User talk:Eatabullet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Eatabullet! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! – PeaceNT 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I'm just curious about why you keep shortening your welcome message? PeaceNT 13:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your recent posting to WP:AIV. The anonymous ip address turned out to be a vandal! In the future though, when reporting IP addressed to [{WP:AIV]], please make sure that they have had a final warning in the recent past. Due to the nature of IP addresses, large spans between edits may indicate different users and therfore may not be blocked without an appropriate recent final warning. The most common final warnings ore {{test4}} or {{bv}}. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to ask me on my user talk page. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Events of "2/9" (2/9/07)[edit]

Here is your post. Are you being obtuse or do you honestly not understand that sarcastic, tongue in cheek language such as this has no place in an encyclopedia? Cheers. L0b0t 20:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC) "Following the loss of Anna Nicole Smith, Ron and Fez sought to be a source of inspiration and hope to their listeners. Legions of callers from the United States of America and across the globe called in to console, to grieve, and to heal with the hosts of the show. Aside from taking calls to share in this life experience, Ron and Fez vowed to continue on with the show as the news about the tragic loss continued to develop. They also acknowledged that it was, in light of the magnitude of the story, perhaps the hardest of times to try and broadcast a show."

Yes thats the post. Thanks for reposting it here. Attacking me personally by calling me obtuse is unhelpful and not the Wikipedia way. Eatabullet 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Never have I called you any name at all. I asked if you were being obtuse, I did not say you were being obtuse. Please see WP:NPOV for the type of neutral language that is required of all contributors. Cheers. L0b0t 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes please assume good faith. I say the same to you. You are implying I am obtuse and you are assuming what I wrote WAS tongue in cheek. Was it? On what basis do you claim that? Are you familiar with what you are mercilessly editing? Eatabullet 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I implied nothing, I did not call you a name, I did not insult you in any way. I simply asked you a question. Cheers. L0b0t 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure you did, anyone can see above. And you are also engaging in an editing war with me. Unless you go ahead and try to remove that from the public record as well as you did from your talk page [1].Eatabullet 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were offended by my question then I'm sorry and you should probably reread it. You accused me of calling you names, I did nothing of the kind. You accuse me of trying to hide my edits from public scrutiny by removing your comments from my talkpage, I respectfully point out that the conversation is being carried out on your talk page not mine. You accuse me of starting an edit war with you, one could just as easily say you have started an edit war with me as you are the one trying to insert unsourced POV material. I don't care about any of that. I do care about citeing sources and keeping POV language out of the encyclopedia. Please, let's take the material to the talkpage of the article itself to gain consenus. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L0b0t (talkcontribs) 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I don't know where you come from, but saying to someone "Are you obtuse or..." in the context of editing an encyclopedia is not regarded as friendly or helpful. I was working with you to edit what I posted, as the history of the Ron and Fez article shows. I have no problem changing things around to make it better. Your first action was not to improve the article, it was to unilaterally delete the entire new entry. That is unhelpful. The editing process is multi-faceted, not a one way street according to what you yourself say should be deleted or not. Talk page of the article is a good idea. Eatabullet 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for coming on strong out of the gate. Again, I think a rereading might be helpful; there is a world of difference between "Are you obtuse or..." (which is a question about your personal character and therefore a no-no) and "Are you being obtuse or..." (which is a question about your edit and your understanding of my objections to it.) I'm sorry if the question raised your hackles, that was never my intent. Cheers. L0b0t 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/L0b0t[edit]

I have opened a request for comment on this user regarding his removal of talk page comments without response. You asked him to stop this here. I would appreciate your certifing this RFC if you think it is appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Earl Douglas[edit]

You may not be familiar with two important policies at Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Attribution says that:

  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source..

And WP:BLP says that:

  • Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...

None of the info in that article is sourced reliably, and much of it is derogatory. I only removed the worst. Please find suitable sources before the rest of the contentious material is removed. (Note: this is also a problem with several other radio show articles). -Will Beback · · 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I reverted your edits to East Side Dave because it appeared they were entirely sourced from forums. Those aren't sufficient sources for any article, but especially not for biographies of living people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Greetings, i've noticed your work on the O&A page. If I can give a little advice, i'd at least make an edit to your user page. Even one sentance "I'm eatabullet and i'm an O&A fan". The red link on a user page is an indicator of someone who may be a vandal which you're not. If you blue link it you get more respect. If you want me to help, let me know. (fyi i'm an o&a fan too.)--Cube lurker (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime--Cube lurker (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Yaakov Weinberg[edit]

