User talk:PinchasC/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

La Marseillaise

Are you familiar with the details behind the Rebbe's "hijacking" of the song? I think there should be mention of it on that page, but I'm not sure of what the whole deal behind it was. Daykart 20:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

See Nigun where it states the following
Some nigunim originate from non-Jewish sources. Hasidic Jews, based on a practice of their founder Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, have adapted anthems and even folk songs, ascribing them with a new spiritual dimension. For example, Chabad Hasidim have adopted the French tunes of La Marseillaise and Napoleon’s March, as well as Russian or German drinking songs as a part of their liturgy. Many Hasidim believe that these songs, in their secular forms, are in spiritual exile. By adapting them to liturgical forms, they are “raising Holy Sparks” according to the teachings of Rabbi Isaac Luria’s system of kabbalah. The process continues to this day, with new nigunim emerging from time to time.
I don't think that it is notable enough to place on La Marseillaise --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you think Napoleon's March is noteworthy enough to get an article of its own? I have about a paragraph's worth of information on that and I can get more. Daykart 20:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For now the Nigun article is very small, so if you have information you can make a section in the Nigun article that says notable nigunim, until it becomes too large. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I did it. So far I have Napoleon's March and Shamil's Nigun. I believe there's a story behind the Daled Bovos, but I'll have to look it up. Daykart 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice! --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Lekhah Dodi

Do you know how to write Hebrew on Wikipedia - there is a some kind of terrible bug I can't get past on Lekhah Dodi. Do you know how to get past it? I can't put line breaks and punctuation marks in the right places. Izehar (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but despite being asked many time by many users, I still don't know how to write hebrew on wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"including Chabad"

Obviously, there is Chabad the organization and those within it who, despite the formal teachings, hold such beliefs. I think it is easy to write text that makes it clear which is which and who is who. Nandesuka 00:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no chabad organization that holds such beliefs, they are aginst what Judaism and what chabad stands for, and this belief is condemed by every orthodox person both whithin and outside chabad. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
You are playing semantic games. Are there people who believe that some members of Chabad hold these beliefs? Yes. Are they notable people? Yes. Have they made verifiable claims (by which I mean, can we verify that they said them not that such claims are true)? Yes. Those claims, therefore, belong in the Chabad Lubavitch article, and to claim otherwise is sophistry. It would, of course, be reasonable to include criticism of such claims, where we can find reputable and verifiable sources issuing such criticism. But pretending that these claims don't exist is not acceptable. Nandesuka 00:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree the claims are notable and verifiable, however they are in regard to indviduals, and those indvidual's beliefs are not just condemened by the rabbis that RK brought down , but by all rabbis including chabad. To quote one rabbi implies that the rest may disagree with him which is not the case. This is like one Jew believing in Jesus, and having a rabbi saying that therefore you can't eat in his restauraunt, and to put that in the Judaism article. There is already a part in the article (the 4th category) which says that there are some individuals in chabad that hold this view, but it is obvious that everybody condems them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, it's not obvious enough. The solution to this is to shine more light on the problematic statements, not to censor them. Nandesuka 00:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Then I would agree to have the statement that "those beliefs are against Judaism and chabad beliefs and are condemed both within and outside chabad" inserted. But to quote all those people that RK brought, would mean quoting Shulchan aruch and basic sources in Judaism including from the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, which say the same thing. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Kol HaKavod Pinchas!

Encore! Encore Pinchas!

I was particularily pleased and grateful for your involvement in Wikipedia especially with regard to your work to combat misguided impressions etc. about Lubavitch in the pages.

L'Chaim to Chabad of Wikipedia :)

