User talk:Jonathangluck

Accounts

Is the account User:Jonathanglick13 also you? The Interior (Talk) 23:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot sorry yes same... Jonathangluck (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, please read WP:Multiple Accounts and stick to one of them, unless you have a reason for the two accounts. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 23:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir - agreed and noted - my Bad... In the meantime when I have an admin reading would you mind looking @Shmuley Boteach page - Through the years a single user account has repeatedly whitewashed the page and I'd like to put a lock on it or at least ban the people who simply vandalise consensus edits and dont know how to ? HELP ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. The Interior (Talk) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP users come from different geographical areas, so they can't effectively be blocked. The registered accounts are "throwaways". To perform a checkuser, we would need an original (sockmaster) account to compare them to. The Interior (Talk) 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that jonathangluck is the one who is vandalizing the account with negative and unsubstantiated claims--all of which are considered libel by agents representing Rabbi Shmuley. Perhaps your account is the account that ought to be blocked, permanently from making any changes to @shmuley boteach. You wouldn't happen to be a rogue employee or a member of a PR company that was recently fired and is now on a mission to slander rabbi shmuley at every turn, would you? Your actions are being reported to Wikipedia complaint departments and again, if they continue legal action for slander of a public figure will be taken. Balada555 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuley Boteach

If there's only one person disrupting the article, it's easiest to block the account or IP for a set period of time. Article protection is used instead when disruptive edits to the article are likely to come from multiple, independent people. --Der yck C. 23:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look @ said patterns in the Boteach article, it has happened multiple times by various users - all single user accounts - which noone watches ? and now I will be 3RR if said user violated again no ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. For coherence, let's move the discussion there. --Der yck C. 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

After reading the report on the BLP noticeboard, I'd like to look into neutrality issues before addressing the deletions of content. Our Biographies of Living Persons policy states that negative info that is poorly sourced can "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So although ham-fisted, these removals may not strictly meet our definition of "vandalism". As such, I think we should look at the neutrality of the article, and if that is addressed, the blankings may well stop. It is very likely these accounts are people directly or indirectly related to the rabbi. In cases like these, it can be very difficult to find a middle ground (and avoid "whitewash" as you say, but also libel on the on the other side). But if there is potentially defamatory content in the article, this is more pressing then the blankings. They can be easily repaired using our page histories, whereas defamation is less easily repaired. Please note, I am not an admin, and cannot lock pages or unilaterally block accounts. I can make requests, and if the article remains unstable, I will. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd like to believe what you say, the user today for example, shalominthehome has done this previously on many occassions (which I learned from reviewing the history page...)... Simply am not against debates and discussions but he cant come in and delete all which has been agreed upon... Jonathangluck (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current content of the article has not been "agreed upon". I, for one, disagree with it, for reasons I explained at WP:BLPN. I also disagree with people charging in and deleting vast swathes of the article only to replace them with promotional mumbo jumbo, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly theres a very major difference between my conduct and he who is vandalising. Jonathangluck (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out of town for a few days — sorry I haven't been around to help. I'm glad The Interior was there to give you some timely help and advice. I am not an administrator either and cannot block accounts. If the problems persist, I can make requests and help you navigate the redtape. Cheers--Hokeman (talk) 03:34, 14 March

It appears that jonathangluck is the one who is vandalizing the account with negative and unsubstantiated claims--all of which are considered libel by agents representing Rabbi Shmuley. Perhaps your account is the account that ought to be blocked, permanently from making any changes to @shmuley boteach. You wouldn't happen to be a rogue employee or a member of a PR company that was recently fired and is now on a mission to slander rabbi shmuley at every turn, would you? Your actions are being reported to Wikipedia complaint departments and again, if they continue legal action for slander of a public figure will be taken. Balada555 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint at Administrators noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have submitted a complaint to the Administrator's noticeboard about your repeated attempts to introduce potentially libellous material into the article on Shmuley Boteach. You can read details of the complaint on the noticeboard. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misplaced the complaint. It is here. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shmuley Boteach. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing you say this - Did you bother to check the talk page before you edited ? Jonathangluck (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely having posted on the talk page does not give you an inalienable right to revert other people on the article as often as you like. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom in the Home

