User talk:PinchasC/archive

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

Mariaremy

I don't quite understand what issue you have with my editing. The article is about the history of an edifice. Why would it not be relevant to include information regarding its original occupant? The article is not about Lubavitch or the Rebbe; it is about a building and there is no reason to delete information pertaining to its original occupant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaremy (talk • contribs)

If an original occupant of a building that was not famous at the time that he lived there did not pay income tax, that is not relevant to an article about the building which is famous for what it is now. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You could not be more incorrect. There are numerous homes throughout the world that are famous thanks to a specific occupant. That does not make information relating to other occupants not relevant. The article on Old House, which was the residence of President Adams has information about earlier occupants. So, too, the article about Wheatland, the home of James Buchanan. So too, the FDR National Historic Site. etc. etc. Wikipedia is not the place for writing a hagiography of 770. The fact that you may not like all the information relating to a person, place, or thing, is not an excuse to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaremy (talk • contribs)

Liadi

How can you possibly argue that the conversion to Catholicism by the Rebbe son is not relevant to the Rebbe's biography? This is not a random fact about his distant cousin; it is an important fact, especially considering that there is a school of thought that believes that Moshe was actually initially better suited to succeed his father as Rebbe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaremy (talk • contribs)

This that he converted is the theory of one person, you are presenting it as fact. See WP:RS "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

" --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the opinion of one person, it is not opinion at all. It is a known fact. There is an actual extant copy of his baptismal certificate. How many sources would satisfy you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaremy (talk • contribs)

Help with new Halakha subject article

Hi PinchasC Shavua Tov: I have been asked by a new user "...what are your thoughts on heter iska? i would like to wikify it, what are the guidlines on halochos!? are they in the correct categories etc? thanks Chavatshimshon 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)" Could you please look at the Heter iska article and see how it can be improved. Thanks a lot. IZAK 07:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianics again

Hi PinchasC: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RfM problem

Hi, PinchasC. I've recently filed an RfM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I thought there had been a consensus to pursue formal mediation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), but I was apparently premature in posting the RfM — some of the participants are objecting to the way some of the questions have been framed (as well as other details), and are editing the RfM page. Is there a way to salvage this situation so that we can still pursue formal mediation? Can we work out the wording and start over again? I know that you and the other MedCom members are busy, but any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that ^demon is taking care of this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic "Halakha" etc?

Hi PinchasC: On 25 October 2006 [2], User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" [3] thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized [4] the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome the NotJudaism template

Hi: In view of the above, please see the new {{NotJudaism}} template:

Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edaevich

heya - just wondering why you'd like to delete the edaevich page. Ideally, can you please tell me how to make it good enough to stay? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.warmth (talk • contribs)

I did not delete it, I Prodded it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you correct the spelling of my name?

Hi Pinchas --- this is Rooster613, real name Yonassan Gershom. I just discovered there has been a Wikipedia page on me since Oct 2005. Perhaps the reason I never found it before (egotistically, I have looked) is because my name is spelled wrong as Yonasson Gershom when you search for the correct spelling, the page does not exist! Google popped it up in a search recently -- their search deals with mispellings better. Anyway, I have corrected it in the article but do not know how to correct it in the title. Please correct: My first name ends in AN, not ON: Yonassan. The last name is spelled correctly. Thank you! Rooster613 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

I moved it to the correct spelling. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Noahide Laws cleanup

Hi, I was hoping we could collaborate on cleaning splitting and writing up more articles related to 7mBn. I've tagged Noahide laws for a cleanup. I'm not rushing in, I've read them all up, I'm waiting for the readiness of a few others so we can take this on together, and have it featured on the main page sometime. Its possible, there are quite a few of us and will potentialy be a subject of interest. Again, I'm one for words and think the parent article should be Seven Laws of Noach, as in 'Sheva Mitzvas Bnei Noach'. Anything that is should be another 'ism'. Chavatshimshon 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Chavat: Do not change that title, it is the accepted English name for it (why is it that you have this great urge to change the titles of long-establishe Wikipedia articles?) Not everything has to be a direct translation or transliteration from Hebrew. Many Judaic and Hebraic topics do and should retain their English titles. Please contact the following to help you: User:Noahlaws; User:Jon513; User:Dauster; User:HKT; User:PinchasC; User:Shirahadasha; User:Shuki; User:TShilo12, they all have knowledge of Jewish Law and experience as Wikipedians and may be interested in working on this with you. Sincerely, IZAK 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please join in the discussion on the Noahide Laws talk page about cleaning it up etc. Thanks! Chavatshimshon 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk for Requests for Checkuser

