User talk:DavidCharlesII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archives: /Archive 1
Hello DavidCharlesII, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! :) Dlohcierekim 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

:) Dlohcierekim 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bruchim Haboim

Thanks for your help on Jewish topics. Come join us at WP:ORBCW - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, DavidCharlesII, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Also, as you've seen, you've started editing in areas of Wikipedia that can become heated. Please feel free to come to me for any advice you might need in making your Wikipedia time more enjoyable. Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pinchos's "comments", "warnings" and "edits" are completely unjustified. His past behaviour is utterly wrong and contemptible. He has been cynically abusing his power to destroy the contributions of everyone he disagrees with in the Wikipedia community. Significantly, he abused his powers as an administrator and manipulated such terms as npov and the like on all contributions which were added to constructively edit his otherwise unfounded and factually unsupported claims he inserted in various articles. He has come close to breaking the reversion rules, as well. Instead of apologizing for his continuous abuse which can be attributed solely to perwsonal animosity toward contributors in the Wikipedia community or the subjects of the articles, Pinchos C has continued to abuse his powers and pick on innocent indivuals who are merely trying to make Wikipedia a more accurate encyclopedia. He must be censured. If you can help me, you would be doing Wikipedia a service. 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

David, Pinchas is a good editor and a good admin. The two of you have gotten off on the wrong foot, which is understandable, given your differing philosophies, and given the fact that you are new, and don't know all of the policies here yet. I'm sure you could become a great asset here, if you calm down a little, stop making personal attacks on other editors, and just ask for a little help when you need it. I've asked Pinchas to go easier on you as well. Can we make this a fresh start? Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've archived the negative material for you; let's move on now, ok? Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. First, he is not a good admin. If he abused his power as an admin to destroy ann innocent contributor, he is a bad admin, by definition. Look at history. Tell me that this man is not out to get me. In addition, the negative comments he made so that I will look bad must be removed because they are illegitamite. There is no way his excesses can be tolerated. I have learned my lesson. If he will continue to abuse me, I will have not choice but to protect myself. Removing illegitamite unwarranted comments is the most peacable way of resolving this issue. I am still awaiting an apology. DavidCharlesII 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

David, the statements he made were accurate enough as far as they went, and the alternatives are worse. Please believe me when I say that this is the best possible outcome - the alternative is to restore them here, which I'm sure you would dislike even more. Please, let's move on. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely do not understand what you mean. If you are saying that someone can lie and edit things even though they are untrue, if you are stating that that same individual can summarily denounce the truth for being unfounded and then warn the innocent party about fabricating things, and that all that is ok, I am at loss of words. PinchosC has maligned me, lied about me, destroyed my work--it does not get more personal than that. Worse, he did this under the pretense of administration and objectivity. Juist looking at his hisory shows how obsessed he is. I really think his status as an admin should be reviewed. DavidCharlesII 19:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC) DavidCharlesII 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

David, Pinchas is going to be more accomodating to you, and you need to stop talking about him. Let's just edit and improve the encyclopedia, OK? Now, the first issue you are having is that you need to provide citations for things. Even if you know something to be true, you have to prove it is true by providing reliable sources to it. Can you do that? Do you need help with that? Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate two things:

1. To learn how to do provide citations. 2. To know what you are referring to.

I would be more than glad to stop talking about PinchosC. I will stop. But I will have to voice my concerns if he abuses me. If you would look at his record, you will understand where I am coming from. I still think he ought to apologize to me for his decision to delete my Medrash Shmuel entry. The article is backed up. So it is clear he only did it out of malice. Others on Wikipedia notice it, too. You could check that out on the discussion section there. DavidCharlesII 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can suggest an article for deletion if they don't consider it to be encyclopedic. Medresh Shmuel is a marginal entry; there are no reliable sources on the internet discussing it, and a Google search turns up almost nothing about it.
To provide proper citations you need to find sources that discuss something. These could be books, newspaper articles, or even good websites. Why don't you read WP:RS, which should help. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not prepared to argue on the issue of Medrash Shmuel being a mrginal entry; I can only ask why would PinchosC elect to delete an entry on that Yeshiva when there are so many other marginal entries for other Yeshivos, as well? The answer is obvious to my mind. Medrash Shmuel is a very well known Yeshiva with well over three hundred students from throughout the world. They have a very impressive alumni list. Its very well known and highly regarded. Look at how others in the Wikipedia community responded to Pinchos's decision to delete it. They, too, were shocked. I do not believe his reasons are legit. No one does. DavidCharlesII 22:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's move on from that. No more comments about Pinchas. No-one was "shocked" at its being put up for deletion, some people just disagreed it should be deleted for that. There are valid reasons one might argue for its deletion, primarily because it fails WP:V, which is an important Wikipedia content policy. However, we should not speculate as to why Pinchas put it up, but instead should assume good faith, which is also an important policy, and is also halakha. Dan l'kaf z'chus. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Daniel was. And this is not the only yeshiva which has an article. . . The halachic imperative be dan one lkav zechus applies only to those you know. I could hardly be expected to engage in middas chassidus with those who have been so harsh with me. DavidCharlesII 23:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that what the Chofetz Chaim would have said? Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He writes that in Ahavas Chessed. I am not writing about being "nice," merely the inappropriate application of dan lkaf zechus in this context. DavidCharlesII 12:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

