User talk:Yidisheryid/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yidisheryid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Nuch a mul...

See: [1] IZAK 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Answered there--יודל 12:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too, see: [2] IZAK 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot answer on your talk page because i am blocked still but the fact that u condemn me on that whole discussion as if i nominated the AJOP article for deletion and you even praise Yosia for opening up so many nominations for deletion and later retracting them while he goes around threatening to further open nominations if spelling isn't corrected, shoes that you are not puppets but something else. On schmaltz's words i wont comment since that is about my blockage which i agree i was disruptive and there is a need for me to learn my lesson--יודל 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Big chunk deletion on Baal teshuva

The header was changed by me--יודל 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain this mass deletion? Thank you. -- Avi 14:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time before bothering me on my talk page please look at the edit summery history and not only on one edit as a long time editor who does not seize to jump on me, see your picking and choosing of my edits something really repulsive. stop because everybody see that both i and Izak agree that that chunk has a separate article and does not belong there, our only disagreement is that one article may be deleted which i said to him it does not seem headed for deletion.--יודל 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there are others who disagreed with your forking of content from Baal teshuva to Orthodox Jewish outreach. I will begin a discussion on talk:Baal teshuva. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. -- Avi 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That discusion was started by me long before you posted this message as if i did not talk.--יודל 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see and join in at: talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? -- Avi 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

that talk is not in place see my answer there.--יודל 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing deletion notice from prankster

The header was changed by me--יודל 16:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing deletion notices from articles undergoing WP:AFD, such as you have done here, is considered a form of disruptive editing. Please make your opinion known on the AfD subpage without violating wikipedia editing policies. Thank you. -- Avi 14:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

nobody has asked to delete it you are personally attacking me here, show me one delete vote.--יודל 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Being that it was nominated, it needs to follow the process. If all delete votes have been removed, including the nominators, then perhaps I can close it as a speedy. However, non-admins, in general, may not close AfD's that have had any controversy around them. -- Avi 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are evidently wrong on this maneuver, everybody has agreed that the nominations from that user isn't a normal nomination, and if no delete has been expressed it is not a nomination for deletion. and i don't have to an admin to dismiss it as garbage. i am with clear consensus on this u r not even with Yosia on this, he alone does not think like you. but evidently you ignore every context in this issue in order to get me blocked, keep on trying--יודל 14:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

re ydw

on second thoughts i'd prefer to leave it, he's way too stubborn & it's trivial. i'll waste my time elsewhere ;) good luck if you stick at it. ben ⇒ bsnowball 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree since he has this soposedly other user Yosia with him. But please watch him on other details since he has declared his intentions clear that he want to delete that whole article from wikipedia. Thanks--יודל 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of some template

The header was changed by me--יודל 16:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates when discussions are in progress, as you have done here. Rather, make your opinion known on the talk page, take part in the discussion, and once a consensus has been reached, action will be taken. Thank you. -- Avi 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is something else put an other template.--יודל 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi's Etiquette

the preceding notice was put before to mar my etiquette--יודל 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is considered poor form to change someone else's edits, even on your page, as it makes it appear as if someone ELSE wrote something that you actually did, which is tantamount to forgery. People have been banned for making their edits appear as someone else's edits, so I would counsel you to comment if you disagree, or just archive the entire section if you wish, but not change someone else's text. Thank you. -- Avi 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Never had i changed someone elses edits. if you can find such a link i would be happy to explain, or apologize. While i do balance the negative slanderers headers of my talk page, I beleave i am alowed to do that because i give the chance to others to come back and make it more balanced, I believe headers on my talk page should not read so disruptive while the text i can delete it a header i cannot delete.--יודל 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

YY, what you are doing is wrong. You are putting words into Avi's mouth. You are threading on very thin ice. If you continue in your ways, you are bound to be blocked or even banned. I suggest you heed people's well meaning warnings that you follow proper Wiki procedure. While it is your talk page, you should not change OTHER people's comments. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yoisia thanks for the note, i fixed your concern, i have put my words underneath the header so it is no more Avis words it is mine, i appreciate your clear intentions about my being blocked--יודל 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

WP:ANI#User:Yidisheryid -- Avi 15:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--יודל 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption and incivility. When you are able to edit again, please be sure to adhere to the following:

Do not edit other editors' comments; this includes the headings editors choose. Doing so misrepresents what the other editors have said.
Do not remove maintenance notices (AFD notices, proposed splits or merges, etc.) until the issue is resolved. Discuss issues on the talk page.
Please refrain from making baseless accusations. Avraham was not blocking you to gain the upper hand in a content dispute; he was bringing your disruption and incivility to the attention of uninvolved admins. Characterizing his actions as "vicious" is a clear violation of our civility policies. Claiming that other administrators will block you solely on the allegations of another user is preposterous. Your edit history speaks for itself.