Please do not simply removed non-contentious content from articles as you did in Shalom in the Home. The show itself is the source for the description which is more than sufficient in an article about a television series or any work of ficition. Further, you removed sourced content for no valid reason and then asked for a source in your edit summary. That makes no sense and borders on vanadalism. If you have problems with the article or its notability, either take the article to AfD and/or take your concerns to the talk page. Simply blanking out what you don't like is not acceptable. Thank you. Pinkadelica ^♣ 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets

If the user in question edits disruptively after his warning, we should open an investigation. A successful SPI involves collecting evidence, in this case similar/identical edits between the different users. If it gets to that point, your help in gathering diffs for the edits would be appreciated. I'll notify you if a case is opened. You can familiarize yourself with the process at WP:SPI (or go for it yourself if you are confident you have the required info). The oldest account is most likely the sockmaster. The Interior (Talk) 09:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I don't think an SPI is required, per the WP:DUCK test. I've added a request at WP:ANI for the apparent meat/sockpuppets to be dealt with accordingly. This includes a small selection of relevant diffs, you're welcome to use them to file an SPI if you wish. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spector & Associates

Per your request at WP:OR and it's talk page, I've started an AfD on Spector & Associates if you wish to take part it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spector & Associates. cheers. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and close paraphrasing

Your addition to Shmuley Boteach has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You cannot just lift entire sections of prose from a copyrighted third party source and then insert it in a Wikipedia article with a "ref" tag at the end. If you re-use the exact words of the source then you must quote them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those issues are now cleaned up - thanks for pointing out copywright issues. Fixed. Jonathangluck (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that - please review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its all very clear now and has been cleaned clearly. Jonathangluck (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "cleaned clearly" - there are still obvious copyright violations in the article, introduced by you. It is totally unacceptable to edit war to prevent the removal of copyright violations. I have reported your edits at WP:AN3. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the reporting - you are wrong 100%.

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for ~~violating the three revert rule~~ edit-warring and repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into an article. 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 the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

}}unblock|reason=What 3RR did I do in 24 hours ? Are you kidding me ? Nothing was done 3RR in 24 hours I havent touched that page in weeks ? Rabbi Pinto ??Jonathangluck (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

unblock|reason=Didnt touch Rabbi Pinto in weeks. If is Shmuley Boteach did not insert copywrighted material which is clear to anyone who reads the piece.... and if I am wrong wont touch Boteach even for a week... but I didnt @all take material which was copywrighted. Pls review Rabbi Pinto havent touched in weeks ?Jonathangluck (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

As far as Rabbi Pinto is concerned:

From your attempted addition to the page within the last hour (this revision), now reverted: "The $6.5 million Manhattan townhouse where Pinto lives, which is owned by Mosdot Shuva Israel, faces foreclosure ... Mosdot Shuva Israel has not responded to or paid a $48,000 judgment against it for failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance ..."

From http://forward.com/articles/136250/ : "The $6.5 million Manhattan townhouse where Pinto lives, which is owned by Mosdot Shuva Israel, faces foreclosure" and the next bullet point in their article is "Mosdot Shuva Israel has not responded to or paid a $48,000 judgment against it for failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance".

This is a copyright infringement. Do you understand why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I dont ? How do you make it clear but not give fact facts ? Can you assist then with Pinto additions on this page ? If its better to not give pure quotes I wont. How's this ? (Not malicious mistakes ?) - Can u unblock ? Wont do it and am clearer...

How's this: Pinto’s home, a $6.5 million Manhattan townhouse faces foreclosure. Mortgage installments have not been paid since May 2009. As of March 2011, Pinto’s organization further has ignored a $48,000 judgment against it for failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance, a violation of New York State Law. As of March 2011, the judgment has not been paid. Jonathangluck (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't unblock anyone, but someone who can, will be along shortly. In the meantime, if you "Didnt touch Rabbi Pinto in weeks", what was the above edit that you made? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meant prior to that edit (bc assumed you were talking about 3RR)... In terms of copywright is that material I posted ok ? If have questions will send you... it wasnt intentional..Thank youJonathangluck (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able now to post ? And user on Pinto page - You are now saying wasnt because of copywright issues ? Pls consistency folks why block rather than talk ? Jonathangluck (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand what you meant by the "haven't touched for weeks" thing now. But the thing is, you really need to rethink your approach to this type of article. That's two different Rabbis that you are frantically inserting as much negative information as possible about. You make little or no attempt to even consider writing from a neutral point of view. And it's caused repeated problems.

