User talk:OpenInfo

Please note that Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Further legal threats could lead to you losing your editing privileges. Rhobite 20:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of vandalism on Messianic Judaism

Whoever I am? I'm Nathan Zook. You can get more info on my user page. You don't appear to have a user page, and your edits lack npov. Your comment on the edit page suggests you are Jewish, but your links are all to Catholic sites. Your edits (except for the spelling correction) were vandalism, and I fully intend to treat them as such. Don't think for a minute that the anonymity of the net means that you can do whatever you like. If you don't allow others to track your reputation in this forum, you give up the right to expect that the usual courtesies be extended. When your edits are of low quality, even the usual courtesies are limited. NathanZook 19:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?? This is pretty typical of you "Messianic" types. You hide behind a web of lies.

What Catholic links are you talking about? I don't have any?

What spelling correction are you talking about???

I think either you're just lying or you've perhaps got me confused with someone else.....

Go for the latter. I reverted an anonymous set of posts, which included the inclusion of a number of Catholic sites. I should not have reacted so hastily to your tone. If you recheck your edits that I reverted, you will see that they included a spelling correction. Fixing those is thankless work, so I always make a point to thank those who do it. NathanZook 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were not "vandalism". They were legitimate. I have now asked the arbitration committee to review the neutrality of this article, and investigate as to why Nathan Zook feels that he is the "owner" of this article, and can force his point of views by removing anyone elses edits. OpenInfo 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the arbitration committee consists of yourself? I don't consider myself to own the article, but have taken it upon myself to strip the polemics. That would be polemics on both sides. The article is generally in bad shape, with sentences lost from their relating paragraphs, information repeated needlessly, etc. The links (internal & external) are a bad joke. NathanZook 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have also taken upon yourself to strip edits made by well known Judaism editors, and that is where the problem starts.

The Messianic groups, while entirely founded by Christians, force the word Judaism into the picture. Therefore, it now becomes the responsibility of Judaism editors to add truthfulness to the articles. OpenInfo 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked for theatening other editors here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jtkiefer has agreed to allow you to be unblocked: [1] From now on please be very careful to follow policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jay! OpenInfo 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I knew nothing about this until I saw it here. I'm not sure why those remarks would be considered threatening. You'll have to ask Jtkiefer about his determination. NathanZook 02:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

temporary copy of OpenGCL

Per your request on my talk page, i have made a copy of the delted OpenGCL article at User:OpenInfo/OpenGCL. This is for your temporary use, to attempt to createw a valid artilce. When and if you have created what youi think is a valis articel, please either let me know, or bring the matter to WP:DRV. If the article gets moved back to the main articel spacve, there should be a restorartion of the delted versions to preserve the history and attributions. If you want to consult on how to make this artilce suuitable for inclusion feel free to drop me a note. Note that if you don't do something on this within a reasonable tiem. i will re-delete it. DES ^(talk) 17:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to your comments on my talk page

Hi OpenInfo. Actually, your dispute actually doesn't really matter that much to me, nor does it matter to me who is right or wrong. My actions were more about process than anything else.

I posted information about your dispute to WP:ANI after I saw a request to block you posted in a page meant for blatant vandalism. Looking at your contributions, I could tell you were not performing blatant vandalism, but I could see that you were involved in a content dispute and was previously blocked for it. Thus I decided to bring this over to another avenue to help you guys to resolve your dispute. My involvement in your dispute ended after I removed the request to block you from the page for blatant vandals, posted a request for admin feedback, and contacted that two other admins who were involved in your blocking and unblocking. However, if you need any advice from me regarding your dispute, please don't hesitate to ask. --D e ath phoenix 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your sticking to the proper process. It makes editing a lot more civil and democratic. The previous blocking was actually done in error, and in fact was over someone else's content, not even my own, as it was a case of mistaken identity. OpenInfo 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience

I have met in my life one Messianic Jew. He was in no way evangelistic or interested in proselytizing. He knew nothing of that brand of Christianity (or any other). He followed orthodox practices and expected to be able to attend a Seder without either he or other Jews making a fuss about it. That's just what I saw. Fred Bauder 17:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that people are free to do anything they want. However, the Messianics that I've met, brainwashed my wife and then tried to destroy my life because I tried to get her back to normal. Luckily, she's ok now. OpenInfo 01:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like she fell in to the clutches of Evangelical Christians. You put this note on my page: "What you are proposing to write would fill the article with complete propaganda by members from the UMJC, and leave no other POVs. OpenInfo 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

I don't see I am proposing anything other than a well-sourced article which fairly presents both sides of the question. I'm starting to get curious about the matter and I don't trust either version of the article. Fred Bauder 02:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, these were members of the MJAA, which is an organization founded by the same people as the UMJC. They are basically the same group.

I was also referring to the proposal by KnessetP.R.Guy, not by you. I think the article is quite fair the way is it. It can probably use some grammatical edits.OpenInfo 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)