Youknowbest

Welcome to Wikipedia from Cf38

Hi, Youknowbest. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four squiggles (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! cf38^talk 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rabbi, but we 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 Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material.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. Shirulashem (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• On a related note, Sefer Torah refers to the physical torah scroll. I think you meant to use the term "written law" (as opposed to "oral law". Shirulashem (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish leadership

Sorry, but I also had to revert your edits to Jewish leadership. Some of the factual errors: you put that a Mahzor is the daily prayer book. It's not ... the Siddur is. The Mahzor is the prayer book used only on holidays. Also, my note above about sefer torah applies here too. A few quick suggestions:

• Always use edit summaries when you make edits that explain the edit you're making
• Always put in references to cite your sources
• Try to maintain NPOV

If you have any questions, or need help editing, please let me know. Shirulashem (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

O.k, I'll keep an eye on it.cf38^talk 11:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shema quotes

Hiya, welcome to Wikipedia! I removed your quotes because they were in a format not consistent with our Manual of Style (all-caps is no good), they had no reference and your talkpage shows some record of unreliability in terms of Jewish worship. I am actually a teacher of Jewish Studies and your errors above (machzor/siddur etc.) don't inspire confidence! It was these three factors that led me to delete, but, however - please keep trying! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really can't face trying to make head or tail of the message you left me. However, from the look of it, you should perhaps re-read the following Wikipedia policies: WP:CITE, WP:SIG, WP:POINT. The first in particular! Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

One last comment

Please do not engage with me again, I have no interest in your arguments with Wikipedia. However, you posted on another user's talkpage that I "claim to be a Rabbi" - I don't. I didn't. I never did. So don't lie. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to User talk:TreasuryTag constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am paid by my synagogue to teach Hebrew and Religious Knowledge to a class of 11-13 year-olds. This does not make me a rabbi, please be sensible, you must surely realise that there are people who work in synagogues who are not rabbonim. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The truth vs verifiable facts

Hi Youknowbest

You've been mentioned in a thread at our Administrators' noticeboard. I'd like to offer you some advice.

In your recent edits and interactions, you appear to have been committing two Wikipedia "sins". In your edits, you have been taking sources and interpreting them to fit your own theories (or the theories of others that you agree with). We'd rather you didn't do this. There are other ways of expressing your beliefs, both within Wikipedia and without. But within Wikipedia, you need to quote someone else saying what you believe to be true and provide a reliable, third party source for those quotes. Second, and this may just be how the internet works, you appear to have been trying to score points off fellow editors on their talk pages. There's no sport in this - the internet doesn't allow for reasoned debate in text form - and it just frustrates your fellow editors. You can, by all means, discuss any subject. But please try to stay calm and focused on the content, not the contributor.

Take the above as friendly advice, please. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there. I noticed you were getting some "stick" on the admins' noticeboard. Our guidelines on Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources might help you understand the problems other users are having with your edits. Hope this helps! Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not available to help you with this dispute at the moment. I think you should take the advice of those above me and read up on our policies and the appropriate processes that are involved. Andre (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't a worry about it Andre. IMO I don't have to be the most liked creature on wikiYouknowbest (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What advise is that Andre? The advise of others? If I take the advise of others, I wouldn't be contributing to this site. I would just accept what the 'advise of others' on every topic as the truth. But YOUKNOWBEST.Youknowbest (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Righteous gentiles

Could you please clarify for me whether a Christian can be a 'righteous gentile' if they follow the Noahide laws? Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello YKB. Would you make your posts less biblical? I'm having trouble understanding some of it. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Doug: Don't ask me. Look it up in wiki and you will find the truth-notYouknowbest (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Good. Nah can do mate. That is my schtick. But lika said I could help you with the athiest book.Youknowbest (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, my kind don't need a book. We don't force our views on others, in hopes of getting money in return (i.e. the collection plates). GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I like you, but you just can't see it. My view is so opposite what mainstream Jews think because they are brainwashed into it, that it appears to have motive a hidden agenda, maybe money. Wrong.

1. 1 if you believe in teh bible as being the word of God (and you have said you don't but countless other do and this is for them) then the 'other' writings of Rabbinical Judaism are all hipocracy and against the word of God.
2. 2 that is itYouknowbest (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Well maybe not. See there are 2 types of orthodox Jews, but because of the take-down of the sadducee in 70ad by Rabbinical Judaism people have forgotten about us. We have no voice today, even though most Jews live a life of a sadducee which is not half as restricting as the Rabbinical Judaism order.