The copyright issue is separate but just as serious. I know it's a difficult balance to accurately reflect what the sources say without also stealing their words. But in some of these cases you've blatantly copy and pasted entire sentences without quoting them. In the Rabbi Pinto case, you did that hours after saying that you understood the warning about the copyright problems on the Boteach article. There has been a lot of talking going on (your talk page, the article talk pages, then BLPN, then ANI, then AN3) but if you repeatedly break copyright then yes inevitably you are going to be blocked because Wikipedia can't take that risk. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I might add to Demiurges's advice, patience is a virtue here. Take time to evaluate a variety of sources before adding to an article, and summarize the points in your own words. I too am concerned that you don't have a firm grasp on our neutrality policies, they are very important, even essential, when writing about a living person. After this block, do a bit of policy reading before returning to editing. The Interior (Talk) 05:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as everyone is passing out free advice, here is mine: One of your problems here is that you have not established yourself as a responsible editor interested in improving the Wikipedia. Rather, you have undertaken to edit only these two articles, and in both cases you have shown a clear bias in your edits.

What I suggest you do is to undertake editing on other topics. I am guessing that you are knowledgeable about other areas - perhaps, for example, Jewish law. There are plenty of topics in this area that are not yet covered in the Wikipedia and still more that could use improvement. How about an article on Diney Satumta? How about doing some research and improving the article on Rav Papa?

Once you have established yourself as an editor with a general interest in improving the Wikipedia, other editors are likely to treat you with more respect. As it is, it appears that you have joined the project for the sole purpose of dumping on people you don't like. That kind of behavior is not well received here. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah this seems like a punishment rather than heres how to use WIKI better... Ravpapa this isnt about me improving wiki in that case thats not why I've got a 24 hour ban, right ? And there doesnt even seem to be consensus about why a 24 hour ban - At 1st it was 3RR (untrue) and now it seems to be copywright - None of which has anything to do with what articles I edit or how. A new major major feature came out on a Rabbis financial scandal and noone has it on Rabbi Pinto page. If you all cared about making Wiki better wouldnt you want it there ? Jonathangluck (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block you as punishment. Blocks are meant to be preventative. As far as I was able to determine, you were edit warring, and you were inserting copyrighted material to articles. It was my mistake to use the term 3RR in your block notice and I apologize for that; I have corrected it.

Edit warring and copyright infringement are disruptive. The purpose of my block was not to punish, but to prevent further disruption for 24 hours and give you a chance to take a break and reflect. I suggest you spend your blocked time not on the defensive, but rather take to heart the helpful advice given to you above, and when your block expires, move on. There's no stigma in this block. Many of Wikipedia's best editors, some of whom have eventually become administrators, have a block or two in their early history. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. (It has been noted there that you are currently blocked, so you may wish to leave any responses to the case here, for clerk or admin review.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked for socking

I've reblocked your account because I believe it's pretty clear, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attempt_to_out_a_Wiki_user_and_intimidation, that you've been using multiple accounts in a manner not permitted by policy. I find your protestation that the accounts are those of different family members to be unconvincing. Babasalichai and Jonathanglick13 have been indefinitely blocked; the block on this account has been reset and extended to 48 hours. When it expires please ensure that you confine your activities to a single account. You can request an independent review of this block by using the {{unblock}} template (instructions at the link). EyeSerene^talk 10:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, Jonathangluck. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked ~~1 month~~ indefinitely for sock puppetry. –MuZemike 07:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You are advised that any further abuse of other accounts may lead to you being indefinitely blocked. Regards, –MuZemike 07:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, and now you have been indefnitely blocked for continued persistent abuse of multiple accounts and block evasion. –MuZemike 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]