User talk:Truth Transparency

Welcome!

Hello, Truth Transparency. On behalf of WikiProject Judaism, 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 messages on discussion 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.

If you are interested in Judaism-related topics, you may want to check out WikiProject Judaism, where editors collaborate on articles relevant to Judaism.

Again, welcome! -shirulashem^(talk) 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Leib Tropper. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Leib Tropper‎‎. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add defamatory content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we have very specific policies about reliable sources. In particular, we need to take very special care with biographies of living people. Therefore, we cannot include sources that don't meet our reliable source policy. This has nothing to do with any desire to suppress information. But we can't do this. If you want this to be included the proper thing to do is to get a reliable source that includes these. For example, a newspaper or such. Otherwise, we can't have them here. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for continually adding poorly sourced negative material to biographies of living people. When your block expires, please ensure that you adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged revocation of conversion

This is discussed on the Talk page. If you have an opinion, give it there. -- Zsero (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 05:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - BLP

Jewcy is not a reliable source, and may not be used as a source on a BLP. -- Zsero (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd warning. Jewcy is not a reliable source for a BLP. The Jewish Week is the only reliable source, though a weak one, for the allegation. Tropper's press release is a reliable source for his response. Stop adding Jewcy. If you don't like Tropper's response being quoted, then the whole allegation can go. -- Zsero (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd warning. Stop adding Jewcy as a source on a BLP. -- Zsero (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Leib Tropper

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Leib Tropper . If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have adding the link again, please revet your edit or I will make a report of your actions. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you here . Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The other editor removed a link which other link on the same paragraph referred to. It is very confusing to have one source referring to another source which is not there, so I just put it back. It is also seem that the other editor is ultra orthodox by initially refusing to accept the Jewish Week as source while other editors do

Decline reason:

Could you be troubled to read our policy on WP:Edit warring? This appears to be a simple content dispute, in which you are limited to three reversions in a 24 hour period. Since you've been blocked for this before, you should be aware of this. I can't see why you're expecting to be unblocked if you intend to simply repeat your behavior. Kuru ^talk 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.