Fairnsquare

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to History of ancient Israel and Judah, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Meir Kahane. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Meir Kahane. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to points

I believe that my edits are all in a natural way and all have sources. There are sources as to the extreme prejudice of the reporter. There are also sources showing that the NYT - as all newspapers - are only as good as their reporters.

Please be specific and I will try to comply.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Meir Kahane, you may be blocked from editing. If you want to make such a change, discuss it on the talk page, and get WP:CONSENSUS. Philip Trueman (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip, explain your vandalism comment since there is no vandalism I am updating the Meir Kahane page with accurate information based on references.

Please look at the notes page where everything changed is explained.

a. The village voice is mentioned without reference b. The obituary reference is false as it does not refer to what is claimed. Thise should be removed until there are proper references.

c. Mr. Kaufman is saying what he heard in a private conversation with Rabbi Kahane. He happens to be self described as sonmeone who hates what rabbi Kahane stands for and he would want to bring the Rabbi down.

There are proper references for those items and it is correct to poinbt them out.

Please explain your "vandalism" charge.

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 Meir Kahane. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Your account has been blocked from editing for a period of one week, for a combination of edit-warring at Meir Kahane as well as major violations of Wikpedia's core policy concerning neutrality. Looie496 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have edited the site Meir Kahane and have provided detailed reaons in the discussion page. After being warned not to vandalize by updating the page I wrote to the users who sent me the warnings as follows:

"Please look at the notes page where everything changed is explained.

a. The village voice is mentioned without reference
b. The obituary reference is false as it does not refer to what is claimed. Thise should be removed until there are proper references.
c. Mr. Kaufman is saying what he heard in a private conversation with Rabbi Kahane. He happens to be self described as someone who hates what Rabbi Kahane stands for and he would want to bring the Rabbi down.
There are proper references for those items and it is correct to point them out.

Please explain your "vandalism" charge. "

Please note that I got no response to my questions and points and please further note that I posted my points and explanation on their user pages. There was no rebuttal or response from them when they reversed my updates.

The bottom line is that it should be proper to point out questions about a source, when

• the only existing source claims he knows it only from an unverifiable private conversation,
• the person they are talking about is not living to defend themselves (the article was written in 1996 - 6 years after Rabbi Kahane's death) and
• it has been denied.

Please note that I have not removed anything - I just added more sources to show the questionability of the reporter cited. In addition I brought two sources pointing out that newspapers, including the NYT, are only as good as the reporter, and may be inaccurate especially when the political spectrum of the subject of the article is not their own.
This is in accordance with WIKI's page: WP:RS "No source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source."
Furthermore it states: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."
...and there IS a missing source and a false source and they were pointed out. I pointed these out and my points were ignored.

Is WIKI supposed to be a place where the defamation of people with missing and inaccurate references is allowed and at the same time serious questions about the source with references is not allowed??

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, per WP:3RR Stephen 05:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.