Why don't you sign up for an account? It's free and anonymous. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks for fixing my user page! CanDo 02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Me too; thanks. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 04:53 Z

my bad

my bad. wasnt paying attention and hit a wrong button

Bonoh Beis Mikdosh Bimekomo

Have you seen this pamphlet [1] put out by the Meshichisten? Daykart 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the original Sicha and similiar pamphlets. The point of them is that a shul after it's been prayed in becomes like a Beis Hamikdash or the Beis Hamikdash of Golus, and all the Rebbe is saying there is that ecspecially a shul in which the Previous Rebbe Davened and the Current Rebbe Davened for sure has the holiness. But not the Beis Hamikdash when Moshiach comes. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do the meshichisten publish pamphlets claiming that the rebbe is Moshiach Vadai because he fulfilled the requirement of "Bonoh Beis Mikdosh Bimekomo"? This has nothing to do with what the rebbe did or did not say; it's a question of how the meshichisten misconstrue his words. In this case, I feel that it definitively proves my point. Point being that a substantial amount (enough to warrant mention in an encyclopedia) of meshichisten believe that the rebbe is Moshiach Vadai. The Yechi article is not about the rebbe as much as its about the meshichisten. It's like the old line: "I do love Jesus, it's his fan club that I can't stand." Daykart 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see anything in the pamphlet saying moshiach vadai, please point it out to me. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

malo's RfA

Thank you!
Pinchas, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite

This FAC is being opposed by a POV pusher who has consistantly tried to downplay Jewish contributions to history (while simultaneously shrugging off or sweeping under the rug Muslim atrocities against Jews and others, see, e.g., al-Andalus and Banu Qurayza). Please review the article when you are able and weigh in on the FAC page as you feel appropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congrats! Your request for adminship passed with 45 supports to 0 opposes, which is equal to, well, a 100% support to oppose ratio. As such, I have promoted you to administrator, which means you now have access to several neat administrative, cleanup and upkeep tools at your disposal.

As a new administrator, you should read relevant policies and pages linked to the administrators' reading list before you carry out tasks such as blocking users, deleting and protecting pages, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Remember that most of what you will be doing will be easily reverted by other admins, apart from page moves and image deletion. I personally suggest reading the administrators' how-to guide in order to learn some of the ropes. If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask me for help. Welcome to adminship! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Pinchas, as you can now edit the main page. Can I ask you to edit the wikinews entry about Sharon, from "after suffering a minor stroke." to "after suffering a mild stroke." just for consentity reasons. As if you see when he had a stroke, they called it a "mild stroke" not a "minor stroke." Thanks 220.233.48.200 14:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Congradulations on becoming

Not many people have no opposes at all on their RFA. --Adam1213 Talk + 03:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent news! I'm sure you will be a fine admin. And Adam is right; unanimous votes are rare. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Not unexpected, user:PinchasC is a very bright Rabbi and he also was my teacher for a while, quiet a few years ago. 220.233.48.200 14:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations. Keep up the great work with RC patrolling and other contributions. ---Aude 03:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Be sha'a tova. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

You are welcome to use my monloblock.js User:Jossi/monobook.js. If you need instructinos, let me know. It contains great tools for RC patrol. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

You are very welcome. Enjoy your mop and bucket.Thanks.--Dakota ? e 05:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

מזל טוב! :-) Tomertalk 05:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Enjoy the new tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there, congratulations Pinchas! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Lets just hope he never had to "enjoy" to use the new tools. Ooops to late wikipedia has become one of the number 1 sites for vandalism, guess he has no choice but to "enjoy" the new tools.

King Kong edits

I did not vandalize an article - there are technical difficulties with my computer that are deleting sections of the article when I edit that I did not intend to do. Please recind the claim of vandalism and leave a message. I apologize for the confusion. (I also left a message on the talk page of the King Kong article.) --24.253.120.206

Bonaparte, Chris Sundita just alerted me to this rather nasty tactic of yours. Do you realise that Mikkalai and David Gerard have both blocked you in these debates, consistently siding with me in policy-related issues? Do you honestly think you're going to be able to get somebody to just block a long-established username without going through arbitration or something first? Why do you always try the sneaky things? If there's really a problem here, take it through the formal channels. --Node 04:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I do realize that you are political involved so as other users have told you; and now you transfered all your hatred to other articles as well... Now what is your problem with Romania? Why you hate Romania so much? Why you don't accept that article: Accession of Romania to European Union? In this approach you only proove your Anti-Romanian feelings. Which is not good to have them. Bonaparte talk 06:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations for your Adminiship! I do have a problem with a anon ip 71.35.52.232 which I presume is a user that acts like a vandal. He follows my edits and make only revert war. Can you block him? -- Bonaparte talk 07:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am 100% sure that 71.35.52.232 is User:Node ue. Now he was in conflict with many users from Moldovan languagepage. He even labeled me and other 3 users as "konceni"(russian slang word it is an obscenity) without being blocked. Now he started to follow everything that I edit and comes to that page to revert my work. I think he is obssesed with my edits. We did have some problems with his trolling on the Moldovan language page, but since then he transfered all his hatred also to other pages that I have created e.g. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Romania_to_the_European_Union) Accession of Romania to the European Union. Except for the fact that this demonstrates very clear that all his edits and purpose is just trolling he also demonstrates a bad behaviour. The majority of users there agree with the fact that he is just annoying everybody there with his trolling. He repeatedly engages in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "koncenii," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. I ask for help to deal with this vandal. Bonaparte talk 20:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Here are the proofs: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language/archive01#moldovan_a_dialect)