I'll leave your talk page unlocked during your block if you wish to discuss this matter with me. I do think that you need to learn to edit Wikipedia in a civil and courteous manner, or the community will decide you're not an asset to the project. -- Merope 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

i did not edit other comments only the headers and i apologized for that right away.
i did not remove maintenance notices until the issue wasn't resolved.
never did i make one baseless accusation shoe me the proof before blocking. I know i was dumb to use the word vicious and i understand the loophole here were i fell into getting blocked, and i do regret for now watching more my language, but that was quite subsequent and i am still in the middle of making my case so it should not be baseless.

i want to be unblocked, because i wasn't guilty of anything any policy or wiki rule, please show me one rule i did break?n i feel that you haven't asked me my POV in this ongoing edit conflict with Avi, and it sounds like u r ganging up with another admin, i am not an admin but i still believe i haven't broken one rule of the community therefore your blocking me is uncalled for please talk to me before blocking--יודל 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. As for your POV, it doesn't really matter--the manner in which you carried out your edits is the issue, not the opinion you have. I am not "ganging up" with Avi; I reviewed your contributions, reviewed his contributions, and found that you have a habit of behaving in a disruptive manner. Changing others' comments is a form of disruption. Removing maintenance notices is a form of disruption. Refusing to discuss things on article pages is disruptive. Lying about your actions is disruptive and incivil. Accusing another editor of ulterior motives, viciousness, and lying is disruptive and incivil. It's pretty clear that you don't have a very good idea of how the Wikipedia community functions. You should take the time to read the linked policies. You are free to request to be unblocked, but I'm not inclined to reverse my decision. -- Merope 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again u r accusing me of thinks that u don't bother to show me aq link, i argue and i see i have never changed anybody others language, only its headers which i have apologized. of calling other names which is clearly taken out of context bu you it was being sourced and sourced until you came along and blocked me so hundreds of more sources cannot be put in there. i have read and reread all policies you haven't given one argument substantiated with a link of what action of mine was against wikipedia policy. Please feel free to do so. i beg you don't just block me with unsubstantiated accusations, because u r just helping avi here like you said that u did not want to see avi go through this, i thank you for being his friend but if this due process don't just block me i should not be able to defend myself.--יודל 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think I've had any interaction with Avi prior to this. Avi laid out your edit history in a very neutral and calm way. Your edits speak for themselves: accusing Avi of lying, removing maintenance notices, altering others' text, and so on. Your actions are why you are blocked; Avi just alerted me to your presence. I came to this decision on my own after a careful review of your (and Avi's) edits. -- Merope 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A list of your edits that fall under disruption or incivility can be found here. -- Merope 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now u r shoeing your true colors, why hav'nt you given me that list to defend myself before i was blocked?!--יודל 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User Avi's collection to proof that i am disruptive

Again i will show how those edits are clearly taken out of context to block me. look for that in the next section.

Changing other users' text?

This was negative headers which was put by some editor who wanted me blocked, i haven't ever change4d his text, i only cleaned up my headers from my talk page it should be clear the section underneath, i have put a disclaimer that all those headers aware changed and i am inviting everybody to correct it further.--יודל 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing the headers is changing the text. You don't have the right to alter other people's additions -- it makes it look like Avi wrote those things when he didn't. Even saying "I changed the header" isn't really sufficient. Just don't do it. -- Merope 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this should not be done but i felt that avi is targeting me as a few minutes latter he requested again to block me, he has put contently for the last few weeks very negative headers an my talk page, while i saw how he begs over and over to get me blocked, and until a unsuspecting sysop did not block me on the passive look at the headers i did not fix it, since then i must fix it and i have told avi, to also fix it it should not be against him.--יודל 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Merciful Zeus. Those headers were not negative; they were a neutral statement of fact. Your changes actually made them worse. "Mass deletion" is the proper terminology to describe this edit. Calling Avi a prankster is incivil. He was issuing a warning for your behavior, a warning which you chose to ignore. Your "defense" on this point is, to be blunt, completely ridiculous. -- Merope 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

again you are helping Avi spread a lie that i called him a prankster this isn't true and stop saying it without any proof. I don't know if my headers were more negative then avi's but i asked him nicely please feel free to change my edit on the header, it is my talk page and i am allowed to change thinks that are written to hurt me, i was not at any time changing his words since i put my text underneath his headers so the headers aren't his anymore, those headers are mine and only mine.--יודל 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit is what I'm referring to. I see that you might mean that the person who posted the AFD notice is a prankster. However, changing the text makes it look like Avi said that about another editor, which is completely untrue. -- Merope 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have long apologized to avi for this and i put a disclaimer that i have written that header how in the world will somebody else think avi has written it?!--יודל 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing discussion-specific templates (such as AfD) when discussions are ongoing?

