Please make your additions at the bottom of this page. Please feel encouraged to begin a new section if the article has changed. I'll try and start it and call it 'New Topic.' Just change that, or start above it. If you don't see it, I got lazy.
Your additions are personal linkspam. See WP:linkspam.—Markles 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply: I tried to add the only collection of U.S. State Constitution preambles I know of to articles discussing preambles. It was my own site. I disagree with the removal of my additions, and feel unappreciated for my work in compiling such a study. I may have erred by sometimes adding reference links to articles only on the verge of discussions of state preambles.
I am not someone who has any interest in editing wars or dealing with people's personal baggage that they bring to Wikipeida. Your statement "You're the Reform Jew" in the Talk:Jeshurun page shows an incredible bias and is an inappropriate comment. Whatever your personal feelings are about other branches of Judaism, please leave them off a NPOV editing discussion. It is hard to talk an editor seriously who claims Jewish knowledge and neutrality and at the same time offers statements intended to divide and separate. Thank you for working towards a neutral stance as an editor of this online encyclopedia. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Any Reform Jew that thinks they don't have a bias in the overall picture of Judaism has a problem, and the so-called 'personal baggage'. I don't find the fact inappropriate or incredible. I don't find the fact acts to 'divide and seperate'. I NEVER expressed any so-called "...personal feelings...about other branches of Judaism...," but the assumption I did indicates an infidelity. The fact I pointed out the NPOV lacking in JerseyRabbi (talk)'s comments when he or she undid a minor edit I made, and now makes those accusations against me is troubling. This commentary started over about two lines of edit, that now stand with his or her notations of citation needed. Mateek (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mateek. When analyzing a recent 3RR complaint that you made about the Jeshurun article, I became concerned about your possible usage of multiple accounts. Using sockpuppets to make it appear that your point of view has more support than it really does is a policy violation. To avoid future trouble, I urge you to limit yourself to using a single account. Deliberate violations of policy can lead to blocks without any further warning. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because the Wikipedia cookie expires when I'm filing here at the 3RR Noticeboard, or I forget to sign innocently doesn't make me intentionally deceptive in any way, which accounts for the IP addresses, and User accounts aren't involved! Since I believe you responded to my 3RR Noticeboard post unauthorized, in conjunction with Scarian, a User under partial block, I doubt you are credible at all. Mateek (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mateek. If you persist in re-adding the same unsourced passage at Jeshurun, you may be blocked for edit warring without further notice. If you can't get consensus from the other editors for your change, then leave it be. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit-warring on the Jeshurun article. Repeated addition of the same unsourced material, which continued in spite of patient explanations. This behavior followed the submission of a 3RR report on the same article which seemed to involve abuse of multiple IP accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (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).
The reader gets an understanding of the common sense subject from my additions. Without my additions, present day usage of the subject of the article are ignored, and my additions are already tagged, and credible, sometimes higher in the article, or supported by other articles on Wikipedia (Ex.: Tanya, Esotericism, Semantics, Jeshurun).
The accusing admin(s) seems to be inept, for failing to solve a common sense issue, as opposed to making Jews look simple (See Jeshurun Jewish Usage section) by this block.
A second read of Isaiah may be helpful to find intentionally futuristic language in the text of Isaiah, but certainly not necessary, by any wild stretch of the imagination. I ask a neutral Admin to recognize the need for normal, or even wide interpretation, as opposed to the narrow irresponsible one, restricted to the past tense, being kept by this block.
I'm a neutral editor. I've never met you before, I don't really understand what the dispute is about, and I'm not Jewish. I don't need to understand the dispute to see the problems with your edits- you do appear to be edit-warring rather than working toward consensus, and you also appear to fail to assume good faith, accusing editors who disagree with you of being inept, malicious, or members of a conspiracy against your point of view. If your point of view is truly correct, then you won't be the only one who knows that; eventually, some user who has the sources to support these edits will come who also has the skill of negotiating politely with others. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 June 2008 (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.
Reply:EdJohnston repeats his statement about possible misuse of IP addresses, despite my reply a few lines above: "Just because the Wikipedia cookie expires when I'm filing here at the 3RR Noticeboard, or I forget to sign innocently doesn't make me intentionally deceptive in any way, which accounts for the IP addresses, and User accounts aren't involved! Since I believe you responded to my 3RR Noticeboard post unauthorized, in conjunction with Scarian, a User under partial block, I doubt you are credible at all." 22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Admin 'Denial to Unblock':You are 100% correct, in noticing I'm not working toward a consensus at all. I have no interest in going that direction, concerning the removal of general reading comprehension. My good faith was doing a tremendous amount of work in Wikipedia protocol, in warning others THAT PROBABLY ARE WORKING TOGETHER, on their individual Talk pages, and in the 3RR Noticeboard, not to remove my obvious additions. I resent your saying I accused others of maliciousness. I did say inept, but not toward editors. You really don't pay attention. Now that you mention conspiracy, yeah, if something as miniscule as editing a Wikipedia page could be termed that way, then yes. Your loyalty is transparent, and possibly meritorious in some vague fashion. Unfortunately, I have to be honest, I again found your actions inept. Mateek (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent editing history at Immanuel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
---
REPLY posted at Tgeorgescu(talk): Tgeorgescu, You accuse me of being in an edit war by using the (undo) provided on every edit, ignored my reason "Truth in translating Hebrew and explaining historical progression" and claimed I was "Not abiding by consensus." Since I'm from the native religion of Isaiah the source of Immanuel and it's smaller than the other religions, then yes consensus, but a bogus one. You're a vandal here. Mateek (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User Talk:Tgeorgescu that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
---
REPLY another lie, at least in real time, since nothing's been removed. I said vandal, and lie. Not sorry for the harsh words at all. Apparently you speak for wikipedia after my comment on my change is "Truth" and "progression"? You're nothing but a disgrace. Mateek (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)REPLY since strikeout by Tgeorgescu(talk)so it has been removed on his own comment AFTER I already replied!: In his edit only!!!!: "that's true, it has not been removed, it's a generic message"Reply
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User Talk:Tgeorgescu that didn't seem very civil, 
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Mateek. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)