I will explain you exactly what happened. Me, User:Anittas and User:Dpotop were labelled as "koncenii" (russian vulgar word for "sperm") by the User:Node ue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language/archive01#moldovan_a_dialect)+(in 15:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Node addresses to Dpotop)+(Tu eshti koncenii. Graieshti moldoveneshte, Anittas? --Node 07:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)).

Bonaparte, tu eshti koncenii!!! --user:Node ue
That's a tough one for Bonaparte: if he recognizes this as an insult, then he will admit that Moldovan is not identical to Romanian, if he will not, then he does not know Moldavian. :-) user:mikkalai (t) 00:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed :) that was the intention... to force his hand, by using a Moldovan word that you don't hear in Romanian. --user:Node ue

If you follow the links and the data at which it is in paranthesis you'll have the proof. -- Bonaparte talk 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebrewterm

FYI, the template is completely rewritten to be in-text with optional params. Could you take a look/discuss at Template talk:Hebrewterm & WP:TFD. See Moshav and Yerida as experimental examples. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte

I just realised that you might not have text support for Yiddish characters in your Computer so I replaced the Yiddish letters with English ones.

Sholem aleykhem Elyezer, Vos makhstu??

Bonaparte has a long history of issues of this sort with me which are well-documented. Before taking any actions, please consult User:Mikkalai, User:Oleg Alexandrov, User:David Gerard, all well-respected sysops, who can clarify his history to you.

"kontshenii" iz nisht a baleydikung. For this, you may ask User:Mikkalai and User:Ghirandajo who are native russians speakers.

And finally I have to say, if anyone here...

Ikh vet dikh mit dir oyf Bonaparte iz der v. in di situatsye.

A gezunt dir in mishpokhe oyf khaneke!

Zay gezunt

Node 05:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And I can trust a guy like Node who is so political involved supporting a soviet based propaganda. He supports one of the worst propaganda from history of the world. He likes to makes anti-romanian remarks. He did recognize this, and this can be checked if you doubts.
So much to tell about well respected sysops see the example one more time, the sysop Mikkalai actually put fan on flames:
Bonaparte, tu eshti koncenii!!! --user:Node ue
That's a tough one for Bonaparte: if he recognizes this as an insult, then he will admit that Moldovan is not identical to Romanian, if he will not, then he does not know Moldavian. :-) user:mikkalai (t) 00:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed :) that was the intention... to force his hand, by using a Moldovan word that you don't hear in Romanian. --user:Node ue

He is alone in his positions everybody told him. Now is it correct what he's doing? Today he came one more time to revert my work on Accession of Romania to the European Union!!! You did saw how he transfered his hatred also to other articles. Best wishes, I hope and I know that nobody can't stop the truth. Truth always wins. Bonaparte talk 06:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Pinchas for your advice. I appreciate your advice. By the way I am also Cabal mediator. However if you have seen the evidence and still you don't do nothing there's no problem. It will be found an Admin that will see the truth and acts correspondingly. You saw also above. However I asked for help also to be a message for this troller to stop his Anti-Romanian behaviour. Bonaparte talk 15:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that he kept on insulting others but was never blocked for that. As you can see above even Admin Mikka encouraged him, in this way Admin Mikka putted fan on flames. This gave him courage to continue in this approach. Somehow must be stop this insulting behaviour and Anti-Romanian insults. Bonaparte talk 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sholem aleykhem Elyezer,

Again, if anyone here, is one, ikh vet dikh mit dir oyf Bonaparte iz der v.

