User talk:199.102.168.8

September 2012

Hello, I'm Trusilver. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Incest, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Trusilver 17:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Brisk tradition and Soloveitchik dynasty has been reverted.
Your edit here to Brisk tradition and Soloveitchik dynasty was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://tzedek-tzedek.blogspot.com/2012/08/marrying-soloveitchik.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Ahron Soloveichik, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.
Your edit here to Ahron Soloveichik was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-10-th-yahrzeit-of-my-rebbe.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brooklyn Law School may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm Rijinatwiki. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to The North Face because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Rijin ^Talk 17:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reference errors on 6 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shenmue III page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Diego Schwartzman, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Diego Schwartzman was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/dieschwartzman) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

December 2015

Re: == Vandalism; possible conflict of interest ==

Hello, I would like to respond to what you wrote concerning my changes to Shana Maddoff's page. As you must have noticed, I did not delete everything and in fact had left many of the footnotes. The problem with the previous page was that it had inaccuracies concerning the hard facts, such as the birth date, birth place etc. In an attempt to rectify the dates and names I also realised that much of the text was based on speculations despite the sources, such as Madoff's 'untimely' involvement with Eric Swanson. It was (and now is again) as such not a neutral portrayal of the person presented but leaves no doubt as to what the editor believes is the 'truth' concerning Shana Swanson's involvement in the scandal - in other words it is a biased presentation that that may also stem from a possible conflict of interest?! I suggest that the 'hard facts' be changed back to what I had entered. The rest may lie on the editor's conscience. In general I strongly feel that caution should be used when describing a person's private life and involvement in a matter so tremendous, especially when guilt has so far not been proven.

(Krass08 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC))

March 2015

You tried it. 70.60.96.165 (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Milgram

How can a non-practicing Jew be said to have a religion? That's absurd. And that's not "clear by all the other uses of this infobox on WP". Furthermore, his Bar Mitzvah is irrelevant to his religion as an adult; see WP:BLPCAT. Beyond the fact that you have added incorrect information, your edit has been challenged. Get consensus on the talk page before restoring it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not absurd. Jews are not just practicing Jews. Any more than Americans are people who pledge allegiance. People born to Jewish mothers are Jewish. It is not just a religion. It is also an ethnicity. That's why we have on wikipedia for example a whole list of Jewish atheists. You can't just make this stuff up mon ami.

As the article Jewish atheism on Wikipedia tells you, "Because Jewish identity encompasses ethnic as well as religious components, the term "Jewish atheism" does not inherently entail a contradiction. Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish."

Look at the long List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. If you were correct, on Wikipedia this could not exist.

Plus -- this guy isn't even a Jewish atheist, but a fully Jewish fellow of Jewish parents who in his Bar Mitzvah speech spoke about the subject of the plight of the European Jews and the impact that World War II events would have on Jewish people around the world. As the source states: " The subject of his Bar Mitzvah speech was the plight of the European Jews and the changes the events of World War II meant for Jewish people everywhere: an early showing of Milgram’s feeling of connection with the Jewish people who were persecuted under Hitler."

Your deletion is against the obvious fact that wikipedia accepts people who are Jewish atheists even as Jewish -- so clearly you are just making up your own rules that are not true, and fly in the face of how Wikipedia is edited, let alone what it means to be Jewish.--199.102.168.8 (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stanley Milgram. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

That's stupid. Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote it here. I wrote it on the article page. And all you are doing is reverting, and claiming -- despite the evidence -- that someone who is Jewish and identifies lifelong with Judaism isn't Jewish. Duh. Are you 12? 199.102.168.8 (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm very serious. Where is your evidence that he practiced Judaism as an adult. Identifying with the Jewish culture is not practicing Judaism. Put any additional comments on the article talk page, and above all, wait for consensus or you will be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? I started talk page discussion. You again repeated your deletion, without responding to my talk page discussion. And then even after I was the one who entered the talk page discussion, and you deleted without replying, you aggressively made up the assertion that I was edit warring ... when it was YOU? How dare you? And anyone can see what you did. This is obvious.

And read what I wrote -- it is beyond belief clear that one does not have to "practice" to be Jewish. I laid it out for you ... though u don't seem to read it ... here. I'm happy for an administator to look at what each of us did, and block the person who is warring. It's you. I'll leave a warning so they can say you were warned. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you stop reverting and wait for a consensus. So far there are only two editors discussing there, you and me. That is not a consensus. One more revert and you will be blocked. Express any additional concerns on the article's talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Stanley Milgram, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

What did you think was a personal account? That I wrote "Are you reading ANYTHING?" It's a true question, that anybody reading the back and forth has to wonder. Seriously.

That I pointed out that you had chutzpah to FAIL to respond to talk page discussion I started, and instead delete AGAIN? That all true and anyone can see it.

You are ignoring what the article Jews says -- even after I point it out to you. Who does that? How would you describe that person?

You are ignoring the fact that we have List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. If your completely made-up fabricated notion that someone has to be "practicing" to be Jewish ... how can that list exist? I've asked you many times. All you do is revert. Obviously -- your made-up notion is wrong. Address this.

