be very difficult to find a middle ground (and avoid "whitewash" as you say, but also libel on the on the other side). But if there is potentially defamatory content in the article, this is more pressing then the blankings. They can be easily repaired using our page histories, whereas defamation is less easily repaired. Please note, I am not an admin, and cannot lock pages or unilaterally block accounts. I can make requests, and if the article remains unstable, I will. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

While I'd like to believe what you say, the user today for example, shalominthehome has done this previously on many occassions (which I learned from reviewing the history page...)... Simply am not against debates and discussions but he cant come in and delete all which has been agreed upon... Jonathangluck (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The current content of the article has not been "agreed upon". I, for one, disagree with it, for reasons I explained at WP:BLPN. I also disagree with people charging in and deleting vast swathes of the article only to replace them with promotional mumbo jumbo, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well clearly theres a very major difference between my conduct and he who is vandalising. Jonathangluck (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been out of town for a few days — sorry I haven't been around to help. I'm glad The Interior was there to give you some timely help and advice. I am not an administrator either and cannot block accounts. If the problems persist, I can make requests and help you navigate the redtape. Cheers--Hokeman (talk) 03:34, 14 March

It appears that jonathangluck is the one who is vandalizing the account with negative and unsubstantiated claims--all of which are considered libel by agents representing Rabbi Shmuley. Perhaps your account is the account that ought to be blocked, permanently from making any changes to @shmuley boteach. You wouldn't happen to be a rogue employee or a member of a PR company that was recently fired and is now on a mission to slander rabbi shmuley at every turn, would you? Your actions are being reported to Wikipedia complaint departments and again, if they continue legal action for slander of a public figure will be taken. Balada555 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Complaint at Administrators noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have submitted a complaint to the Administrator's noticeboard about your repeated attempts to introduce potentially libellous material into the article on Shmuley Boteach. You can read details of the complaint on the noticeboard. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, misplaced the complaint. It is here. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shmuley Boteach. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Amazing you say this - Did you bother to check the talk page before you edited ? Jonathangluck (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Merely having posted on the talk page does not give you an inalienable right to revert other people on the article as often as you like. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Shalom in the Home

Please do not simply removed non-contentious content from articles as you did in Shalom in the Home. The show itself is the source for the description which is more than sufficient in an article about a television series or any work of ficition. Further, you removed sourced content for no valid reason and then asked for a source in your edit summary. That makes no sense and borders on vanadalism. If you have problems with the article or its notability, either take the article to AfD and/or take your concerns to the talk page. Simply blanking out what you don't like is not acceptable. Thank you. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppets

If the user in question edits disruptively after his warning, we should open an investigation. A successful SPI involves collecting evidence, in this case similar/identical edits between the different users. If it gets to that point, your help in gathering diffs for the edits would be appreciated. I'll notify you if a case is opened. You can familiarize yourself with the process at WP:SPI (or go for it yourself if you are confident you have the required info). The oldest account is most likely the sockmaster. The Interior (Talk) 09:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case I don't think an SPI is required, per the WP:DUCK test. I've added a request at WP:ANI for the apparent meat/sockpuppets to be dealt with accordingly. This includes a small selection of relevant diffs, you're welcome to use them to file an SPI if you wish. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Spector & Associates

Per your request at WP:OR and it's talk page, I've started an AfD on Spector & Associates if you wish to take part it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spector & Associates. cheers. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and close paraphrasing

Your addition to Shmuley Boteach has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You cannot just lift entire sections of prose from a copyrighted third party source and then insert it in a Wikipedia article with a "ref" tag at the end. If you re-use the exact words of the source then you must quote them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

All of those issues are now cleaned up - thanks for pointing out copywright issues. Fixed. Jonathangluck (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that - please review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Its all very clear now and has been cleaned clearly. Jonathangluck (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not "cleaned clearly" - there are still obvious copyright violations in the article, introduced by you. It is totally unacceptable to edit war to prevent the removal of copyright violations. I have reported your edits at WP:AN3. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the reporting - you are wrong 100%.

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the three revert rule edit-warring and repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into an article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

}}unblock|reason=What 3RR did I do in 24 hours ? Are you kidding me ? Nothing was done 3RR in 24 hours I havent touched that page in weeks ? Rabbi Pinto ??Jonathangluck (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)}}

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Didnt touch Rabbi Pinto in weeks. If is Shmuley Boteach did not insert copywrighted material which is clear to anyone who reads the piece.... and if I am wrong wont touch Boteach even for a week... but I didnt @all take material which was copywrighted. Pls review Rabbi Pinto havent touched in weeks ?Jonathangluck (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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=Didnt touch Rabbi Pinto in weeks. If is Shmuley Boteach did not insert copywrighted material which is clear to anyone who reads the piece.... and if I am wrong wont touch Boteach even for a week... but I didnt @all take material which was copywrighted. Pls review Rabbi Pinto havent touched in weeks ?[[User:Jonathangluck|Jonathangluck]] ([[User talk:Jonathangluck#top|talk]]) 04:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |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=Didnt touch Rabbi Pinto in weeks. If is Shmuley Boteach did not insert copywrighted material which is clear to anyone who reads the piece.... and if I am wrong wont touch Boteach even for a week... but I didnt @all take material which was copywrighted. Pls review Rabbi Pinto havent touched in weeks ?[[User:Jonathangluck|Jonathangluck]] ([[User talk:Jonathangluck#top|talk]]) 04:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |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=Didnt touch Rabbi Pinto in weeks. If is Shmuley Boteach did not insert copywrighted material which is clear to anyone who reads the piece.... and if I am wrong wont touch Boteach even for a week... but I didnt @all take material which was copywrighted. Pls review Rabbi Pinto havent touched in weeks ?[[User:Jonathangluck|Jonathangluck]] ([[User talk:Jonathangluck#top|talk]]) 04:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

As far as Rabbi Pinto is concerned:

• From your attempted addition to the page within the last hour (this revision), now reverted: "The $6.5 million Manhattan townhouse where Pinto lives, which is owned by Mosdot Shuva Israel, faces foreclosure ... Mosdot Shuva Israel has not responded to or paid a $48,000 judgment against it for failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance ..."

• From http://forward.com/articles/136250/ : "The $6.5 million Manhattan townhouse where Pinto lives, which is owned by Mosdot Shuva Israel, faces foreclosure" and the next bullet point in their article is "Mosdot Shuva Israel has not responded to or paid a $48,000 judgment against it for failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance".

This is a copyright infringement. Do you understand why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No. I dont ? How do you make it clear but not give fact facts ? Can you assist then with Pinto additions on this page ? If its better to not give pure quotes I wont. How's this ? (Not malicious mistakes ?) - Can u unblock ? Wont do it and am clearer...

How's this: Pinto’s home, a $6.5 million Manhattan townhouse faces foreclosure. Mortgage installments have not been paid since May 2009. As of March 2011, Pinto’s organization further has ignored a $48,000 judgment against it for failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance, a violation of New York State Law. As of March 2011, the judgment has not been paid. Jonathangluck (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)