Talk:Baal teshuva movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
A fact from Baal teshuva movement appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 October 2007. |
 |
[edit] Movement or simply Chazara Bit'shuva?
Please see the relevant 2 discussions regarding this article:
[edit] Where should the 2 above discussions be?
This header was created by me to divide the 2 subjects, please feel free to fix it.--יודל 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC) this is a partially copied discussion from an other articles talk before this page was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yidisheryid (talk • contribs)
- Let's not have the discussions split up, let's have them in one place, at Talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach?. Thank you, IZAK 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since its already divided in 2 articles it can not be in one place anymore. so the talk regarding this article must be in this talk page, for its interest to address the concerns properly--יודל 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrong! See: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice also known as WP:MULTI:
Centralized discussion: Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea, creating discussions in separate places with no interchange of ideas. This is rarely desirable, and leads to redundant effort where an idea that has already been adequately addressed has to be considered all over again. Instead, solicit discussion in only one location, either an existing talk page or a new project page, and if needed advertise that in other locations using a link. See also: meatball:ForestFire
-
- If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link.
Thank you for noting the above. IZAK 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- This policy is something entirely different, when 2 discussions have the same meaning and subjects it must be centralized, but since this particular page was created becaouse and in despite with utmost disregard for consensus, so the whole discussion turns to something really different now and should be brought into its own proper context, which is entirely different then the privies discussion, since here is its main application for its context to be right, when the discussion will have some time and more voices added, it should be seen into if it is of any resemblance the subject, and then we will have one centralized discussion as we see fit, for its broader context each as it was further framed at its relevant frame.--יודל 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong again! Re-read WP:MULTI. I cite you the exact rules and you argue, how crazy is that? You are making up your own rules, and as usual you devote more time to arguing your own imagined ideas of procedures and policies to the point of the absurd which does not contribute anything to Wikipedia. Even according to you it's crazy: On the one hand you argue for combining articles but on the other hand you also argue for separate discussion pages, is that "logic" or what? Well let me tell you, I do not enjoy your theater of the absurd. Leave me out of your craziness please. IZAK 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since the last note was not about the issue at hand but about something else, there is at this time no more to be said on this issue.--יודל 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong again! Re-read WP:MULTI. I cite you the exact rules and you argue, how crazy is that? You are making up your own rules, and as usual you devote more time to arguing your own imagined ideas of procedures and policies to the point of the absurd which does not contribute anything to Wikipedia. Even according to you it's crazy: On the one hand you argue for combining articles but on the other hand you also argue for separate discussion pages, is that "logic" or what? Well let me tell you, I do not enjoy your theater of the absurd. Leave me out of your craziness please. IZAK 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