A gezunt dir in mishpokhe oyf khaneke!

--Node 20:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody trust you Node after you have proved so many evidences of Anti-Romanian statements. Bonaparte talk 11:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Pinchas I do understand Yiddish. I want you to tell me what do you understand from what Node had told you. Be honest. I have to use his statement against him because he dammeged my image.
"kontshenii" iz nisht a baleydikung. For this, you may ask User:Mikkalai and User:Ghirandajo who are native russians speakers.
And finally I have to say, if anyone here...
Ikh vet dikh mit dir oyf Bonaparte iz der v. in di situatsye.
and Again, if anyone here, is one, ikh vet dikh mit dir oyf Bonaparte iz der v.

I'm sorry that I have to ask you but it was addressed to you. He lied on my talk page and I want to compare his version with yours. I am most interested in iz der v. and Bonaparte iz der v.. I trust you won't let me down. -- Bonaparte talk 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, I have stated this on your talk page and I will repeat it again here. Based on the way things look, you should look at WP:RFM. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if you don't want to admit that iz der v. and Bonaparte iz der v. -- iz a baleydikung I still think that your silence say something. You just encourage him by doing this. Look at his behaviour! After I made a new article, he immediately came and revert my work Accession of Romania to the European Union. By keeping yourself silence you just help guys like him to continue in this bad approach. Bonaparte talk 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

Thanks for your thanks, I'm sure you'll do a great job. And (reads above) I see your first admin involvement is a nice easy one... good luck with that. :) Proto t c 07:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

RK

I am recused on RK, but I guess you figured that out. He is one of the three Wikipedian who made me feel Wikinfo was necessary. Fred Bauder 14:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Building brigdes, not burning them

Pinchas, as administrators of Wikipedia, we are held to higher standards. I believed that one of our duties is to build bridges between editors when things get hot. So, please, in the future, when dealing with editors with which you have a history of past disputes, realize that these editors as well as you, are here to stay and hopefully continue contributing to Wikipedia. Exacerbating a relationship with an editor by accusing him or her of sockpupetry, is one of these things that we should not do, would not do and will not do. Happy holidays. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In this particular case his edit summaries, and edits (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=29940179&oldid=29902552 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=29940993) made it very clear that they was the same person, this was also noted by two other admins in the 3rr report. I have also asked for a check on that ip against that user see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#please_check_this_ip_against_User:RK and the answer was "What I can say is that I am not certain it is RK - in fact, there's a LOT of users I recognise on that IP - but I cannot say it isn't. And the edit summary and edit content style is certainly enough to make him a highly plausible maker of that edit. RK, was that you?" --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed - it's possible it was him, but the IP evidence does not nail him. If it was him, I would hope he would get a clue and not do this again - David Gerard 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew Alphabet

Saw this message, what do you think of it? IZAK 06:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC):

"I have rewritten the articles on all the Hebrew letters here and before I replace the pages, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)"

Deleting your old User identities

Hi Pinchas: I was going through my watchlist and noticed that there are some multiple old user names that you may have previously used that are now completely dormant. I think the correct thing for you to do, especially since you are now officially an admin, is to permanently delete whichever of the following that belong/ed to you, which you can now quite easily do by clicking on a few admin buttons now at your disposal:

  • User:Truthaboutchabad, last contribution: 11 March 2005, (on that page you say: "I am switching to the name Pinchas").
  • User:Chabad, last contribution: 16 December 2004.
  • User:Jew, last contribution: 22 July 2004.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best wishes for a Freilichen und Heiligen Chanukah! IZAK 07:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Just the first one was mine, I will see what I can do about it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Your attention is needed

At the following articles:

People bring these to the attention to other in the Wikipedia Judaism project. I will link to this in a few other people's talk pages. 220.233.48.200 14:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have taken a look, please let me know which things on these pages need attention. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The wikibooks one I have done a lot of fixes. The Kashrut one still needs your attention, please have a complete read of it, there are a lot of obvous mistakes. Also see some of the old sections in the topic that I repplied to that I said need the attention of a Rabbi. The zeloutry article still needs total fix ups. The same with the rest. BTW look at my edits on the wikibooks one. 220.233.48.200 19:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's RfA

Hi Pinchas,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.

