User talk:David Spart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Peekvid
Hello David,

I noticed that you have marked the link that I added on "peekvid" webpage as a spam. I have checked the regulations in Wikipedia and here is what I have found:

"You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page."

Although I understand that you are worried about spamming articles, however, the link that I added only cites similar websites. This material is relevant to the article and in my opinion, this information can help the readers of this article, as they are most probably interested to see what other websites are out there (and they cannot be found in other wikipedia articles).

Thanks for your time,

Mehrdad

Georgia
Make my day and add your support for Ossetian independence from Georgia. It's the one independence struggle you're missing.

John

Peekvid
G'day! As per your note to my talk page regarding the article Peekvid, I am not an administrator and therefore cannot unprotect the article itself. It was deleted and protected to prevent re-creation by any user. The reason is not stated, but it was of the Administrator's disrection to delete and protect it. If you would like to discuss possible unprotection, you would have to leave a note at the Requests for unprotection, where an administrator will look into the unprotection of the article. Thanks for your enquiry, Extranet (Talk 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on deletion/protection
I have answered your questions/objections at Talk:Peekvid -- intgr 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Peekvid.com on articles for deletion
Hello, your article peekvid.com was nominated for deletion; please refer to Articles for deletion/Peekvid.com and state your comments. Don't forget to be civil. -- intgr 11:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Sokolovsky
I have added a "" template to the article Ariel Sokolovsky, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Ariel Sokolovsky 00:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some Indian Admin deleted my talk page protected it from recreation and ignores and deletes my complaints I wonder if he is connected to PinchasC since I saw you mention he was messing with your talk page.

Chabad Messianism
Please see the deletion discussion page that I have created at Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_of_Chabad-Lubavitch. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, given that you and User:PinchasC seem to be having a discussion, I would do two additional things if that doesn't work: 1. Add any missing content on this subject to the Yechi article, which seems to be being kept and not redirected. I would agree that having both articles is not appropriate and only one should be kept. 2. If you find you're unable to add content anywhere, I would bring the matter up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and discuss with one of the Jewish-section administrators like User:TShilo12, User:SlimVirgin, etc. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi David
Pinchas is a good guy, but these kinds of disputes do come up occasionally, even between editors who are editing in good faith. I'll try to help out, and I'm sure some compromise can be reached. Please e-mail me. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)
Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, do not unilaterally revert AFD closures if you are not an administrator, and especially do not use incivil edit summaries, as you did here. --Core desat  04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not going to warn you again, but I see your point. However, even though it's been through so many already, WP:DRV is where you go to complain about out-of-process closures, and the closure was not necessarily out of process - the last DRV explicitly set a wait period of one week before a renomination. It hasn't been a week. --Core desat  04:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Chabad Messianism Article
I saw your version of it and it is very, very good. I would rate it an A or a B. PinchasC must have some sort of hidden motive for wanting to oppose it so staunchly. Noogster 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I applaud your bravery in defending its right to exist. Not related, but as for Chabad Messianism itself, I think it is sort of laughable. Schneerson was a tzaddiq but he was not of the tribe of Yehudah (as far as I know) or born in Bethlehem and fulfilled virtually no Messianic prophecies that I know of, had no verifiable miracles or anything of the sort, although he was very successful in bringing some awareness of Torah. As someone who believes in Messianic Judaism I know that Rebi Yehoshua of Nazareth ("Jesus") is the Moshiach, who in contradiction to M.M. Schneerson actually fulfilled dozens of Messianic prophecies, was verifiably resurrected, and made it explicit to his followers (Netzarim) that he would fulfill the rest/rebuild the Temple/bring about the Era upon his return as the ben David.


 * You have a good Purim, too. And do avoid costumes in the process: http://www.chayas.com/costumes.htm Noogster 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra Optional Question
"This vote - me thinks - is a power play by people who want to delete it."