Hey PinchasC,

I am messaging you to ask whether you would be interested in reassuming your role as a Request for Checkuser clerk. Currently, the clerk duties are being shared among three experienced clerks, and we have added two new clerks, who are currently in the learning stage. We are currently experiencing backlogs and long waiting times for some actions to occur.

As you are currently listed under "inactive" on our clerk roster, we're asking that if you are willing to resume these clerk activities, please leave a message on my user talk page (quick link). A number of things have changed, so we reccommend re-reading Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide. The guide is currently being rewritten, but the new and updated version should be available by 00:00 December 12, 2006 (UTC) at the latest.

If you aren't interested in being a checkuser clerk any longer, we accept your decision and thank you for your service; it would be greatly appreciated if you'd leave me a note that you're no longer interested. If you would like to resume your role in the future, but can't do so now, please mention so on my talk page, and I'll note this on our clerk register.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ], Head Clerk, for Essjay (talk), 05:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

why should an article from blogspot be removed?

Hello -

You removed an external link that I added to the Hanukkah page because it was from Blogspot.

First of all, I have not found anything in Wikipedia that prevents linking to pages from blog hosting sites.

Secondly, this page was not a journal entry discussing thoughts about Hanukkah, but a researched post on the etymology of the word. Had it been hosted on another page would that have been acceptable?

I ask that you please either explain your position more clearly, or reinstate the edit.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curwin (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

See #11 of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos

I've noticed you're very involved here, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! frummer 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

reply to you

Re: Zionism Thanks for the info, but I am not the one who keeps reverting content. No matter what I add to Zionism, jay or one of his friends deletes it. I added different things in different places in order to appease him, and he reverts everything as if he owns the page. Pco 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing Pco's block

Hi PinchasC, I'm reviewing an unblock request filed by Pco (talk • contribs) and I couldn't see a clear 3RR violation at Zionism on December 17. Could you please link the 4 edits that showed Pco violated 3RR? Thanks. --  Netsnipe  â–º  17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See the diffs provided in the report of the violation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Pco_reported_by_User:Jayjg_.28Result:24h.29. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pinchas, I also reviewed the diffs and I'm not certain I see 3 reverts. As I mentioned on that page, it appears to be 4 seperate rewrites rather than reverts. This appears to be an editorial dispute rather than a procedural violation, and if that's the case, a block isn't immediately appropriate. I urge you to counsel the user making the edits and encourage them to take the issue to the talk page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)



Please review 4 reverts by Slim Virgin at this page [Political Cooperative] and block that person. How can the article be cleaned up or reviewed for voting if he/she keeps deleting it? Thanks. Pco 01:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Page lock request for heat

Hi, I am a regular editor at the heat article and if you look at the edit history over 3/4th of the contribs are reverts. Could you put a new user lock on this page? It seems this page is similar to the love article in some way; there the new user lock takes the strain of off daily or weekly page watch. Help if you can. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear PinchasC! Thank you for supporting my rfa. I am happy that you voted for me.--Berig 11:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

  1. No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
  3. So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
  4. What will members of other projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
  5. Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
  6. It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
  7. Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi PinchasC: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Shulchan Aruch HaRav

Hi PinchasC: The article on Shulchan Aruch HaRav needs expansion. Please help. Thanks. IZAK 15:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Shach

With respect to the above-referenced article, I did not make any pov edits. The other fellow did, and I reversed them. I would appreciate it if you would discuss your habit of redoing this page in particular with me and others who are concerned with the factual inaccuarcies and impropieties in discussing every subject under the sun save the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE.