Hi, I'm the article creator and I'd like to thank you for your urging not to merge. Would you like to offer productive suggestions about the article now that it's nearly finished? I'm deciding which of several potential redirects is best for the main title and considering where to categorize it. Also, since you look like you know the subject, I'd appreciate content feedback. I've done my best to treat this sensitive topic in a balanced and tasteful way. Regards, Durova 19:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of this talk page

I delete the vandalism of this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEliezer&diff=32699068&oldid=32692593 user should be banned, that was no test. 220.233.48.200 19:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

New Tanakh category?

At the suggestion of IZAK, I am writing to ask your opinion on this. Someone named Fischersc is going around adding a new [Category:Old Testament people] to all the Avos and Imahos pages (maybe more). IZAK says that the way it is being done, it looks almost like vandalism, but then again, Wikiproject:Judaism is trying to establish new categories to distinguish between Christian and Jewish interpretations of the Bible. Should we go ahead and include all these pages in a new [Category:Tanakh personalities]? Thank you for your input, Yoninah 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"Christian interpatations" is more like "the bible - wiki style" they are not interpretations, they are editations and interpretations of the editations. They should really be spiltted and not mixed at all! 220.233.48.200 14:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Activity

You're being very active I see - well done :-) Izehar 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Chabad

You seem to be obsessed with putting a link to chabad.org on every single Judaism-related article. Is this some sort of perverted attempt to google bomb? Daykart 01:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It has nothig to do with google-bombing, it has to do that it is one of the top Jewish sites on the net, and has a vast amount of information. You will of course notice that another major Jewish site aish.com has links on all the pages as well, and this is to be expected since they are the top two site on Judaism on the net. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, chabad.org is one of the biggest Jewish libaries on the web. http://torah.org is not as big, but has a lot of HIGH quiality content. Personally I don't like aish.com a lot of their articles contain huge mistakes, so does some of chabad.org but I have never seen a huge mistake which wasn't fixed within hours. 220.233.48.200 14:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RebelForums.org

Thanks for the advice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RebelForums.org. I am usually weary of discounting probable meatpuppet votes and the guidelines say when in doubt, don't delete. However, I must say that it is pretty likely that those were meatpuppet votes, as it was an article on a web forum. Anyway, thanks again for the pointer - I'll know what to do next time. Izehar 11:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nosharia

Hi Pinchas! Please take a look at this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nosharia Vs Wikipedia:Username and other possible infringements. Cheers -- Szvest 17:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

it isent a copywrite violation

It isn't a copywrite violation- their copyright statement can be read here

ahh Excuse me-- my mistake. i'll clean up the mess.--Reb Roovie 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

concurrent blocks

Pinchas, due to the way the blocking software is implemented, when multiple blocks are active, blocking ends when the one that expires first does. So a situation like this is only a 31 hour block. To apply a longer block while one is already active, you need to unblock first, and then apply the longer block. As to the specific case of User:Meeplow, I think your decision was correct. Owen× ☎ 02:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me a call?

I need to talk to you about something over the phone, if you could please call ASAP. Thanks. 220.233.48.200 03:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) I will reply my changes to the Moses article like we talked about here, for your changed in a few min. 220.233.48.200 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Moses article

"Orthodox Judaism beleives that Moses received from God and subsequently transcribed all, or almost all, of the Torah, it is disputed if Moses wrote his own death or not. Rashi (one of the classic meforshim) brings down the different opinions from the Talmud and other sources, about this. Unlike the Christian Old Testament, the Torah has only 1 letter disputed for what the original version was. This dispute is over the word dakah in Deuteronomy 23:2, wether it should be spelt with alef or hei accorrding to Sefardim it is with a alef. However, Rabbi Joseph Issac Schneersohn was once in Prague at a Torah scroll whom the local tradition is that it was validated by Ezra the scribe more than 2 thousand years ago, and it was with an alef [2]. In Judaism a mistake of even a letter being too long in a Torah scroll would make the copy invalid, once invalid it can never become valid again."