Then I suggest you check this page and see which way I voted. But I thank you for your vote in this section anyway. It seems to me that there are two choices, either we agree to compromise and we agree that some people have to lump the result, or we agree that, whatever it takes, we keep talking. Either option has costs and I'd just like the community to make a deliberate choice between the options. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt summary
Nice work! It brought a chuckle. AgneCheese/Wine 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Chabakkuk (Jewish group)
You mentioned that .he has an article on the topic. If they have any sources that we can use, having an article here is more reasonable. JoshuaZ 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV comment
Hello, I've moved the 'ha ha' comment you left to the talk page of the article. If you notice a potential COI, it's often more constructive to bring it up in conversation without the apparent editorialization. Even though the saying goes 'On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog', on Wikipedia we assume that we're all adults and try to treat each other with respect. It greases the wheel of conversation and makes things a lot better in the long run. Best regards, C HAIRBOY
 * It is not acceptable to mess with other people's comments - even if you do think that they are illegitimate. It is especially bad form to do so when you are on a different side in an ongoing debate and the comment is in no way an attack or obscene.


 * So you can be as nice as you like on my talk page, but you shouldn't have done it, and you owe me a simple apology.


 * David Spart 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't "mess with" your comment, I moved it to the talk page as it was inappropriate in the DRV. If you disagree with my action, you may have another administrator review it by posting a request at WP:AN/I.  I don't actually know which 'side' you're on, and if you'll review my only other posting to that DRV, you'll see that I've tried to suggest a compromise between the two.  As such, your characterization is not entirely accurate. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW Quick question, who was the admin you felt had a conflict of interest, btw? I did a quick glance, couldn't figure it out. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'll just have to accept your silence as agreement, hope you're not being quiet because you're embarrassed or anything. Everyone makes mistakes, don't feel bad. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions
Hi, I noticed you participated in the Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in more than one. Best wishes, Noroton 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
Your "anti captial punishment" userbox seems to be broken. OhanaUnited  20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Partnership minyan
So much for the anti-mergism tendencies of Structurists! Seriously, I think the article can stand on its own and has the sources to back it. I also think if a merge is insisted on, an Egalitarian Minyan article (I assume such an article would have to be created) would be a particularly bad place to put it, since placing it there would represent a Wikipedian endorsement of a particular POV on what partnership minyanim are (a kind of egalitarian minyan as distinct from a kind of Orthodox minyan). I'd note that there's no disagreement that Shira Hadasha is notable. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Separated at birth?
Seeing your user name and then reading all your user boxes makes me wonder: are you in any way related to Dave Spart of Private Eye? Power to the people! 86.138.42.159 08:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issues
I would make a request for checkuser WP:RFCU for the users in question. In the meantime, I've blocked the vandalizing IP address. JoshuaZ 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to also, that I share the BLP concerns of the users who are removing the info given the sources are not very reliable. However, given that Greenwald has responded to the claims if it is phrased in a way that uses Greenwald's own denial as the main source that would be fine. JoshuaZ 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent checkuser request
I noticed you transcluded a non-existing case page onto Requests for checkuser/Pending -- in order to file a case, you'll need to read and follow the instructions at the top of the WP:RFCU frontpage. Let me know if you need any help with that. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it from the page in the meantime. Once you've built it, please feel free to re-add it. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

tes t 2
testestset  ( talk · contribs · [ logs ] · block user · [ block log ] ) 20:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 ( talk · contribs · [ logs ] · block user · [ block log ] ) 00:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User R. Baley
I've found your accusations of my being a sockpuppet on multiple pages. This needs to stop immediately. R. Baley 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to try differentiating your arguments and editing patterns if you want to give the impression of being two separate people.   ( talk · contribs · [ logs ] · block user · [ block log ] ) 07:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have to do anything. You've made an accusation without merit.  R. Baley 07:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoel Kahn
I think you are mixing him up with a totally different person, Rabbi Yehuda krinsky. where did you get this info from? Shlomke 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You'v violated the wp:3rr and could be blocked. Please revert yourself before someone blocks you. Shlomke 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|left|30px| ]]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question.  Nish kid 64  01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Thank you for your response to the AfD. I hope that you could elaborate your position a little bit there. Birdsmight 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Hesder
I just noticed the edit summary on your re-adding the WikiProject:Israel tag to Talk:Hesder. The explanation is that User:Reedy Bot tagged hundreds of articles like that, and many of the taggings were inappropriate. Because of that, User:El C reverted all of those edits en masse and they are starting the process from scratch now. Best, DLand TALK 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

