User talk:155.246.151.38

September 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Ben 10 (2016 TV series) episodes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello, I'm Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Saugus, Massachusetts— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Samf4u (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kashrut, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

1. Christian theologian not rs for Kashrut. 2. Just some clarification of Maimonides. Look at source text: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Substitution.4?lang=bi 3. Making clear that according to views on Kashrut, primary reason is divine commandment, benefits are just incidental.

August 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boomerang_indeff_Triggerhippie4, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.Template:Z183 –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 15:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I feel confused, because I have been editing in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. There was a content dispute, but that was discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. I think this may be some kind of mistake. 155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have taken a closer look at the edits and what appeared at a glance to be removal of content, actually appears to be removal of unsourced content. I'm convinced this is a content dispute and will unblock per WP:AGF. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 18:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Names of God in Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Nightvour (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Was reverting the sock of Orchomen called Pipsally. Warshy appears to be confused about who the sock is.155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I hope Warshy is aware of the situation and apoligize for overlooking the edit history without examing it closely. Nightvour (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the acknowledgement! Not every Wikipedian looks too closely at an IP editors edits, you are one of the better ones who is willing to reflect and relook their edits! Keep up the great work!155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of misunderstanding

Cyberpower678 Pipsally I think what happened is that the report came before this comment ^[1]. And then the report was for some reason not withdrawn. Anyways, although I am an IP, I am human.

It did come before that comment. But that has no bearing on the fact that you continue to remove content and leave misleading edit summaries. There was no reason to remove the report.

I also think you should log in...Pipsally (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpower678, Pipsally

"On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." I am not deliberately obstructing or intending to defeat the projects purpose. I am using reliable sources, and effectively evaluating information. Based on this, it is against policy to block for vandalism when I am clearly not vandalizing. Which edit is allegedly misleading?155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pipsally&diff=1036547900&oldid=1036542702

I waited in the rain for hours ...

Might as well just continue the joke ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you unblock me?

Daniel Case Or at least explain why I was blocked when I am clearly editing in good faith?

Please respond and review my block

Cyberpower678

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Haredi Judaism, you may be blocked from editing. PabloMartinez (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is content dispute. Since 2016, the divorce rate was 5% among the Haredi population, compared to the general Israeli population rate of 14%.^[1] I could not find more recent nationwide data. If you can find it, I will certainly be happy. The other articles just mentioned data in isolated cities.

Apologies for not addressing this sooner, but the removal of what seems to be valid information seemed to be "whitewashing". I will stop reverting and bring others in for review. I would imagine a less subjective edit could cover both sides of the divorce issue, but to remove the issue completely seems one-sided. - PabloMartinez (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.idi.org.il/media/4240/shnaton-e_8-9-16_web.pdf

Why no User name yet?

Hi. Why are you still editing under an IP address? You would have much more credibility on WP if you worked on WP under a user name of your choice. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Good_Faith_Wikipedians_Who_Remain_Unregistered_on_Principle

It feels that other users pay more attention to an IP users arguments and actually try to address it without the potential bias a given user name can cause.155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, okay. IZAK (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for keeping an eye on Names of God in Judaism. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement!!155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tread lightly at Names of God in Judaism

You've reverted three established editors—one of whom edited the article before the now-blocked Pipsally did. While your revert of Pipsally may qualify for an exemption from WP:3RR, the other reverts don't. You really need to discuss the matter at Talk:Names of God in Judaism and reach consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: I actually posted a note at Warshy's talk page asking for an explanation so hopefully this will be resolved soon. In the meantime, 155.246.151.38, I agree with C.Fred. Please refrain from any more reverts as this really could be a simple misunderstanding and no need to escalate it any further at this point. Not to mention, it could lead to you getting in trouble and no need for that either. S0091 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the gentle explanation!155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adoshem

I agree that the section that you removed about "Adoshem" was completely unsourced. And not of high quality. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable with removing any and all information about the use of the term from Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, feel free to revert!155.246.151.38 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten and shortened that section. How do you like it now? I tried to find some sources, but was not satisfied by what I found, so the "unsourced section" tag remains. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser I remember this being discussed early on in kitzur shulchan oruch. I don't remember exactly where, but probably in the section where it speaks about blessings (and blessings in vain). Keep up the good work Debresser!155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 6, paragraph 3: "When you wish to mention the Name of Hashem you should say the word Hashem, and not as the common people who say Adoshem, because this reference is undignified when referring to Heaven." Debresser (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job Debresser!!155.246.151.38 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