I am reaching out to you and hope that you will respect the concerns of the Wikipedia community. Unless you did not read the article, or notice the changes made before I reverted the page back to what it once was, it is not POSSIBLE for you to declare that what I did violated NPOv. My edits are COMPLETELY neutral and appropriate. If you dispute this, please contact me.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk • contribs).

I just came across this issue while looking at Rav Shach's biography. Also wanted to leave you a note. I share the above user's concerns. Pinchas, was this an accident? If not, it is quite serious. You reverted from neutral to POV here. Please explain. Accidents happen, of course, but an apology to the above anon is definitely in place. --Chussid 16:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I got confused by the diffs, and once he pointed this out to me and reverted it back, I left it as per his version. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish eschatology

I'd like to give Jewish eschatology a cleanup, its been tagged since April. Eschatology is a very heavy theological term. I think the term Olam Haba pretty much according to everyone including the Rambam, Gra and Baal Hatanya is understood to hold all the philosophical connotations implied by the term "Eschatology". Olam Haba, refers to paradise, hell and the advent of moshiach. Please move it either to Olam Haba or Heaven in Judaism. I know that about the consistency issue since there are other eschatology articles such as Hindu eschatology, Buddhist eschatology etc but then again, they too may need to be renamed. Thanks. frummer 23:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Try a straw poll on the talk page to see what other people think. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
sure thing. schkoich. frummer 01:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Barry Gurary and Blogs

I think that the deletion of blog sources bc books are more reliable is punting on this issue. Tzemach and his commenters may have an agenda, but some are actually quite qualified in the fields of Jewish History and Hassidic history. I see your point about Shmarya more or less, but a blanket jihad on blogs seems unwise to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.138.218 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for expressing your opinion, however I encourage you to read WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:V to become familiar with the criteria to have something listed as a source or link. About Tzemach being qualified, it is hard to judge that when he does not use his real name. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Source citations

You suggested I read the Wiki policies on NPOV, RS, and V: pretty ironic given that the page as given had no source citations itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thanbo (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You left a comment on my "talk" page

Maybe you were recruited by Jayjg to do so. It may interest you to know, however, that the matter in which you asked me to "Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly," I had in fact only restored edits that I'd made after about three days of getting no response on the talk pages of the articles to requests for comments on the edits I intended to make. The individual who deleted my edits did so before making any comments on the talk page. Did you admonish Jayjg for undoing my edits repeatedly? I see that you did not. Why is that, PinchasC? -- DLH 66.82.9.90 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi PinchasC

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template:Admin_100b_and_others, as it refers to one of your userboxes. Proto::► 14:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Yechi

Yeah, sorry about that, poor judgment on my part. Any comparison would be highly partisan and not appropriate for the see also part of Wikipedia. --Shirahadasha 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A mistake must have been made...

Hello,

Recently, I discovered I had messages (didn't even realize you could have a message box without signing up), all three of which concerned my "vandalizing" a certain page. Your message exactly was:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

The page in question was apparently Sailor Moon. I have never edited this page. In fact, I do very little editing at all, preferring to keep within the realm of subjects I actually feel somewhat authoritative about, and Sailor Moon certainly isn't one of them. So, I have no idea how my IP was tagged as making an edit. I definetely viewed the page, although I don't think I did it around the time that you sent this message...in fact it was recently, as in last week. But no edits were made.

I signed up just now so that I could sort this out with those I've received messages from.

EDIT: User:Winterglaive

I don't have a clue how to properly sign messages, sorry. I'll look at the documentation for this, but I never really planned on signing up in the first place.

-Joe S.