sig
Much as i like your comments on AfDs, your sig take up six lines of code. Friendly comment.DGG 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright tag
If http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yechihamelch.jpg is from an ad as you wrote in the description, it needs the Template:TVad-screenshot copyright tag instead of the one that you placed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the Licensing section of that image page, click edit and replace the licensing with the new one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shluchimyechi.JPG should also be updated unless you are really the photographer of this image. --PinchasC |  £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FA proposal
I understand your proposal. It is interesting. I have three problems with it.
 * 1) What is your source for the infinite series of numbers in PI? I. E., when we are say 2800 places into the number how will we know what the next digits are?
 * 2) Personally, I prefer a selective process over a random one. Recall that all articles can be evaluated on both a quality and a priority scale.  (See for example the WP:BIO priority scale).  For simplicity, let us assume that it is equally possible for low, mid, top, and high priority to achieve FA status.  Should they all have equal chance to become TFAs?  I think in a selective system, higher priority articles would have an advantage.  I think this would serve to motivate people to spend more time cleaning up higher priority articles.  Of course, if there were a scale for fan favorites, it might not exactly parallel the priority scale.  However, it will be close.  An article like Michael Jordan would based on its true priority level (Top) and fan favoriteness have an advantage over say George Washington Dixon.  I think we should want a system places greater emphasis on higher priority articles if we truly believe they are higher priority articles.  TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pi (and all irrational numbers) have an infinite number of digits, we know pie to about 2billion placed, so ever though we will need about 20 digits a day, that should last us ... oh, for a while!
 * The problem with a selective process is that it would be a train-wreck, with every "owner" od every featured article fighting every day.
 * A random process is thus the only alternative to the benevolent dictatorship of Raul. And also has a number of corollary benefits.
 * I wondered this myself - why do FAs always have to be thousands of words - on some minor subjects 200 is plenty - but these can never become featured articles. So really the whole featured article thing is broken.  All the FAs I have ever checked have be front page material. This needs clarification, but this is a separate issue.

I am glad you are interested in my proposal.  ( talk · contribs · [ logs ] · block user · [ block log ] ) 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * <"we know pie to about 2billion places"> Administratively, can you tell me what the 30,328th place is?
 * <"a selective process. . . would be a train-wreck, with every "owner" of every featured article fighting every day.> My process has no fighting. You just have nominating, voting and adminstration.  The fighting would be between transgressors and administrators about violations of 1. Canvassing, reciprocal voting, block voting, eligibility, and the like.  This is no different than any other process.
 * <"the only alternative to the benevolent dictatorship of Raul">I don't see a valid objection to my proposal yet.
 * <"All the FAs I have ever checked have be front page material.">After all the stuff I have been going through with my FA (Campbell's Soup Cans), which was just promoted moments ago, I was disappointed yesterday's TFA (Ian Thorpe) didn't have a valid photo. I think in my process might give an advantage to an article like Boston with a crappy lead, because everyone from Boston will be sentimental.  I don't think either of them is a great WP:TFA for these objections.  However, they are both deserving WP:FAs.
 * <"I am glad you are interested in my proposal.">I am willing to discuss it. I still prefer my own. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like random selection of TFAs as much as I would like a randomly selected government or an arranged marriage. There are biases in both selection processes.  For example, I like good looking women and of high intelligence.  That is my bias.  I would prefer to date these types of women rather than random ones.  The collective consensus of people who care about main page content may have a biases toward top priority articles or towards intellectual topics or pop culture topics.  However, if that is what they collectively would prefer to promote to TFA that is what they want.  They would be happier with this biased choice than with random selection which gives equal chance to low priority mundane articles. My proposal is an attempt to empower the people to voice what they want to see on the main page.  I would rather have Raul than a random process.  I.E., I would trust one well-intended person willing to put in effort to guarantee variety than a random process.  However, I would prefer a collective consensus to one person.  TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't think the process would take that much administrative effort. However, now that I have primary authorship of a WP:FA and a WP:FL, I will be drafting my WP:RFA.  I will volunteer to serve WP:FC with an emphasis in the conversion to my proposed process. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Now you make a false analogy. FAs run the gamut from top priority to low priority.  My bias would be towards top priority in all likelihood.  These would be the hot girls.  Some topics would be intellectual.  These would be the smart girls.  I would likely be biased toward the hot smart girls of this type. For example, my freshly minted FA is probably a high priority article and a highly intellectual one.  Thus, it is pretty hot and very smart.  The same is probably true of my FL and my FPC (actually maybe mid priority).  I would prefer to be able to choose my TFAs.
 * As an alternative argument, If you want to be a Miss Universe judge you can't just say all these women are hot. You have to judge relative to other hot women.  I think some FAs are hotter than others. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shalom Dov Wolpo
I've nominated Shalom Dov Wolpo, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Shalom Dov Wolpo satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Shalom Dov Wolpo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Shalom Dov Wolpo during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Malach and Rabbi Kotler
For information about the malachim, see "Hasidic People" by Jerome Mintz. Probably the best google terms will be related to the Weberman family, stark followers of the Malach. For Rav Kotler, my Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Yosef Granofsky, is the source. --Yodamace1 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi David. Just a quick heads-up that your signature is very long (I make it the better part of 6 lines on my monitor). You might want to shorten it a bit. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pages I want to make
Aaron Rubashkin expand Agriprocessors, Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America, Stephen G. Bloom, Sholom Rubashkin, Milton Balkany,