Rabbinical Judaism wrote all kinds of stuff on top of the sefer torah even though they were commanded NOT to. Why? Because it was a political manuver to take control of all Jews and Israel. They did this by nurdering the sadducee and destroying their holy temple and writing their own laws called the mishnah which later became the talmud. Then they had polpe like rambam agreeing with the talmud and so on another layer of lies was added.

I make it simple. I beleive in 1 God. I believe in 1 book and that is the sefer torah and I pray, when I do, hardly ever, directly to God and there is no middle man or Lord as interpreter.

What you do is your business, but wiki should identify that specif terminology pertains to specific sects of Jews with the appropriate references.

I am asking your opinion, not what Wikipedia says. Doug Weller (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Doug I have no opinion other than my own belief and for everything else you can find it online. I am no rabbi, I am not educated in Jewish law, just a dumb Jew with an inheritance :-)Youknowbest (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh Doug, I Do NOT think that my translation is the only 'true' translation - What an assumption for you to make!

Good. You need to explain yourself more clearly then. I took the bit about 'layer of lies' as meaning that (but I can see where that probably means something else), but I am still puzzled about your claim that I discuss on the AN page where you seem to be saying one translation is wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 15:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hillel's ancestry

I thought I'd point out that Hillel, while he was descended from David on his mother's side, was of the tribe of Benjamin, according to Rav Sherira Gaon. That point is actually mentioned in the article, which is probably why your edit was reverted. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ThanksYouknowbest (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki where we are now and where we have come from

Looking back at Wiki Faq's I was struck how honest and kind with good intentions, this project started out as.

They had just a handful of benefactors and have grown to so much more, as in the new list of benefactors

Does Jimmy Wales Bomis Inc 619-273-9361 San Diego CA - jwales@bomis.com know what is going on with his baby, the personal attacks, name calling, threats, provocation and just plain idiocy of the ungodly agents ruling over this site like trolls from above?

Do you think we should contact the list of kind supporters to let them know that this was not the orginal idea as stated in the FAQ's where it states 'What is a Wiki?' and 'Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia--indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and depth. We also want Wikipedia to become a reliable resource. It's an ambitious goal, and it will take many years to achieve it', and maybe they should rethink where to place their hard earned money?

Your thoughts are welcome, I liked the orginal wiki a few years ago, but this trashy behavior should be publisized.

Youknowbest (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Aaron

I rv'd your edit to Aaron. Please refer to the MOS. You don't need to wikify the same word so many times. Shirulashem (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Aaron PLEASE EXPLAIN

Sure you did and I have a problem with that.

The word INHERITANCE isn't mentioned in Aaron and why not?

Because you don't want it to appear?

Why not change the format and keep the message instead of deleting it?

Do you have your own agenda? PLease answer the questions if you are cordial.Youknowbest (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aaron. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can see FisherQueen, every effort has been made to accomodate these individuals and it is they that delete entire blocks of my text without modification, purely because they don't like the idea. No discussion has eve come about, just their use of power, threats, provocation, lies and idiocy. It may be time for wiki to look inside instead of outside, to see their problems. IMO Youknowbest (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at your edits, and it seems that you may not have a full understanding of our neutral point of view policy. We strive for fully neutral encyclopedia articles, which report the verified facts so neutrally that people on all sides could agree that they are accurate. You seem to be promoting the point of view of a specific religious perspective. That is what is causing you to come into conflict with other users. I hope you'll be able to follow our rules regarding neutrality, because we can always use editors who are knowledgeable about Judaism, and I'd hate to see you blocked for pushing your point of view. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)

I rv'd the final edit you made to Aaron. Please note that when you have a disagreement with other editors regarding the content of an article, the proper procedure is to have a discussion on the talk page of the article. Otherwise, you simply have an edit war, which we don't want. Shirulashem (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring at Aaron. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:31, 23 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Shirulashem was kind enough to state: "the proper procedure is to have a discussion on the talk page of the article". Why the hell did I have to go through all this and all someone had to tell me was that? The policy of wiki to "So be bold in updating pages!" is BS because all you do is delete them, get someone totally pissed off, then threaten them, swear at them, insult them, call them names, then ban them. What you effectively do is turn legitimate contributors into enemies who would like nothing else but to see you go away from whence you came. You should advertise your proceedures with more diligence, clarity, care and ethics. IMO

Decline reason:

You were given a warning to stop edit warring further up this page. We do encourage bold contributions, but if someone reverts you you're expected to work it out. The warning you were given clearly stated this. You're clearly not willing to talk things over, and so you will remain blocked for now. Please see consensus and the bold, revert, discuss process for more information. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:08, 23 October 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.

