User talk:Mrnhghts

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mrnhghts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Shlomke 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCSY

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on NCSY. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on Talk:National Conference of Synagogue Youth#Baruch Lanner controversy for additional information. I suggest starting a Baruch Lanner article amd making sure it passes muster as reliably sourced before attempting to add information to the NCSY article. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Dec 08

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Conference of Synagogue Youth. 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. Edit warring with User:Nogrudges -- GateKeeper^(X) @ 13:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This blocking of NCSY's history of Baruch Lanner is itself news. These is verifiable fact. ----

I would like to understand why my edit with a veriable source (the NY Times) was removed once again.

I have given verifiable sources for my edit that has been repeatedly deleted by NCSY loyalists simply because they want to hide how Baruch Lanner was enabled and protected by NCSY and the Orthodox Union. Why is my edit the one that was deleted? Mrnhghts (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I blocked you, because it looked to me as though you came straight off your block back into reverting, without making any attempt to discuss the matter. The article has a talk page, you can - and should - edit it to explain what you are doing. On the assumption that you will do this in future, I'm unblocking you William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 8 2008 to National Conference of Synagogue Youth

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stolper

Bringing in anything about Stolper to show a connection that is denigratory to Stolper is a BLP/OR violation. The only way that can be done is if we find a reliable and verfiable source specifically calling out Stolper vis-a-vis Lanner. Otherwise, it is the juxtaposition in the article that is creating a "guilt by association" fallacy, which is an out-and-out violation of WP:BLP and WP:OR. -- Avi (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. As is clearly noted, Stolper knew about abuse early on (1972), and defended Lanner even after the specifics of the abuse were known. He was pushed out of the OU when the Joel Commission right after the report was released because of his decades of irresponsibility.Mrnhghts (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is true, it cannot be added without a reliable and verifiable source stating as such. Please review wikipedia's policy on no original research. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, I gave the Jewish Week, the NY Times, and the JTA. Are you familiar with the NY Times, Avi?Mrnhghts (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it in the Lanner article? If anything, it belongs in an article on Stolper, or on the NCSY issue, which is what Will suggested. -- Avi (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The details, fine, but a reference is certainly appropriate here.Mrnhghts (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to OS

I could say the same about the personal information about you that someone wanted to put on your wikipage. Just because you dont want people to know who you are doesn't mean its not relevant to your possible bias. W4uncw (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

w4uncw, that makes no sense. What relationship does my personal information have with Ohr Somayach's wikipedia page? Nothing. What do the published statements of the leader of Ohr Somayach on its site have with the institution? A lot!Mrnhghts (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What i am saying is the following. You say that the publish statement of the leader of OS is very important to the institution. Well im saying when you had that whole fight with the other wiki user who posted your personal information on your personal wikipage maybe thats relevant to YOUR reliablity. How is one relevant and the other not? I say either this information about him is just as relevant as your personal bias in your editing. Either both stay or both go. W4uncw (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are you threatening personal sabotage and harassment if I insist on publicizing published Ohr Somayach material from Ohr Somayach's own website by its leader that you don't want known, correct?Mrnhghts (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No of course not, you are taking my words and twisting them to say what you want. What i am saying is that the same argument about relevance can be said about the argument you and the other wiki user had before about your personal info. I personally believe neither belongs on the pages, but its a point that its relevant to the same extent. You will notice I haven't reverted your page to say your name or even published it in these comments. For all i know thats not really you and that other user was putting something on this page that wasn't true On a side note...its "personal sabotage and harassment" to publish your name? Are you that ashamed? Or is it really your name or it is personal sabotage because its someone who isn't you? W4uncw (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the arguments about the wikipedia page in question.Mrnhghts (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see im leaving your most recent OS addition because it is relevant Nogrudges (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Mar 09

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem. 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. Happy138 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been agreed to Truism422 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
like Tru says, it has not been agreed upon but I could say the same to you. People agreed upon the stuff with OS, and yet you STILL reverted. Follow your own rules. There it was CLEARLY agreed upon, yet this wasn't, you were just lucky to have a bias wiki editor. Nogrudges (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't CLEARLY agreed on. That's why the page is locked. And you know that.Mrnhghts (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 different people agreed to one point of view at OS. YOU kept reverting so it was locked. You are outnumbered and wrong. Give it up. The other pages are 2 to 2 so they are FAR from agreed upon, you just got a biased wiki administrator. Nogrudges (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have refused to address my points. Waving your hand of irrelevant to verifiable information you don't like is not an argument. These are weasel words. It failed on Baruch Lanner, it will hopefully fail now.Mrnhghts (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JSU

Put the article up for deletion. The only way to save it will be to collect the articles in real newspapers and not their own website. So either the entry will cease to exist or it will have to remove the internal sites and replace them with external sources. ANd a quick goggle search shows that the NCSY connection is clear in main stream federation papers. Make sure the regular Orthodox show up, those who spend their time writing about gedolim, becuase they tend to be against the proliferation of kiruv self promotion on WIki. --Jayrav (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while people may speculate that they are the same organization JSU has their own tax forms and allow groups that are NOT orthodox to come to the clubs which is proof they AREN'T the same organization. They may work closely together but aren't the same group it is clear. Nogrudges (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that NCSY has been frozen, you have time to gather sensible friends to argue for a sensible page. Since, the "anti criticism of NCSY"'ers seem to know you and treat you as a red flag. Find a few fair friends, who will make the needed compromises to create a page that does keep the criticisms. --Jayrav (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people are going to restore name-calling to my talk page, they should have to sign their name, and not use IP addresses. Mrnhghts (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use my talk to page to post your own information as a free ad. If you put it back up there again I will report the harassment. Link to what you want to say, do not put the whole text on my page.Nogrudges (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Jewish Student Union

Please stop edit warring on Jewish Student Union and refer to WP:DR for how to proceed.[2] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]