AfD Nomination: Paul Lerner

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paul Lerner, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lerner. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Edcolins 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

68.34.178.213

Could you explain why anything critical of Rabbi Schneerson gets erased? What could I add to the page on him that would not immediately be erased?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.178.213 (talk • contribs)

It is the place that you are putting it. Everything can't be in multiple places. This content is already in the Elazar_Shach#Opposition_to_the_Lubavitcher_Rebbe article, where there are 3 paragraphs detailing this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Lerner photo

I have tagged the photo for speedy deletion for two reasons:

1.) it was tagged for fair use as a publicity photo, which it is not (see image page, or Paul Lerner talk page) 2.) it did not have any evidence of ownership as required by the fair use tag itself. Emcee 20:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Paul_Lerner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul_Lerner.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Chabad Messiansim

Hey

You just balnked my work

There should definatly be an article on Chabad Messianism.

Please put back the tet that I wrote and nominate it for AfD if you want.

I spend an hour researching that and I have no record of it at all, since the history is not there.


David Spart 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not blank it, I moved it to Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch, see what I wrote on its talk page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How can possibly argue that there should be a Yechi page but no Chabad Messianism page. You didnt merge mu work at all. YOu just deleted it. Please put it back and it can go on AfD. Also note the article on Haaret was oonly started with Sokolozski but went on to discuss the Rebbe and Tsfat and 770. And Sokolowski is clearly a much less reliable source that Haaretz.

Please replace my article and nominate for Afd.

David Spart 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it, it is in the article history what I did. Take a deep breath and take a look at Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch. The views of the Tzfatim, I left in in my further revisions.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Look, I can't see the article history why not? The history is gone on the Chabad Messianism page. If you think it should be merged nomiate it for AfD so there can be a discussion. You did that without any consensus of discussion at all and it totally unfair that I cannot even respond by reverting or nominating for AfD. Please return the article to the prior state.

David Spart 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC) The controvescies of Chbad Lubavich does not adress the issue and cannot do so adequatly. If there can be Yechi there can be Chabdad Messianism David Spart 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To see the article history, go to Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch and click on the history link on the top. Regarding your other arguments, see the discussion on the talk page of Chabad-Lubavitch. Regarding the Yechi article, that should probalbly be merged into here as well. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree. So it needs to be debated. You could have just put in a redirect, but instear you did a MOVE so i wouldnt have acces to the logs. I would like you to copy me the content of the article before you did that. You do not have a veto right. You cannot do these things without any consensus. Please replace the article and nominate for AFD if you must, or better yet start a discussion about how to treat it. David Spart 00:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversies_of_Chabad-Lubavitch&action=history for the history. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood. I hope we can come to an argreement. I think the Chabad messianim article is apropriate and needed.

I would like to replace the article as a stand alone as before. I think that Haaretz is a reputable source and Sokolowsky is not so much. I think the Boreniu and Elokist should be meniionted since they are discussed in multiple external sources. I think that a v. good article can be writen on Chabad messianism. There is a wealth of information about it - even peer reviewed. Chabad Messianism cannot be categorised under "Controvery of Chabad" - the subject is far to broad, indeed it is a controversy that permeated chabad to the core, and it is mad that it is barely mentioned in the Chabad article or in the Schnnerson one.