He writes in Ahavas Chessed that its ok to make wild accusations about people on Wikipedia without even a shred of evidence to support them? And that you can't be expected to engage in middas chassidus? (Heh, believe me, I won't expect much from now on).--Meshulam 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the one making the wild accusations. I don't want to talk about Pinchos too much, but at that time, I was stating a fundamental truth: Pinchos was mulling overy every contribution I was making and attempting to destroy them (instead of offering more constructive advice). I did not have be dan lkav zechus, as it is only a middas chassidus to be dan those you do not know lekav zechus. Your continued insults belie your otherwise preachy comments. DavidCharlesII 14:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your charge that there is "not a SHRED of evidence" is particularly spurious. Daniel also wondered what was motivating Pinchos C when he nominated to delete my first attempt in contributing an article ("Medrash Shmuel"). DavidCharlesII 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself, buddy. Just don't drag the Chofetz Chaim's name down with you if you insist on acting that way. --Meshulam 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It starting to appear that you are just not really reading carefully. I did not "drag" the Chofetz Chaim into a conversation. I merely corrected someone's mistaken interpretation of dan l'kaf zechus, according to the Chofetz Chaim. This kind of sloppiness once again smacks of the very hastiness you are impliedly criticising me for. Its a shame you have nothing important to add to this conversation. DavidCharlesII 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayig asked if you thought the Chofetz Chaim would endorsed your name-calling. You said yes. That's dragging the Chofetz Chaim's name down with you, because you're acting like a ... and you've said that the Chofetz Chaim would approve! --Meshulam 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have completely changed the subject. The Chofetx Chaim's name, so to speak, was mentioned in connection with the concept of being dan l'kaf zechus. I corrected the underlying flaw in the question by explaining both the shitto of the Rambam as calrified in the Ahavas Chessed that one is not obligated to be dan l'kaf zechus those he does not know. I did not think I was acting like a " ", what everthat means, because I was protecting myself from someone who was cynically abusing his power to distort the truth and deter members of the Wikipedia family from making important and meaningful additions to articles so as to maintain factual veracity.

The fact that you decide to completely ignore these obvious problems and have made sloppy conclusions in deciding who is acting like an "..." shows that you not only are not only ignorant of the Chofetz Chaim's works, but that you have no commonsense. This is not the first time you have contributed meaningless drivel on my talk page. Be warned that personal attacks of this nature is in violation of Wikipedia's rules. DavidCharlesII 13:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elazar Shach

David, I'd be interested in speaking with you further regarding potential compromises over the Lubavitch controversy section on the rabbi Shach page. Hope to hear from you, either on my talk page, here, or on the Shach discussion page. ShalomShlomo 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

David, thanks for your comments on my talk page. First, I don't disagree with your point that a personality of Shach's stature should have more information about him than merely who he feuded with. When Shach's disagreements with Chabad (and others in the wider frum community) get more attention than his accomplishments as a leader, or his influence in changing- or sustaining- the Litvaks in Israel and the Diaspora, I agree, there is a problem. But I would argue that the precise nature of this problem lies not in the fact that these "extra" sections are included in his article, but rather that the more noteworthy episodes are not. I am a secular Jew. Yes, I have some Jewish resources at my disposal, and a strong interest in haredi culture and societies, but I do not have access to the kind of information that more frum (or educated) members of the Wikipedia community might have, whether oral or written. I would suggest that a much bigger problem with Shach and these other pages is that those contributors who DO have access to (or at least know where to look) for this sort of information- and not just about R. Shach, but about many of the rabbinical personalities with biographies in Wikipedia- are not contributing as much as they could, leaving it to others to do so. These others, working with less material and without as much knowledge about the subject, are probably not going to assign the same emphasis or attention to detail in certain areas that other posters might.
I started the Shach page, and wrote essentially all the content on it (including the biographical details, which had to be teased out from various internet bios). I'm not trying to claim credit; I'm simply pointing out that despite a significant and visible frum presence here, it was ME who had to write the page for one of the best-known Torah personalities of the last (easily) 20 years. So, again, I don't think the problem is that too much controversy is being included in these bios, particularly if it's accurate and generally NPOV (and if it isn't, that's a separate issue that should also be dealt with), it's the LACK of other, more substantial information. And that's something that, unfortunately, people like me can only supplement up to a point.
To briefly address your other remarks- Regardless of what you may think, I am not a Chabad apologist, far from it. It's ironic that my attempts to keep the section NPOV (it had been getting attacked by pro-Chabad posters) resulted in a tone that you feel is too concilliatory towards Lubavitch, to the point of accusing me of having an anti-Shach agenda. Believe me, that wasn't the intent. I happen to think Shach was totally correct in his assessment of Chabad and believe his behavior towards that body was in keeping with that analysis- which was why I SAID SO in the section. I agree, sources, both internet and print, would be good to have here; perhaps there could be some cross-pollination from Wikipedia articles dealing with Lubavitch (such as Chabad#Controversies). If you'd be interested in detailing some areas in the section, esp. tone, that could be redone to be more NPOV, I'd welcome your suggestions. That goes for the rest of the section and article, too. In short, I've done my best with the limited resources I have. Rather than nit-pick these scraps to death, why not help put some real meat onto the article? Best, ShalomShlomo 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavidCharlesII_630c.html"