220.233.48.200 04:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mind to fix it, like we talked a bit about. Before I submit the changes.
Here it is with some spelling and othe minor corrections. "Orthodox Jews believe that Moses received from God and subsequently transcribed all of the Torah, it is disputed if Moses wrote his own death or not. Rashi brings down the different opinions from the Talmud and other sources, about this. Unlike the Christian Old Testament, the Torah has only 1 letter disputed for what the original version was. This dispute is over the word dakah in Deuteronomy 23:2, whether it should be spelled with alef or hei according to Sefardim it is with a alef. However, Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn was once in Prague at a Torah scroll whom the local tradition is that it was validated by Ezra the scribe more than 2 thousand years ago, and it was with an alef [3]. In Judaism a mistake of even a letter being too long in a Torah scroll would make the copy invalid, once invalid it can never become valid again."

Tanakh / Torah / Old Testament

Hello Pinchas: Please see my discussions with User:Fischersc at User talk:IZAK#Tanakh / Torah / Old Testament, your input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 04:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am RSVPing

Thank you for the invitation, I accepted on my talk page. 68.63.123.117 05:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mis-use of links by "The High Watch " by Don L. Hutchison

Pinchas–– I apologize for any perceived intrusion and my ingnorance regarding "External Links" policy. I have a lot to learn about this bottomless resource called the internet and "WikipediA" specifically. Although I've not considered links as advertizing, I can see how it might be abused in that fashion. My edits are always on sights that deal with information and philosophies that are an intregral part of the manuscript I'm releasing (free of charge I might add.) The specific subject matter of this release is of interest to all who might visit any of the links I've "advertized" on. Rules are rules and obviously there for a very good reason. Thank you for contributing to my continuing education. Please feel free to delete any of my links you find during the performance of your editing.

Only Love Prevails,

Don L. Hutchison My E-mail is: wwwdlhow27@naples.net

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi PinchasC/archive2! I've just come back from a very refreshing wikibreak, so here is a belated thanks for your support in my successful RFA. A big מזל טוב for your own! Have a happy new year (if that's your kind of thing), a חנוכה שמח, שבוע טוב וחודש טוב! jnothman talk 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron-Zalman Conflict and Satmar

Hi, I have been asked to advise concerning problems at the Satmar article, see User talk:IZAK#Aaron-Zalman Conflict and Satmar. Thanks. IZAK 05:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad Page Protection

You apparently semi-protected Islamist Terrorism, full protection to the version preceding edit war is what was asked for.

Thanks.

That is what was asked for, however I felt that semi protection was the best course of action, since the edit wars seem to be involving anonymous users. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I was here to leave you a similar message. Note that WP:SEMI is clear that its use during edit wars is explicitly forbidden, since it divides between editors to that article who can, and editors to that article who can't. With full protection, all are equal. Semi is for vandalism only, and vandalism requires obvious bad-faith, not simple disagreement. -Splashtalk 02:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the stuff on AN/I. Ignore me. -Splashtalk 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a case of WP:IAR? With blessings, 220.233.48.200 20:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this article appropriate for Wikipedia?

A theological student named FDuffy has just created a new article called A wife confused for a sister which is totally based on bible criticism. Would you kindly look at the discussion page which I started on that article and add your comments? Thanks, Yoninah 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that basing an article entirely on academic knowledge of a subject rather than pious guesswork is NOT a bad thing, and entirely the right thing to do. --User talk:FDuffy 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Several editors?

You + Jayjg = 2 editors. Not several. Jayjg does not say what the POV is. And you are just RV-ing to his RV for the sake of it. If this is not the case, then you state in the Talk page what the problem with the current content is. What is the POV of. I don't mind being reverted, just state the POV and let's work. Don't bully! As i said to Jayjg, you are also a player, not a referee. Understand that. Al-Andalus 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

While you're there, compare editions and tell me in what way am I "introducing large changes"? I have just made a section out of content that has become to large for the intro, and has enough information to merit a section. Al-Andalus 19:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

There is User:Babajobu as well see this diff. Regarding some of the problems see the talk page where an anon and user Tomer have raised objections. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You've been trying to insert this POV into the article for months, Al-Andalus. It isn't any better now than it was several months ago - refer to old Talk: page comments if you need to. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New articles needed

In my recent edits of chabad shows many articles that should exist that don't. Like

  1. Tehillat HaShem
  2. Kedushah
  3. Musaf

etc...

