User talk:Incorrect

Welcome!

Hello, Incorrect, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Shapiro

I am the creator of Adam Shapiro. I responded on the talk page there. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette

I saw your message on talk:Abrahamic religion. You listed it as a minor edit. Your opinion isn't minor! Grammer and formatting are. Also you wrote your statement attached right to the end of the previous one, which could confuse some readers and make them go back to figure out where the one ends and yours begins. The standard practice is to use colons at the beginning of the statement to format it as a seperate paragraph.

:like this,

::or this.

which comes out like this,

or this.

Also, I don't know if you did this or not, but signing with four tildes (~) automatically places your name and a timestamp. It's really convenient and considered good practice.

Have fun helping to build this encyclopedia! -LambaJan 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my page

Hey there! I just wanted to know if you saw my message, so I can move our discussion to my talk page. Philip Gronowski 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Shapiro

Thanks, that was actually vandalism. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 21:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religion

Okay, I am reverting the edits about the 613 commandments. As I said on my talk-page, a person can see the traditional Jewish understanding of the incident at Mount Sinai on the Ten Commandments page. Philip Gronowski 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Neumann anti-Semitic?

You recently made this claim "I just deleted the reference to the notorious anti semite Michael Neumann being Jewish, there is NO cite for that." You provided no support for this claim. Can you make this accusation on his Wikipedia page here Michael Neumann and support it. If your claim is true then it should be documented. Thanks. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 21:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit on User:Grace Note's user page. Just be aware that Grace Note is a critic, but also an anti-critic, and his ideas for a new "critic's forum" have been used as the basis for Wikitruth.info, and that he is heavily involved in it. Also note that Grace Note actively supports anti-semite User:SlimVirgin whilst bandying around the banner that he is trying to stop neo nazis. List of British Jews is being used to push the political views of JewWatch, an affiliate of Stormfront. Go to the Jew Watch site and you'll see what I am talking about. An anti-semite wants to make very sure that they don't accidentally catch people who are not Jews. A Jew themselves will be very broad with the definition of who is a Jew. You know whose side is being pushed on the List of British Jews, and you know the ultimate aim of it all. Grace Note most likely knows about that aim too, but probably doesn't care, because it helps him with his own political agenda. Your edit was brave. 59.167.139.226 15:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA

Please try to stay civil and avoid personal attacks. Thanks Arniep 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalising

You have vandalised Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Please, do not do that again.--RockyMM 22:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL

Hi, I think it may help for you to read WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL both of which are important Wikipedia policies. JoshuaZ 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grace Note

Do not make edits to others user pages. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I've blocked this account for 48 hours for disruption, because it seems to do little but cause problems, the latest being vandalism of Grace Note's user page and accusing Arniep of vandalism. As the account makes very few positive contributions, if there are grounds for a block again, it's likely to be indefinite next time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my userpage

If you have something to say to me that you want me to read, please put it on my talkpage at User talk:Grace Note. You will just be reverted if you put your message on my userpage, and that kind of behaviour will soon enough see you banned from Wikipedia. Also, please try to be coherent and helpful and avoid personalising your messages by insulting me. I don't mind at all being insulted, but if you actually do have something to say, your message will be swamped by the insults and whatever agenda you are pursuing will not be furthered by doing that. On the issue of List of British Jews, please read the policies concerned, because I think a lot of your problem with that page would be resolved if you had a better idea what Wikipedia is and how it is put together. -- Grace Note 03:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To All: Please be advised that I have found Wikipedia to be a fraudulant, unattractive misadventure. Those such as GN and VS, have bullied their way into control of at least one site - the fun and enjoyment of trying to help create an interesting site is totally destroyed when one has to deal with bullies and their synchophants - particularly so when the bullies are obtuse and inconsistent in their viewpoints. All I can report to others reading this - don't bother trying to assert reason or responsibility, if you are unlucky enough to be concerned with an article that is controlled by a partisan (e.g. List of Bristish Jews, Castro, Cuba, Muslim and other Religions, Global Warming, etc.) you will soon find out that if you don't accede to the view of the "owner" of the particular article, or whatever pc mindset controls that article, you will be fighting an uphill battle to properly edit. Having said that, fairwell to wikipedia, fairwell to all of those who care.