The Dubai IP's reverting you most definitely are Orchomen. However, long-term established users like Hipocrite and Nomoskedasticity most definitely are not. Just because a user reverts you, doesn't automatically make them a sockpuppet. Sro23 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the info! 155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be reverting a lot of editors on these grounds, without it seems.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23:I hope I'm not exceeding my "authority" since I am already Sorry but, it's a good-practice on this site (English Wikipedia) to ping the editors you are mentioning/referencing, even if nothing reasonably undesirable is conveyed from your vantage-point. So for the time being, I am doing so here and here. —103.163.124.65 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here on this site (English Wikipedia) it's also good practice to assume good faith, IP, so please don't treat me like I'm an idiot. Sro23 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: I already do know the same, and "assuming good-faith" is the sole reason why I, need I spell-out, clarified that I understand that you may not realise you needed to ping them. (Concisely speaking.) Should I apologise more because you took it personally and are feeling hurt by my thoughtfully worded “heads up”? Since at least I've already tried to make an effort in clarifying on top of my original explanation. —103.163.124.65 (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some helpful articles

Hey IZAK, here are some helpful articles for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Another_unreliable_Haaretz_article:

From Haaretz https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-how-the-haredi-street-turned-racist-and-ultra-nationalist-1.9513491 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-religious-teens-would-rescind-arab-vote-poll-1.9551732 https://www.haaretz.com/1.5158719 Not-Haaretz: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/haaretz-wont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/world/israel-virus-rabbi-orthodox.html https://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/haredim-news/chul-mehudar-group-haaretz-claim-of-preferential-treatment-to-haredim-is-baseless-slander/2021/02/22/

There is a lot more in the sewages of Haaretz, but this is enough for today. 155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC) StonyBrook I.am.qwerty SuperJew Pi314m Puzzledvegetable‎ Pashute Nerguy Jfdwolff KirkCliff2 Zozoulia Muhandes Marbehraglaim Maor X Jdavi333 Invisiboy42293 Jaredscribe Rabbi Barry Charlie Smith FDTB[reply]

Honestly, I don't need convincing. Sadly there are a lot of people on WP who enjoy imbibing and spewing sewage. IZAK (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reporters that you can reach out to? This is definitely something that requires media attention! Keep up and increase the good work IZAK!155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Haaretz about as reliable or “neutral” (even by WP standards) as the National Enquirer or Al-Jazeera. Just wish it could become a de jure policy. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KirkCliff2: Notwithstanding the fact that you were canvassed by this fellow IP, let alone focusing on your punctuation since better: You must realise that since Wikipedia is not blog/op-ed column (the English-language version, at the very least), you aren't supposed to convey your opinion to others. Especially if you have been invited by a like-minded editor and above all, you feel strongly about sharing that personal-opinion. You are, however, more than welcome to share tempered revision of this draft in an RFC about this on the relevant noticeboard provided you manage to comply with all of the guidelines in giving a dispassionate summary of why you want changes to those already-settled cases at the list of perennial-reliability of sources. And by “guidelines”, yes, I do mean that "I/my-kibbutz/-society know that the stuff put out by these 2 sources are <pejorative-this> and <epithet-that>" are not an example of “tempered revision”, not by a very very very long shot. Yasher Koa[k]ha. :-) —103.163.124.65 (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Edited 06:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for involving me in the discussion. I sincerely appreciate it. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTDUMB, we are not afraid of negative publicity.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally avoid editing where my feelings could impair judgement. That being said, however, Haaretz is somewhat infamous for their far-left stances. Also, I’m not the type to demand mountains be moved over past articles; however, people should know that Haaretz is often unreliable in their reporting. KirkCliff2 (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canvasing

PLease read wp:canvas.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not

Please read wp:not and wp:nothere as well as wp:rightgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an account

One way around page protection is to edit using an account. Please read WP:BENEFITS as to why this is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which I am sure he will run to do especially after in the previous section you slapped him with those accusations. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is asking for RSN to be un-protected (protected because of IP socking) so he can edit it, An easier solution is not to be an IP.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given his precocious lawyering I think it's abundantly clear he already has, or more likely had, accounts!2001:8F8:1DC4:4B40:1699:DF71:DB87:832 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to accuse a user of socking do it openly and report it here wp:spi. Making false accusations of socking (as I have said to them) is a wp:pa.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021 2nd time

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Doug Weller You could have been a bit more specific here, like in the blog log where you said: "disruptive editing, canvassing, trying to win their case by getting media attention. I note that they appear to know that content needs sourcing but are adding unsourced content."

Was this block discussed anywhere? What edits by this editor are considered disruptive? Debresser (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, See the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Canvassing. Admins do not actually need to await the result of a discussion when a policy has been clearly violated like this.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pipsally&diff=1036547900&oldid=1036542702

[2] ttps://en.idi.org.il/media/4240/shnaton-e_8-9-16_web.pdf

[1]

[1]