Mind to make them? I can help to build them once you made them. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

3 good excuses for you to register :-) --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

help with old username

hi eliezer

i have an old username which i need to remove. i foolished used the same username i have used in employment and it is rather unique. my identity may be exposed and cause me trouble at work. is there any way to alter my old username or remove my old edits?

thanks OnceUponATimeInChina 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

VfD

Hi, could you please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative military ranks of World War II. Thanks. Izehar 13:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning SheezyArt Article

The Neurality was disputed! I cleaned it up, you fucking Wurlitzer! --68.164.169.54 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

See this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SheezyArt&diff=prev&oldid=35289231 --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article was written with a positive view of SheezyArt, so I balanced it out. --68.164.169.54 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check

Neither of those editors are Dabljuh. However, ZimZum is Scandum. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Minyan article

You might want to take a look at the latest anonymous contribution to the Minyan article, regarding "minyan shivyoni hilchati". It seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of attention devoted to a minor phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Which commentator would have believed in the Rebbe's messiahship?

Hi Pinchas,

I am a baal teshuva still searching for my path. I am not here to make leitzonus or to waste your time. But I sincerely need to ask you some hard and perhaps painful questions. I am totally sincere. According to all of the research I have done, the only way the Rebbe could still be a candidate is if he did not already identify himself as the presumed Moshiach. If he did indentify himself as such or many Jews considered him to be b'chezkas, than he is disqualifed. I've been doing research on this for the past few months and I have written a short essay which shows what I have discovered and the conclusions I have arrived at thus far. I would be grateful to hear your response to my essay. I just discovered your page two days ago when a friend of mine sent me the link to your entry "Tzadik" on Wikipedia. I didn't find any other way of contacting you, so I hope it is ok that I'm writing to you here. Here is my essay:

"If he is among the living he is like Yehuda HaNasi. If he is among the dead he is like Daniel ish chamudos". Sanhedrin 98b

As far as I know *all* the commentators take this gemarra to mean that the gemarra is looking for a *model* of Moshiach from the past or present or is identifying someone who was fit to be the potential Moshiach of his generation. The only commentator that I'm aware of that raises the possibility that Moshiach might be a resurrected leader from the past is Rashi. And as far as I know only two other gedolim also raise this possibility and they both cite this gemarra. And I will show you how there are serious problems with understanding Rashi to mean this.

Rashi has two explanations of this gemarra: 1). He deleted the word *like* so that he reads it to mean (Rashi's words): "If Moshiach is from those alive now it is certainly Yehuda HaNassi". If he *was* from those who have already died it *was* Daniel". (There is another girsa of this Rashi which removes the word "was", so it reads "if he is from..it is Daniel.") 2) The most perfect model for Moshiach among those currently living is Yehuda HaNasi. The most perfect model for Moshiach from the past is Daniel. In other words, if we're looking for a model for Moshiach from living people, then Melech HaMoshiach will have certain traits in common with Yehuda HaNasi who is currently alive. And if we're looking for a model for Melech HaMoshiach among those who have already passed away, then Daniel would be that prototype.