You should be able to read what I wrote -- it shows that you are clearly WRONG. How can you not see it? You have not even provided a sober analysis as to how the article Jews can define Jews as not requiring that one practice at all .. and your notion can be anything other than completely WRONG. Yet, you continue to revert in the face of that. Who does that? And why?

And I have even now provided new information about his lifelong identity with the Jewish people. See that?

And why do you keep on deleting that he was a professor? And had two children? With zero reason given by you? That is disruptive. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a forum

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• Are you the one who quoted notaforum? That doesn't apply. I was not creating a forum on an unrelated page. I was doing Exactly what Wikipedia says I should or can do.

"for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles."

Just read this. It is exactly what I am doing. It says - "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• The talk page of one or more articles....directly related to the topic under discussion.

I as that says want to draw a wider range of informed but uninvolved editors to a discussion by placing a note on the talk page of one or more articles directly related to the topic under discussion.

And read what wikipedia says. The talk page of one or more articles. Plural is absolutely, 100 per cent perfect. You cannot say, I, and editor, don't care what wikipedia says.

How in the world can you disagree with that? It leads to the people who are uninvolved but informed helping discuss something, where the involved editors had a problem because there were just two of them. That has to be good. That helps us not have different results in different places on the exact same subject. You should be giving me a medal. Not trying to shut me up. This is why people stop contributing. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to wade through your wall of text, so I won't be responding to most of it. But please note that WP:WikiProject Judaism was notified about the dispute at Stanley Milgram a week ago. It is inappropriate to cross-post the same message on the talk pages of three articles that, despite your assertions, are not directly related to Milgram. (Why are they not directly related to Milgram? Because he's not on the list of Jewish atheists and agnostics, the question of Who is a Jew? has no bearing because I don't believe anybody is arguing that Milgram was not a Jew, and a historical survey of Jews and the Jewish people has no more to do with him than it does with you or me.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I quoted wikipedia itself. It says "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:....The talk page of one or more articles....directly related to the topic under discussion."

More than one article is as you can see quite fine.

You agree dont you that posting the same message on multiple talk pages is exactly what wikipedia says when is says "articles".

Are they related? You have to read the discussion to see. If you are too busy then you can't tell either way.

And if you read the discussion, the question at the center of it is whether Milgrim was Jewish. That is directly related for example to Who is a Jew. Certainly the people who watch that page are exactly the sort of informed (on the subject of who is a Jew) editors that could help.

Same with "Jews." Why? That starts with an explanation as to who they are. The discussion is whether Milgram was one of them.

Also - as you will have now seen from the discussion, a central argument turned around whether one isn't Jewish if they are not practicing, and the people who discussed Jewish atheists are certainly informed on this issue.

Maybe you were hasty? You seemed to think that nobody can post on multiple pages that attract informed editors? But now see that that is what wikipedia itself says is proper and ok? And that wikipedia says you dont have to limit yourself to a wikiproject but can leave such messages at articles talk pages that are directly related?

The goal is to get informed editors who want to to discuss it. That is all. And as wikipedia says it is ok to post on more than one talk page, all of these are directly related to the issues of whether milgram was jewish, and whether (well, we do know he was in synagogue for his bar mitzvah and marriage and said he was very jewish and was a lifelong identifier with judaism according to his main biographer) has to have said more than he did or been recorded as being in synagogue more than he was recorded to be considered jewish by wikipedia in an information box. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello, I'm Amortias. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Hot Wheels without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amortias (T)(C) 21:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is a shared IP. But I did just make an edit to that article. But I did not remove content. Instead, I added brackets. Making it so readers could understand who Casanova is. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_New_Girl_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=736792740

Sorry. On Hot Wheels, I did in fact remove brackets. I removed them from the word American. Everybody knows what an American is. We don't create brackets about every word -- like American, and United States, and earth. Because those links are not needed and are distracting and are stupid ... since we all know what the earth is. Even if there is an article about it. Its sort of self explanatory .. it was the only change. Are you the one who thinks it is helpful to link to words like that?

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Intelligentsium 01:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you did not understand my edit summary. It was a momentary change. Allowing the systemic revert of a disruptive editor. Who tried to make a substantively material change, under the guise of a non-substantive copy-edit. Without discussion. Thanks for focusing on that page - please keep your eye on what that editor (David Moreno) is doing. It is unhelpful, to say the least. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith as per WP:AGF. I am not being disruptive. I am trying to make the policy easier to understand as I have have a number of discussions with people regarding it's interpretation, one of which was taken to the talk page, so the allegation that it was without discussion is unfounded. There is no 'substantively material change', rather a clarification of the existing policy. To label my edits as unhelpful is also without foundation, as all I was trying to do was to make good faith edits to make the policy easier to understand. Also, please do not make disparaging remarks in the edit summary per WP:SUMMARYNO. If you wish to comment further on the issue, please do not revert, but take it to the talk page, perhaps under the discussion that is already present here. Thank-you David.moreno72 05:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2017

Hello, I'm 2601:1C0:107:71C3:704B:3255:9741:9C1B. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 2601:1C0:107:71C3:704B:3255:9741:9C1B (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

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

January 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Liberal Democrats (UK). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia (Tutorial)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• Rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
• Utilize a vast array of editing tools

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome! Sm8900 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

---