Note to admins: read the two WP:AN discussions before unblocking! Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The message that I left you told you that. I know you received it, because you responded to it. It also warned you that violating the three-revert rule would result in your being blocked. You chose to revert after that warning. That's why I blocked you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not reverted, that was not an option I used, I copied and pasted the text as I have it stored. Be specific man and grow some and extend the ban for 10000 years!IDGACYouknowbest (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked you for 24 hours, because it was the only way to get you to stop edit warring. I hoped that you would stop, learn the rules, and then do better when your block expires. If you want an indefinite block, though, all you'll need to do is return to the edit-warring when your block expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, thanks for that tip.

Say, is anyone in wiki NOT gay? I have nothing against gays but that page is watched like a hawk. Queen this and Redvers that and Treasure just hoping I'm going to implode. I have years friends, and I'll be making changes while you're napping in Wimbledon and snoozin in the Bay. My promise. Taataa, see you in 24 hours or maybe more

Editing while blocked

Your block may be extended if you continue to edit anonymously [1]. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

DCEdwards1966 you have falsly accused me of activity by user 92.11.47.205 that happens to be consistent with by own contribution, as being mine. Do you expect me to be gratefull for this insult? Your apology is expected and required, sir!Youknowbest (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC) - The reference to this activity by user 92.11.47.205 is at Aaron

Youknowbest, it is rather suspicious that an anonymous user who hasn't edited before made the exact same edit shortly after you were blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Kicking Poop

“ Is that your apology? I've been setup before. But sweety, you know this is your game here, I'm just having some fun. You know what they say about kicking poop? ”

We expect you to respect the block, not avoid it by editing from a different ip. I have extended the block to 48 hours; please don't edit Wikipedia until your block expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

“ I have no respect for you if you don't respect me. Call me a liar, I call you an asshole ”

We expect you to interact politely with other users. For your recent personal attack, I have extended your block to one week. Do you understand? If you are not able to get along with other users, we can't let you edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia editing depends on editing politely and cooperatively; that's the only kind of editing that works here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

“ What do you think calling me a liar is? Do you know who I am? A personal attack? No, to you that is bullshit. Georgie, take a freekin jump. You know exactly what your rainbow heart is telling you to do. Have a safe drive home and watch out for railway crossings ”

“ Also, just shutup, leave me alone to take this unjust cruel PUNISHMENT (THAT REDVERS CLAIMS DOESN'T WORK). Just one more thing. As a Kohen, I have an INHERITANCE, given to me from God, see the below references that you don't want shown on your gay wiki site. Why, because you're freekin jealous that you don't have one ”

Inheritance

God promised Aaron, the first Kohen and his decendents several honourable duties and inheritances:

Exodus 40:15 God promised: "An everlasting priesthood throughout their generations."

Numbers 8:19 God promised: "I have given the Levites - They are given to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tent of meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel"

Numbers 18,1 "The LORD said unto Aaron: Thou and thy sons and thy fathers house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary; and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood."

Numbers 18:5 God commanded Aaron: "Ye shall keep the charge of the holy things, and the charge of the altar that there be wrath no more upon the children of Israel."

Numbers 18:20 God promised: "Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any portion among them; I am thy portion and thine inheritance among the children of Israel."

Deuteronomy 10:9 God promised Aaron: "Wherefore Levi hath no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance."

Deuteronomy 18:1 God promised: "The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His inheritance and they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance."

Deuteronomy 31:25: "Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."

“ Enjoy fruitcake ”

The warning

“ Deuteronomy 12:19: "Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon thy land." ”

Picking on the Jew

Youknowbest (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protected for 156 hours, or ~the remainder of the block. Enough is enough. Tan | 39 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't block this user to punish him. I blocked him because he appears to not understand the concept of polite cooperation, and so he is not ready to participate in Wikipedia. I hoped that, if politely explaining the rules didn't work, then showing him the consequences of breaking them might. However, that appears not to have worked either. Another administrator or editor is welcome to have a try if they'd like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Competence is required, not every person belongs at Wikipedia. Tan | 39 00:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Youknowbest. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)