Discussion isn't ongoing check your links and see that it was long over the discussions--יודל 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're on about. Avi proposed the article be split, added the template, and then brought it up on the talk page. You claimed that no one made the suggestion to split it (when Avi clearly did) and reverted the template. As for the AFD notice, the AFD is still active. It doesn't matter that current consensus appears to be to keep the article -- the notice has to stay on there as long as the discussion is open. Your defenses are not helping your case in the least. -- Merope 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know how to respond to this check the edit history involved and everything would be crystal clear. that article was a small article avi vent ahead and added some text from an other article, and proposed to divide it, i answered him on the talk page and in the countless edit summaries there is no need for that template because the text isn't there, right now it is reverted my edits so you can say its still there, this is shoeing how he wan the discussion without consensus only for 24 hours.--יודל 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I know how to check edit histories, thank you. You alone cannot determine consensus. You cannot allege that everyone agreed on a decision when there was a clear dissenting voice. The reason I can't respond to this is because it is an unintelligible argument that clearly contradicts the evidence. -- Merope 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And neither can avi say what is consensus we can only use our brains and it was clear consensus on my side. if you disbelieving me don't just block me on Avi's word because he has tried to silence me alott of times before he is driven against me, and i have the proof for it.--יודל 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One for and one against does not mean "clear consensus". Please read WP:CON to understand what consensus is. -- Merope 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And avi was one against many. so there is clear consensus for my edits.--יודל 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)Where are the "many"? Point to specific diffs. -- Merope 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is part of Avi's overall edits against me, i don't feel its important now to gather proof for Avi's fights that i am against consensus, all i can aure you right now is that i am with consensus and avi is against it, if you feel that you believe Avi more then me i am really in bad shape but i will bring this to the community if my block isn't undone.--יודל 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great muppety Odin. The reason I "believe" Avi is because he presented evidence. The reason I don't "believe" you is because I have looked at the evidence (what Avi has presented and by combing through both of your edit histories) and I have seen absolutely nothing to show me that you have any idea what you're talking about. -- Merope 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I except that your block was already saying that you believe avi not me because avi has not given you those links you are taking about now so please cut it that i am somehow less believeble the avi.--יודל 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral edits and moves without consensus?

They weren't against consensus, and they were agreed upon everybody.--יודל 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to respond to this. You moved a page without discussing it, and it was moved back. How do you think that equates to "agreed upon everybody"? You moved large sections of text without discussing it, same deal. No one objecting is not the same as everyone agreeing, and that is particularly true when the changes are not even proposed. -- Merope 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

agsin you talk before visiting the talk pages i have exclusively talked before moving what are you talking about, my move was a clear consensus decision.--יודל 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying my best to understand you. You moved a page without discussing it. A user asked why the page was moved, and you explained why you had done it. It clearly wasn't with consensus because editors objected to it. Saying, "I will now move the page" is not proposing the change. -- Merope 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again u r selectively quoting from that talk page ignoring the whole issue, the page was being considered problematic and i just renamed it with a better name according to consensus, a concern was brought up that this new name isn't better i agreed. why r u twisting the chronicle of events?--יודל 19:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And I am telling you as clearly as I know how that it was not with consensus. I don't think you understand what this term means. Please read the policy page on consensus. -- Merope 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

u r right the move itself wasn't a "move in consensus" how can it be that i myself have been against it? But it was defenently a "consensus move" since it was done to reach consensus please stop labeling that it was against consensus.--יודל 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) You clearly have no idea what consensus means. Until you do, this conversation is pointless. -- Merope 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg you not to belittle me and explain to me where it is that i am mistaken in the word consensus? your personal attacks that i do not understand issues therefore i must be blocked is uncalled for lets debate the issues it could be i am wrong, in my view a consensus works that a disagreement arises on a talk page, arguing goes on for whatever time the participants feel impotent and a middle of the road decision gets done nobody will be pleased by it and nobody will be over joyed by it. that was my edit. If this was wrong tell me and i will know what i did wrong?--יודל 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And now we're done. My patience vanishes quickly after my motivations are impugned. Read the policy. Quit whining. -- Merope 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If your patience vanishes i am sorry but you don't have to let everybody know about it, all ask is stop being so defensive i may have done wrong but please tell me where and what isn't this my obligation to see that my block should not be wrong? Please answer me what i lack understanding on the consensus issue and i did wrong in that regards to warrant a block?--יודל 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivil edits and edit summaries?