No, people have objected on the respective articles because you have continually, all over this forum, removed and vandalised sourced and legitimate contributions, inserted unsourced, weasel-worded, blatantly-biased, potentially libellous and often simply untrue remarks, and have constantly pushed a personal political agenda at the expense of accuracy and verifiability. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between your personal opinion and verifiable reality and of understanding the wikipedia policies of NPOV, No Weasel Words and Citing Sources. Good riddence FrFintonStack

Fidel Castro

I have reverted your changes to this article; nowhere else in the article does it provide any evidence for the claim that Castro is a "mass murderer", and you do not cite a source on this statement. Given our recent concerns about biographies of living persons, we need to be extra careful that we do not slander anyone. If you do find a reliable source for that information, feel free to add it along with a citation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect is back- upon reconsideration, the fight against the anti semites, the fools, and the boobs is worth waging - LET'S ROLL!!

LinkTV

Please take a look at the discussion page -- thanks! -- ArglebargleIV 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a shot at rewriting what you added to LinkTV -- tried to be more encyclopedic, provided links, etc. I think the article is more balanced now with criticism present, without going too far in the other direction -- people can read it and make up their own mind. Let me know what you think. -- ArglebargleIV 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various characterizations

Hi. If you're going to insert assertions of anti-semitism in articles such as Amy Goodman, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies about citing verifiable reliable sources; otherwise, your additions will be removed. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon already answered the same question you've asked me. Also, duplicating the same unsubstantiated allegation is counterproductive. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Rebbe

I would agree with you about POV but for the fact that there is no movement whatsoever for another Rebbe. So your wording essentially entertains a possibility that is practically impossible. That's false information. It is certainly not POV to write something that everyone agrees is accurate: there will not be another Lubavitcher Rebbe. Nobody disagrees with this.--Meshulam 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on talk pages

Deletion of personal attacks is legitimate per Wikipedia guidelines. Your comments border on the sort of vandalism that may get you blocked, so I encourage you to try constructive edits instead of attacking other editors. I don't know who you are and can't tell if you were being rhetorical or actually believe that Jews can't edit the articles. Either way, your comments are unacceptable. Remember to stay civil. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism comment

Hi, thanks for contributing to the Zionism article. It is an article that still needs quite a bit of work. I just wanted to respond to your comment on the talk page: I don't think it's helpful to make sweeping statements about the actions of 'pro-Jewish' and 'Muslim' editors. As a Jewish editor, I do my best not to let my sympathy for Israel get in the way of sticking to NPOV. As you may have noticed, there's a little bit of an edit war taking place on this article at the moment; I'm trying, in my own small way, to make my contributions to resolving it. I think the best way to do that is to make no claims that can't be fully sourced, and to have conflicting points of view described. Any help you can give in doing that will be most welcome. However, I wouldn't be too worried about any Jewish editors being 'cowed' into hiding the truth - there are good wikipedians editing this article, who do care about giving an accurate account of the subject matter. Thanks, Nomist 11:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Corrie

Due to the nature of the article, changes should be discussed on the talk page before they are made. Ckessler 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

numbers

Responding to: M, I expect your knowledge in this area is superior to mine - how do we go about getting good estimates of numbers for the various hassid groups out there; the information must be available somewhere. Incorrect 06:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you expect to much. As it is, I don't know how to get a accurate census. It is difficult because there are a bi question (assuming someone has even bothered to count all of the Lubavitchers.): Who is a Lubavitcher? (When does someone become a Lubavitcher: Is it when he stops trimming his beard? Is it when he starts keeping kashrus? Is it when he hangs a picture of the Rebbe from the rear view mirror of his car? etc.) As it is, I don't know of anyone who has bothered to count, though I recall hearing that (amongst American Chassidim) Satmar was the biggest group, followed by Bobov, followed (not closely) by Chabad. That's not reliable either, however. I will try to do some investigating, but I doubt I'll come up with anything. --Meshulam 15:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits you're making

The edits you have been making to Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and the John Pilger articles, where you add comments such as "anti Israel", might be considered to be vandalism. Please add supportinging citations for these types of inflammatory additions. Thanks. See also--MONGO 11:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how many chassidic jews exist?

I tried to help your questions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hasidic_Judaism#Question_about_How_Many_Chasidic_Jews_exist

JJ211219 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-NPOV Comments: STOP

Please stop with your non-NPOV edits to many pages regarding Israel and touchy subjects. When done frequently (and you have done it already), it is considered vandalism. I am hereby considering any non-NPOV edits you make as vandalism and you will be warned as per policy. If you do not stop, you WILL be banned from editing Wikipedia.

Consider yourself warned. Arbiteroftruth 05:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]