Your user page...
Sorry, but that's a crime against categories (and the eyes). No offence meant. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am intrigued as to the mind-boggling overdose of political userboxes on your userpage, and just wonder if there is any rational explanation for your worldwide support of independence for every possible former entity that is currently not in complete autonomy. These include what must in a vast majority of cases be places that you have never been/have no personal connection to and therefore would have a limited idea of the situations surrounding these territories and the ramifications of independence? I would very much enjoy a dissertation on the way the UK's overseas territories could magically become self-sustainable, or Scotland or Wales for that matter. St Helena hardly has a booming economy or industry, does it? The Geography Elite 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kerem B'Yavneh
Why do you insist on adding incorrect information about the Yeshiva? It may be true that Yigal Amir was a student there, but why must you continue reverting to an older, incorrect version (which you authored)? Chummus 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, In your article about Kerem BeYavneh, you make assertions that are matters of opinion, not fact. Yigal Amir might be the most infamous graduate of KBY, but he is not the most notable. Notable are the hundreds of KBY alumni serving in Rabbinic positions, including about half of the staff of RIETS Roshei Yeshiva and three of the 15 new Dayanim appointed this month in Israe, as well as in lay leadership capacities across the world. Furthermore, your article is replete with other mistakes- the name of the Rabbi who was called in for questioning was David Kav, not David Raz. There is place for a discussion of Yigal Amir in an article about KBY, but to place him as the center of it speaks to blatant bias. Rackovsky
 * OK, I see your point, that he is the "most naotable" is a matter of opinion. What you should have done is simply changed the working a bit, not removed the whole thing, and we never would be arguing. David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 05:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation
You have been blocked for violating the Three Reverts Rule at Glenn Greenwald. Note that 3RR is meant to curb edit wars, not to set a specific number of allowable reverts; your persistent reverts over the past several days are disruptive enough to warrant a block and, since you were very recently blocked for a similar violation, this block's duration is raised to 48 hours. You are free to discuss your changes on the article's talk page after the block expires, but further reverts will result in longer blocks without warning. Kafziel Talk 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your email: The number of reverts goes by hours, not by calendar dates. A new day does not mean you start with a fresh slate. You reverted at 11:21 and 19:38 on April 6th and then went on to revert at 05:47 and 17:38 on April 7th. Any way you measure that, it's 3 reverts within a 24-hour span. I didn't warn you because you were just blocked for 3RR a couple of weeks ago, so that should have served as enough of a warning and given you plenty of down time to read the policy.
 * Edit warring is extremely disruptive&mdash;one of the most disruptive things anyone can possibly do to Wikipedia articles&mdash;and administrators generally have less patience with users who have already been blocked for it in the past. So from now on, I suggest that if you make a change and get reverted, leave it alone and discuss it until you're blue in the face. It's what's called the one-revert rule. If the other parties will not respond, find a mediator if you need to, or get a third opinion, or ask for help at the village pump. I am leaving the block in place for the full 48 hours, after which time I hope you'll seek proper dispute resolution. Kafziel Talk 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, you hav miscalcultaed: my last revert was at 17:38. I made 2 reverts before that in the previous 24 hours, therefore I didnt violate 3rr. Not to mention that the revert that you banned me for was against a simgle-purpose account, only created after this edit war started. David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 03:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a miscalculation. As I already said, the three reverts rule does not require 4 reverts in 24 hours. That number is a guideline, not written permission for you to edit war just enough to avoid getting blocked. The spirit of the rule is to curb edit wars, and the article history for the past week is nothing but one big edit war. I know the other editor was a sockpuppet (I blocked him indefinitely) but two wrongs do not make a right. Kafziel Talk 04:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Block
I have been mistakenly blocked. I didn't violate 3rr. I was given no warning. I only reverted twice during the 24 hour period preceding the block, and the block was given for a revert that I made against a single purpose account that had been created during the ongoing edit war, presumably to avoid 3rr themselves. I emailed the blocking admin, apologizing and telling him that I would happily revert myself I(even though I hadn't violated 3rr) and pointing out that I was reverting a single purpose account. He realised this, and banned the sock-puppet. Again I only reverted twice in the 24 hour period, and should not be banned.