I have only found three commentators that address Rashi's first explanation, i.e. that Moshiach could be one of the ressurected. Why only three in the history of the Jewish people? Because if we take out the word "like", we are left with the conclusion that Yehuda HaNasi could be the Moshiach even though he himself states in Talmud Yerushalmi Kilayim 9:3 that he is descended from David only through his mother. And Tosfos accepts this claim of Yehuda HaNasi in their commentary on Sanhedrin 5a, 'dehacha shevet' (David Berger cites this in his book). This, combined with only three commentators who make reference to Rashi's first explantion points to the fact that the rabbinic consensus was in support of Rashi's second explanation. The only two commentators that Chabad messianists have produced are the Abarbanel and a letter someone wrote to the Sdei Chemed which the Sdei Chemed included in his book. The Abarbanel proposes this as a possibile scenario, but only says that a child could be born who will be the Moshiach (I think he means that this boy has the soul of Moshiach) and then he dies as a *child* (i.e. before he starts his messianic career) and then later he could be resurrected and then begin doing all of the things Moshiach is supposed to do. And the Abarbanel cites the above gemarra as the basis for this scenario. The only other source that Chabad messisnists have been able to produce is a letter to the Sdei Chemed by a talmid chacham who doesn't seem to be well-known. I've never read the entire letter but I have heard that it's a long letter dealing with various topics and then in the middle of the letter it says (and this I've read myself) that *only* if the Jewish people have great merit might it be possible for Moshiach to be somebody who will be resurrected from the dead. But this is only if we possess great merit and he also cites the above gemara as the basis for this possibility. You'll note however, that he doesn't at all talk about a messianic candidate who is reconginzed as a messianic candidate, who dies and is buried before he completes his mission, only to be ressurected to finish all of his messianic tasks.

So, the messianists have three sources. One from the gemarra and two later sources which base themselves on this gemarra. In none of these source is the possibility of a second coming ever raised. You know why? Because the Jewish people have always rejected the idea that Moshiach will die sometime after the start of his messianic career but before its completion only to be later resurrected in order to finish the job where he left off when he died. In all of the Jewish-Christian disputations throughout history our main excuse for denying Jesus' messiahship is not because he was not fully halachic, but rather because he died in an unredeemed world; i.e. he didn't bring the redemption in his lifetime. The most famous example of this argument is the Ramban's Disputation at Barcelona. This is the exact argument he uses. And as far as I'm aware this was always the Jewish people's main argument in debates with Christians and in polemical works explaing how we know that a messianic claimant/candidate is not Moshiach- and that is because he died in an unredeemed world.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan wrote a book called "The Real Messiah". Just as with most of the other sources I brought above, I also read this book myself at least three times. In the book, Rabbi Kaplan states at least three times (maybe four) that the Jewish people have always rejected the Christian idea, which has much earlier roots in pagan cults, of a Second Coming. Rabbi Kaplan was a kabbalist who also knew and respected the Lubavitcher Rebbe. And he emphasizes the ancient and eternal Jewish belief that there is no such thing as a messianic claimant who dies in a not completely redeemed world and who will be ressurected at some point in the future at which time he will bring the consummate the complete and final redemption.

The Rambam in Hilchos Melachim is so very clear about this. He writes that "If the messianic candidate does not succeed to this extent (he doesn't complete all of the messianic tasks), or if he's killed, it is known he is not the one whom the Torah promised, rather he is like all of the upright and righteous Jewish kings from the House of David who have died." In the halacha immediately before this one, he talks about Bar Kochva and how he was thought to be Moshiach by Rebbe Akiva and all of the sages but when he was killed by the enemy while fighting the Romans, everybody realized he wasn't the one the Torah promised. Since the Rambam is already talking about a Jewish king who will fight real physical wars and since it's possible for him to get killed in battle, if he does get killed his messianic career is finished and we don't have to wait any more to see if he doesn't "suceed to this extent" of building the Temple and bringing all the Jews back to Israel. I have also heard that the Rambam is pointing out to us by adding the words "if he was killed" that even though Bar Kochva was killed in battle "due to sins" as he writes in the halacha, we shoudn't think of him as a rasha, rather we should know that even though he was killed in battle he is still like the other "upright and righteous kings from the house of David who died".

The Rebbe didn't teach that such a scenario is possible for Moshiach. It seems to me thus far in my research the he taught the opposite. I have studied all of the proofs of the Chabad messianists and to my limited mind none of these sources are clear-cut proof that the Rebbe definitively taught the possibility of such a scenario for Moshiach, since these words of the Rebbe are sometimes ambiguous, to my mind. And in other places in the Rebbe's talks he seems to say that it is impossible.

Thank you very much for your consideration. And I look foward to discussing this further with you as I still haven't come to a final conclusion. Kalman

Image Tagging Image:Schochet-review.pdf

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Schochet-review.pdf. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Which article

Which article are you refering to when you quoted "3 revert"? Al-Andalus 09:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/n/User_talk%7EPinchasC_archive2_d29f.html"