User talk:Popabar

Nice job, popa.

April 2013
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Malik: I don't believe what I did was vandalism in any way. All my statements were well cited from primary sources, neutrally presented (at least as edited--partially by me) by the time you deleted them and relevant to the subject matter. Linzer is the Dean and primary instructor in the school, and his blog postings about what he is teaching in the school are completely relevant to a discussion of the philosophy there. Is there any more information I can give you about this?


 * First, you described it as trolling here.
 * Second, we generally try not to use primary sources, because they may be subject to interpretation and cherry-picking. Secondary coverage of a subject is preferable.
 * Finally, the place to discuss content is on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I did describe it as trolling there, but I use trolling in a loose sense. I mean that it is likely to upset people, and I do believe that people in this institution do try to hide what they do. But let's discuss the merits. I think the sources I am giving are good; if you look at them, you will see that they accurately and reliably relay the facts that I am citing them for. Finally, I did try to discuss it on the talk page, but the people who were deleting me did not wish to engage me on the talk page, as you can see.


 * The sections on Gender discrimination and Section blanking hardly qualify as content discussions, but Talk:Yeshivat Chovevei Torah remains the appropriate place to discuss content matters. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I'm not getting it. Nobody is disputing the accuracy of what I put up there, so I simply asked why they were being deleted. I presumed if anybody had a legitimate dispute about it, they would have responded to that by saying something like "those sources aren't clear enough" or "here are contrary sources" etc. Nobody is disputing it; it's all real.


 * Maybe you didn't see the page history of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, where Evan2008 explains the problems with what you added. I'll respond at Talk:Yeshivat Chovevei Torah as well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not nearly as much as it is obvious that you didn't even look at the history in question. Accusing me of edit warring when I was the one who started the discussion and nobody cared to engage me is astounding. I overrode one person's edit who did not post any reason at all, and one person (EvanH)'s edit who put a reason that merely asked for relevance when the relevance was obvious and also refused to engage in discussion. You people have got seem agenda issues. Popabar (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you put a talkback on my page (for multiple reasons) ... all I said was regardless of the expired block, do not edit-war in the future...I never said you did, and I never said you didn't. Your paragraph directly above doesn't even make any sense when you understand Wikipedia's policies in toto (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 13:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, forgive me for not understanding the rules in toto--I'm a new user. And forgive me for taking the implication from your response that you were accusing me of edit warring. Popabar (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)