 * Unblocked, see below --pgk 19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This block is not a mistake. You reverted three times in that 24 hour period, and a total of 16 times in the past week. It doesn't matter who the edit war was with; if it wasn't blatant vandalism (which it was not) then it's an edit war. Kafziel Talk 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a mistake and Jayjg agrees with me. Many of the reverts were against sockpuppets and single purpose accounts. What is more, as you freely concede I did not violate, 3rr. I still offered to revert myself, and you gave me no warning or opportunity to do so. David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All you're doing right now is proving that you still don't understand 3RR and that you will quite likely violate it again. It doesn't matter who you reverted; it matters what you reverted. Sockpuppets and SPAs can still make valid edits. The edits you reverted were not vandalism, no matter who made them. As for the warning, 3RR policy only requires a warning for the first time. You already had one at the end of March. You ignored it then and were blocked. This is your second block for edit warring. How many times do you expect us to believe that it's an accident? Kafziel Talk 05:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't violate 3rr, I have only been here 2 months and am not acquainted with the intricacies of the rules. i sent you 2 apologetic emails assuring you that I would not revert the article anymore anf even saying I would revert myself so you are wrong again. I will continue accusing me of belligerence in this matter I will put the emails I sent you up here.  You have been very unreasonable. David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you keep saying you didn't violate 3RR is the reason you're still blocked. Read the policy: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours."
 * This describes your situation precisely. Two months is plenty of time to have read this, especially considering you have already been blocked for it once before. There's no point putting up the emails you sent; they don't reveal some hidden truth. You participated in one of the biggest edit wars I've seen in months. You got blocked. The block stays. The end. Kafziel Talk 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why it is not claer at all? 3rr is a very clear term - I thought that was what it meant. You are backtracking now.  You know the block was wrong. You didn't realise that I was reverting SPA and socks until long after you blocked me. Considering the multiplicity of mitigating circumstances here and my repeated remorse, your actions were and are the wrong ones.
 * Okay, you should really just step back and settle down a bit. You're not even making sense anymore. I didn't realize you were reverting sockpuppets but as I just said it doesn't matter who you were reverting. So why would it matter when I found out? It doesn't. I was willing to block him, but that has nothing to do with your block. I haven't changed my position at all; what I'm saying now exactly matches what I said in the original block notice. You did not revert four times but I blocked you for edit warring anyway. That's what I said then, and that's what I'm saying now. There are absolutely no mitigating circumstances here. Not a single one. You are not especially new, this is not the first time you heard of 3RR, you have been blocked for it previously, you edit warred on this article for more than a week, and most importantly you still claim it's all a big mistake on my part which means you are clearly not prepared to edit more responsibly. There is not one single reason to remove the block. Kafziel Talk 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 months is new, misunderstood the policy, apologised and offered to revert myself. I didn't violate 3rr, and was reverting SLA's and socks. You block was OTT and saying that would continue to revert is bad faith on your part. Here is the email I sent you: Hi. I see you blocked me for violating the 3 revert rule.  By my account I had only reverted twice in the previous 24 hours.  I see now that there are exceptions to the rule as you refer to.  I have only been on wikipedia for a few months and was entirely unaware of them. I was also engaged in a good-faith dialogue with other users, on the talk page and elsewhere as to the nature of the content. They, as you can see, did not respond to the points I was making, but continued reverting. I was not the only one replacing the material - I was not alone in my opinion.I was (mainly) reverting the edits of simgle-purpose accounts - which shouldn't count as reversions in any case.If you will be good enough to unblock me, I will revert myself, refrain from editing the article for a few days.I am currently involved in a major improvement drive on the Chabad-Lubavich series of articles and would like to continue my good work there.If you had warned me about the details of the 3RR rule under which you blocked me I would certainly have stopped and even reverted myself.  Yours, David Spart
