User talk:Howdy770

Howdy770, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Howdy770! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi

Please read the Wikipedia guideline at WP:HONORIFIC that you shouldn't add the word "Rabbi" to a name more than once (the first time his name is mentioned). Debresser (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Your editing on Chabad is disruptive, since you go against the Wikipedia policy of consensus, and every time you post on the talkpage you think that gives you the right to repeat your contested edit. That is not the case. You can not repeat your edit unless you can show clear consensus for it. In this regards, please read the warning template below. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

I find it strange that you only refer to my edits as incorrect, misinterpreted and unconstructive. Without explaining why. I clearly did research, found sources to show what I think is the truth and whatever you may believe Wikipedia is not yours to just make changes without explaining yourself. Yes you said lets hear from the community but have you made any attempt to include others? I will refrain for several days to see if any respond to the talk page, feel free to open a request for comment etc... and I look forward to hearing another's opinion. But an opinion with reasons behind it to speak of. Not blanket statements of ineptitude. I find your constant threats and baseless challenges going against the mission and goal of Wikipedia and I will say it once more. If you or others cannot explain why you "believe" Rabbi Schneerson is not the current leader of Chabad as accepted by its members and why my source is wrong beyond name calling like "misinterpreting, misrepresenting etc.." all the while making statements such as "There is no leader of Chabad at present. That is a fact." with not reasoning or source behind it besides your personal words. Wikipedia is not a place to post your personal beliefs, whether you believe my point correct or not, either use words to explain why its wrong, why the source is wrong and bring a source to your opinion. Or I will continue to keep the edit active. Howdy770 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770[reply]

Your last edit was made without first establishing consensus. Please be aware that if you make any more such edits, I will ask to have you blocked. You must understand that explaining your point on the talkpage is not the same as having established a consensus for it. Debresser (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EA/R

Can I suggest that if you don't get a response at EA/R in the next 2-3 days that you might withdraw that question there and move it to the TEAHOUSE. I seem to be the only volunteer who is very active at EA/R these days and since I gave the 3O it would be inappropriate for me to respond to your question there, so your question there may not draw a response. You can also just go ahead and do that, but be sure to withdraw your question at EA/R if you do. (Just put "Withdrawn" and your signature under it.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure if I don't get a response in the next day or two I would definitely move it over. Personally although you gave the 3O, do you think that i'm handling the situation in a incorrect/TE/disrupitve manner as he claims? I'm trying to get this resolved and feel debresser is responding in a very personal attacking manner and just attacking me without actual arguments/sources to his opinion on the lack of my correctness. However I may be wrong and would love your feedback on whether how im approaching this correctly or not and if its grounds for being blocked as he says above.

Howdy770 (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770[reply]

Other than offering some procedural advice, I'd prefer to stay out of it as I believe to do otherwise could be seen as taking sides and having potentially been non-neutral or prejudiced when I gave my third opinion. I think that you can get an opinion on those issues at EA/R or, failing that, at the Teahouse just fine. Alternatively, since they involve conduct you can ask just about any administrator for their advice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, will do. Howdy770 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770[reply]