Please say what is uncivil here and i will defend it as false it is very civil.--יודל 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You honestly don't see how accusing someone of lying or making bad faith edits is incivil? If that is the case, I'm afraid that you won't be able to participate here. -- Merope 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK now i see that i called Avi a lier and i except the 24 hour block for this although everybody with eyes see that i did not meant to call him names but it was referring to his accusation on me that i did not do something that i cleasrly did, [3] look at the revert history about this, i apologize for this slip please unblock me.--יודל 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"nobdy has voted for deet only your freind Yosia talk to him like in all his other AFD's and it will be good" is not an explanation for deleting text. To be quite blunt, it's nearly incomprehensible. -- Merope 19:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

incomprehensible edit summaries are not good and i will stop doing it but it's a far cry of being blocked for it.--יודל 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)You are not blocked for that one thing but for a whole pattern of incivility and disruption. The fact that you cannot recognize how anything you have done is wrong means that you'll likely be blocked again in the future. Please take a moment, review your actions, review the policies I've linked you to, and reflect upon what that means. I assure you that I have no axe to grind in this matter; I have no opinion regarding the articles under dispute. I am just attempting to mediate a situation with a contentious editor. -- Merope 19:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

i Have addressed all your concerns and i believe i have taken responsibility for my actions i was wrong in calling an other user a lier and i will not do it again, please unblock me.--יודל 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. I'm not unblocking you. You can request an unblock from another admin, however: instructions are here. -- Merope 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure yet if my sin of calling Avi A lier should not go unpunished but i do feel that i was being targeted unfairly here and i will except that wikipedda like all other systems has its loopholes. i was wrong and i will learn from it.--יודל 19:57, 25 September 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

consensus not yet reached about my breaking policy, [11] that blocking admin has stopped talking to me, while he clearly said that my blocking was also part in saving Avi from going through this, i would like to defend my actions, i believe i was wrong but i had real reason to be wrong. i would like to present those reason why i did this wrong things--יודל 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

reason — I see disruption. Navou ^banter 23:00, 25 September 2007 (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.

I also see disruption but i am trying to explain that this disruption warants some punishment not to silence me from explaining my sins, i would like to explain my sins on that page please let me do it i will not edit anything on wiki for the 24 hour time limit.--יודל 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Restoring accidentally deleted unblock declined from Navou. Sorry Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 25 September 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

consensus not yet reached about my breaking policy, [11] that blocking admin has stopped talking to me, while he clearly said that my blocking was also part in saving Avi from going through this, i would like to defend my actions, i believe i was wrong but i had real reason to be wrong. i would like to present those reason why i did this wrong things--יודל 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You can do that when the block expires. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 25 September 2007 (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.

this is unfair avi is going around making hi case against me i beleave that page on the notice board should be balanced with my reasoning, consensus has not found me in contempt of any wiki policy, so i should not be punished when i say all along i was wrong and i should be punished to some extend but not to let others tar me while i am being blocked from answering.--יודל 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies and request for mercy

I would like to take the opportunity while this block still lasts to apologize to Avi, Yeshivish and to Izak and Yosia and all admins involved here for my stubborn attitude in causing here disruption.

We are all volunteers here and nobody of us receives money to block or unblock to argue or to edit. i am wasting your time here and i am not fooling myself i believe a infinite block on me may very well be in the realm of justice. but justice is not what i request it is mercy that i beg from you.

Yes, I am guilty of disrupting wikipedia to make my POV come through, i recognize this fully and wholeheartedly.

Also i lacked respect for other users, and i am guilty of incivility. This should not be tolerated in a medium where the whole foundation requires Good Faith in others to reach our goal.

I cannot lie and say that i respect other's opinions when they are clear in their disregard for me like personal attacks and cabal tricks to get my work deleted. But i now see that i have a huge problem in dismissing them too fast and too harshly, they are not the issue, no matter how many rules or policies they break it should never ever affect my editing here, and those personal actions should be left unmentioned by me, so i re-take on myself not to try to overrule their edits, no matter how against policy it is, i will let others take care of that as i see one of them is already blocked for good, an my dealing with him has only delayed his final block.

I feel very bad that i have caused problems with my incivility and disruption to all involved please except my apologies, and i thank all of you who advocated for giving me a chance to proof myself i know i was blocked many times before and from many wikipedias, but i still believe i am here in this world to better myself.

And although i am now convinced the dead penalty will sometime come on me, since this project works like a community and most of the community has already expressed me a drag and waste of time. I still believe that my contributions were also of some minute good, all these past three years that i am here.

I thank all those users who have expressed willingness to push off my death sentence a little bit, and i also except that some of your opinions where raised that since my behavioral history and my editing pattern is anyways destined to be blocked for ever why only give it a 24 hour block? to you i would say, that my time may be short here until i would be blocked for ever, but i request mercy for mercy's sake, you don't have to give it to me, but i promise you if you do give it to me that i will proof you wrong, i will change myself fully to the better, i now will go back in caution like i did for over 3 years that i weren't blocked here once.

Please do not block it anymore for my past let me be here on probation and i will put a notice a sign of reminder to all of us on my user page that i am here on probation only and strictly, like this if i edit something negatively my hassle will be over. Thanks.--יודל 15:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)