 * &lt;quick interruption&gt; I am not an SLA. I am not a sock. I am an editor who reverted the article, and I defy you to identify who my sock puppets might be, or how you've sniffed out my mythical chicanery. —GGreeneVa 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could have accepted my commitment and apology, and that would have been it, it would have been the right thing to do, if you are going to block someone for 3rr despite not violating 3rr in the plain meaning of the term, who has only been here 2 months, you should certainly leave a warning first. David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 06:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And againI note that you accuse me of "not accepting that I did anything wrong". This is nonsenc, i have repeatedly admitted making a mistake in continuing the dispute, including twice in emails to you where I also apologised and commited myseld not to do it again. yet you persist in saying the opposite of the truth, painting me as beliegent rather than contrite. <tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">David Spart</tt> ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 06:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This matter in part seems to revolve around the statement you have repeatedly made "I didn't violate 3rr, and was reverting SLA's and socks". You need to revisit WP:3RR. The intent of the policy is to stop the disruption caused by edit warring, there is no exception in that if you believe the other parties are SPA's and Socks. If there are problems request protection whilst the problem is discussed. --pgk 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, right above I write "not violating 3rr in the plain meaning of the term" which I didn't. I apologised, offered to revert myself and was very contrite, repeatedly. <tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">David Spart</tt> ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make 100% clear, I am remorseful and will not revert for the next three days, or edit wat in any way on the Glenn Greenwald article. <tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">David Spart</tt> ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well just not the plain meaning as you see it, isn't important for the purposes of the wikipedia 3RR policy nor its application as it makes quite clear within the policy page. As for offering to self revert after being blocked, we generally don't accept that, simply because everyone would offer to do so - essentially making it edit war to your hearts content, if caught offer to self revert and you'll get away with it. I hope you can see regardless of your own personal intent people would try and game the system like that, the purpose of the rule is to prevent the disruption occurring in the first place. I will discuss with the blocking admin and see about reducing or removing the block. --pgk 15:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Yoel kahn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yoel kahn.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Deutschrabbi.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Deutschrabbi.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Krisky pbs screencap.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Krisky pbs screencap.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Shmuel butman.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Shmuel butman.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Groner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Groner.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Yechihamelch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yechihamelch.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Shluchimyechi.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Shluchimyechi.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Baranes flyer.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Baranes flyer.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Agriagro.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Agriagro.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Shalomberkrinsky.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Shalomberkrinsky.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked
I've removed the block. The blocking admin hasn't been around to discuss this fully, so to a certain degree I'm sticking my neck out. Please don't let me down. Be cautious of policies, wikipedia is not a bureacracy and generally it is the intent of the policy which is important rather than the precise letter and in some cases the title can be misleading as to that. --pgk 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, that is very decent of you. I still can't edit though since my IP is still blocked. Which shouldn't have been done since I am on AOL, so 10,000 people share my IP. Can you unlock the IP too? Thanks again. <tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">David Spart</tt> ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 20:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

still cant edit

 * Missed the autoblock, should be cleared now. --pgk 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)