Hi Eatabullet: Your nomination of the article about Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg for "deletion" is very puzzling, when you would have been better off with perhaps placing on the page the {{Refimprove}} or {{Unreferenced}} or {{Fact}} templates. The first obvious question is how much do you know about this subject? Are you highly familiar with the history of yeshivas and with their rosh yeshivas? Do you have a good sense of the history of Haredi Judaism in general and its position in America as well as a good knowledge of the its key personalities and notable Talmudic and rabbinic scholars? All this would be a pre-requisite knowldge-base requirement to venture the move that you did. It seems like you have taken a blind stab at this subject/rabbi to get it removed, and yes, the article does need more work, but not every short article is automtaically bad. Short articles like this grow into better biographies over time. You could have tried getting some explantions and input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism if you were somewhat unsure. But to go ahead and nominate a brief article about a key and famous American rosh yeshiva shows that you have overshot the mark. It would be wise of you and very appreciated if you would withdraw the nomination. I will work on adding some more references to beef the article up. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Regarding my credentials, I have PhD in Religious Studies and I have studied this particular topic extensively before submitting my nomination. For such a lauded and prominent figure as you claim he is, it is odd that in the one year of the articles existence, not one reliable reference has been added, and the only so-called reliable material that exists is from Yeshiva websites of highly questionable reliability, which themselves are not sourced, and most likely someones opinion. Perhaps religious Jews and followers of the Rabbi consider Aish HaTorah a reliable, independent source for an encyclopedia, but I find that to be dubious. Your thoughts are welcome, but I completely disagree that this is a notable figure suitable for an encyclopedia. This is the reason I nominated the article for deletion. If you and other supporters of the Rabbi disagree, so be it. That's what the debate is for. Information.svg Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Yaakov Weinberg. Thank you Eatabullet (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I would just like to remind you Eatabullet that a notable figure is one who is considered notable by many. Having led a yeshiva that is 90 years old and with a student body numbering approximately 800 I think Rabbi Weinberg is quite notable.Nerguy (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The principal at my 135 year old high school led a student body of approximately 2000 for decades. Can he be on Wikipedia too? Is that worthy of a Wikipedia article? Eatabullet (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see why notNerguy (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eatabullet: By your standards, as described above by your denigrating statements, very few rabbis and yeshivas would make it onto Wikipedia. You evidently seem to know little about this subject by the way you disparage it regardless of your degrees which are in all probability not in this area of expertise it seems. The article has now been expanded with more reliable citations, facts and references and is no longer a stub. More will be added. You are again kindly requested to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    • Hi, these are not my standards, they are the standards of Wikipedia.

      Regardless, no matter how much you may like a topic and admire a figure, it doesn't mean you should make personal attacks as you have on me here. Need I remind you of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks?

      You should also understand a very basic fact: I simply don't agree with you, because prior to any edits you may have made, you were simply spewing out original unverified research as if they were some known fact to the world. Perhaps it's because you feel so passionately about Judaism that you fail to see that I am allowed to have an opinion contrary to yours, even if you think you are really, really right and just in your quest to protect this article, seemingly at any cost. And this fact holds true even if my opinion doesn't mesh with yours AND 5 or 6 supporters who may be biased toward a topic. Should I just say I suddenly agree with you because you personally attack me, use bold font or cryptically say "it would be wise" to do so? Why would it be wise to succumb to your original research? In fact, that would only harm the Wikipedia community. Personally attacks and attempting to bully me doesn't make this figure notable and it also doesn't negate Wikipedia guidelines.

      Once I've had a chance to review your edits and research your sources, I will be in a better position to judge whether it is a notable topic, based on the stated criteria for notability on Wikipedia. Your deep emotions aside, the subject in question (prior to my nomination and to any edits you may have subsequently made) had NOT received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it did not warrant inclusion for a stand-alone article according to my interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines.

      Perhaps in Yeshiva you can't question unreliable sources, but I think on Wikipedia it must be done with a clear head and without emotions. You can't just write or claim anything you like (or skirt what is clearly written in the notability guidelines) and have a temper tantrum and launch personal attacks when someone questions that. If there are sources you know of...add them! I don't understand how attacking me makes any point other than you violating Wikipedia's rules on civility and personal attacks. Simply provide the information and let the reliable well-sourced facts speak for themselves.

      For the record I will not become hostile and confrontational as you have, even in the face of your abuse. Information.svg Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Eatabullet (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

      • Hi Eatabullte: Thanks for responding. My reply is posted at [2] to avoid duplication. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)