User talk:Tellyuer1

Welcome
Hello, Tellyuer1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Content about living individuals
Hello, I'm TheRedPenOfDoom. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Moshe Friedman, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion
I have completed the formal nomination for deletion on your behalf. The discussion is at Articles for deletion/Moshe Friedman. I only included the rationale that you had left on the article talk page. If you wish to further expand, or clarify, please do so.

The typical format for deletion discussions is:


 *  delete  - because fill in your reason why the subject of the article does not meet the basic article criteria or why it fails other policies such as WP:NOT. (signature)
 *  keep - because ''policy based reason, such as: these reliable sources talk about him in a significant manner (source 1) (source 2) (source 3) (signature)
 *  merge  to this other article, because ''there is some coverage, but it is all about his involvement with this other article. (signature)

You may wish to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to find out what not to say in a deletion discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article
Please stop editing the article for an hour or so. You are creating edit conflicts which are not allowing the article to get corrected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Moshe Friedman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Moshe Friedman
If you would like to join the discussion for the deletion of the Moshe Friedman article, please do so here → Articles for deletion/Moshe Friedman ~Thanks, ~E : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Moshe Friedman. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You cannot copy and paste copyrighted text the way you have been, read WP:COPYVIO Darkness Shines (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Moshe Friedman. 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. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Tellyuer1 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Moshe Friedman, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making changes without discussing on talk page. What exactly is untrue. Its all very well sourced. Tellyuer1 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Focus on the content, not the other editors
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Malik Shabazz. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

All editors need to work together on the project. Comments like this do not build cooperation among editors. You have valid points about the sourcing of some of the material currently in the Moshe Friedman article; however, your points will be lost if your conduct towards other editors remains so disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the text you deleted from Neturei Karta
You made sweeping deletions to Neturei Karta, claiming that the text was improperly sourced. I disagree with that assessment. There are numerous references in the text. Yes, some are self-published sources, but their use is appropriate, since it's talking about how the group describes itself.

I count at least three articles you've made wholesale deletions to. Please slow down and discuss your changes on the talk page to get support for them. You may find that it's easier to make a series of small corrections, since other users will buy in to them more readily than to major deletions. —C.Fred (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Moshe Friedman. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

A minor, but important note
If you're going to insist on making highly controversial edits, you should do everything in your power to avoid wearing out other editors' patience. And, perhaps surprisingly, ignoring this essay really bothers a lot of people. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 12:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman
Please stop edit-warring. Please self-revert (undo) your last edit to the article or I will report you for edit-warring and you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A reminder: any time you undo a change or re-add previously deleted text, it's a revert. This edit is a revert. Malik was within his rights to list that in the edit warring report. Don't remove it from the report; editing other users' comments is inappropriate and could be characterized as disruptive—and disruptive edits lead to the editor getting blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You've been warned about edit warring and the bright line of the three revert rule, and then you make this edit to Moshe Friedman. You're perilously close to getting blocked for your conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Another user reverted your most recent addition to the article. I agree with that revert for this reason: nowhere in the two sources you cite does it mention a Jewish court ruling that his kids shouldn't be admitted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Another problem with your edits: in this edit, you claim in the edit summary "Moved to NY not Antwerp". However, the source cited at the end of the sentence states, "The affair began in late 2011, when Friedman and his wife immigrated from New York to Antwerp." So, it's sourced that he lived in both cities. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And now you've violated the three revert rule again. I'm trying to help you, but you're not making it easy when you flagrantly disregard Wikipedia policies like that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out at Talk:Moshe Friedman, your repeated violation of the three revert rule is now interfering with your attempts to improve the article. To make clear, your continued reverting is disruptive, and I will block your account if you make any further reverts to any article connected to Friedman. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They arent interested in engaging in dialogue and "edit warring" takes two, not one. I comment and leave ideas.  they dont respond and I never put info without sources all of it is very well sourced. They are white washing a Holocaust denier, radical. And just bc they are 2 and I am 1 doesnt mean they shld be able to bully me.  They place "The Vienna Review"? What is that exactly ? My sources are major papers and real.Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (comment copied from User talk:C.Fred) 


 * "I'm right" is not a defense against an allegation of edit warring. And see above where I've pointed out cases where your sources disagree with the text you add/change. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldnt you agree it takes two to edit war? and above maybe am moving too fast. He did move from NY to Antwerp. But thats after austria - and consistent with what i wrote in the document. Removed Jewish court ruling but they were refused admittance repeatedly. and that shld stay. and certainly ny lawsuit should stay. Will take a few hours off and go for a run and calm down.  The Holocaust has to be holy and should be and I am sensitive admittadly to people denying holocaust. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When it's one against the majority of editors involved on a page, it gives the appearance that only one is in the wrong. That's why I said to slow down, take it to the talk page, before you burn your bridges and lose the support you do have. Probably not a bad idea to take some time off, take a run, have a nice cup of tea, whatever. The project will still be here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * pls read the NY post story and the living in NY how can a court ruling not be relevant? "he must cough up $17,050 in back rent or face eviction, Judge Bruce Scheckowitz ruled in housing court last week." Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please review WP:Canvassing, a Wikipedia behavioral guideline. While recruiting other users into a discussion may be appropriate, it needs to be done in a neutral manner and to a nonpartisan audience. Your message to the Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week, your NPOV noticeboard post, and messages you are leaving at users' talk pages may be interpreted as campaigning or votestacking. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should be accurate and truthful. I post sources like NY post that get blocked out and some obscure newsletter is a source? Friedman denies the Holocaust - and there are legal grounds in Europe where people who support that get arrested and this is damn close to anti-semetic behavior.  Dont tell me that an obscure newsletter is a source but NY Post isnt. Absurd. Tellyuer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't your sources, it's your conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dearest sir nice, sweet Jews who play well in the sandbox went out a long time ago. Let Malik Shabazz who keeps editing me know about conduct.  My sources are accurate, my info is accurate and as long as the vienna review lives then so too should the NY Post. The guy denied the holocaust and i am following wiki rules. You are supporting anti-semitism Tellyuer1 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That went too far. I've offered help, and you seem unwilling to accept it. I've referred the matter to other admins.
 * Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tellyuer1: Agenda/POV, edit warring, canvassing, and other problematic editing.  Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've combined my report with the one Malik Shabazz filed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Neturei Karta shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. RolandR (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring in multiple articles, disruptive editing, and probable multiple account abuse. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop
You just came off a block and you are straight back with the BLP vios, stop not or face an indefinite block. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In particular, the source you are citing from Der Standard is an op-ed piece. Editors' opinions are not vetted the same that facts in a story are, so op-eds should not be used as secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Fred, and the fact that the sources do not support the content he is adding. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for a resumption of edit-warring and probable WP:BLP violations, as you did at Moshe Friedman. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your inability to accurately report what the sources say (repeatedly) show that you are either not intellectually competent or dedicated to pursuing a moral campaign, neither of which bodes well for your ability to keep editing here, particularly articles and content about living people. If you wish to have any impact at all, I would STRONGLY suggest that you refrain from editing articles directly, and start simply making suggestions on the talk pages.
 * and I see that you have already passed the threshold of community allowance of your inappropriate behavior.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)