David Spart 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is OK with you I will put the meterial back into the Chabad Messianism and we can work out our differences there, or put it up for AfD or AfMerge or whatever. I want to be collaborative about this and avoid unneccesary stress for all.
Also - what is the problem with Sokolowsky? It just sais that there is a problem, but I cant figure out what exactly that is. Could you be specific? David Spart 01:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's take this in stages. Everything would in theory belong in the Chabad-Lubavitch article, as it is related to chabad. The problem with this is that the article size starts getting too long. See WP:SIZE regarding this. So the next step would be to take the largest things in that article and make a main article about this. See WP:size#Splitting_a_page for guidelines regarding this. Chabad Messianism is part of the controversy of chabad and has been categorized such ever since the chabad article was started (speak about consensus). The controversy is almost half the chabad article and on the contrary the non controversy is barely mentioned in the chabad article. I have not seen multiple Reliable sources discussing this. There is one Haaretz article speaking about the views of one person that later said he was misinterpreted. I have left in the parts about the tzfatim. See WP:BIO for guidelines as to who is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. Being interviewed for one newspaper does not qualify. Other guidlines you should look at are WP:RS, and WP:V. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this logic. Chabad Messianism is a topic in its own right. Yechi was voted by consensus to be a topic in its owen right kal vachomer as they say. Putting it under another cat like that is a fudge. I say lets try and make it work, and then put it to a vote. Sokolowsky HAS been discussed in other places and not just in Haaretz - Luke Ford did, and on his page you can see a whole history of non-trivial info on him. He is quite notable I think, as a contrarian and controvertialist. David Spart 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your logic. The Yechi article deletion debate was whether it should be deleted, merged into this new article or kept. The result was keep with many viewpoints to merge it into this article and some other viewpoints to delete. Based on your logic, yechi should be merged with chabad messianism ,not that they should both have their own articles. Luke ford does not qualify under WP:RS or WP:V. I would suggest your read these guidelines again. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Luke Ford is marginal, IMHO. I think it should be AfDed. And yes, I think Yechi SHOULD be merged into Chabad Messianism. That would be a good thing. I say lets try that and see how it works. Yechi is TOO specific for an article CONTORVERCIS OF CHABAD is TOO vauge. Chabad Messianism is the correct title, since most of the rest of that article is waffle and really all comes down to Moshiah anyway, exept for the firdst bit about the Besht which is non-specific to chabad.

Please replace the article so we can merge Yechi and see how it looks. David Spart 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and also

After an unbiased delineation of Chabad opinion on Moshish this follows for some reason:

These beliefs had been criticized by David Berger. However, Berger's claims have been attacked as false and misleading by several books written in response to his claims.

Followed by loads of people critisisinf Berger. Way to change the point! Berger is not the controvecy! Why did you put all that POV pushing back in the article? Nothing to do with it at all. Is Berger the only one? It is also unreadable.

That is why it needs its own article Berger is not "Chabad controvesy". Berger is a CRITIC of "Chabad Messianism". That is why the whole thing read so badly. Chabad controvercy is not a place to deliniate the opinions of battling third parties about Messianism. This is obvious. Please replace the material, we can try and come to an agreement, and if not put it up for AFD. This debate MUST be had. David Spart 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put my text back - and lets merge Yechi in, and debate the sources and what positions can be safely ignored and make it good. If you still think that it is better under the "Controvercies thing" then put it up for AFD. Put lets give it two weeks to settle please OK? David Spart 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why will you not even discuss this reasonably

Could you please stop deleting my article without consensus. If you want to delete the Controversy article - which I do too - you need to get the replacement ready first.

Why are you doing this over and over? Why are you blocking the inclusion of a serious article on Mishichist in any form, and maintaining articles about them in such POV forms? There is ONE paragraph of messianism in ALL WIKIPEDIA. And that is followed by double the amount of OUT OF CONTEXT BERGER BASHING!!

And I know why! It is because you are keeping them that way, and driving anyone that tries to change them mad, by constant reversions and an unwillingness to engage in any consensus-seeking. Again and again, year after year.

I think any orthodox Jew going through you edit history on the subject will be able to guess where you stand on the Rebbe issues and will know to which branch of Hasidim you owe fealty. I suggest you recuse yourself from dealing with anything to do with Chabad.

David Spart 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_of_Chabad-Lubavitch for a discussion regarding what should be done. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Chabad Messianism

I suggest that this "article" should be deleted for being A.) repetative (this subject is already covered in at least 3 articles), B.) irrelevant (given that it doesn't add anything to the other articles) and C.) stupid (that is, poorly written, and clearly given over to a POV that doesn't reflect reality.--Meshulam 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My talk page, my rules

I am merely criticising your behaviour, which is my right and is not a personal attack. You criticise mine and that is fine too.

You should;t characterize constructive criticism as a personal attack, and I reserve the right to remove comments I find patronising from my user page.

David Spart 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to read WP:NPA and WP:VANDAL to avoid doing things which place you in violation of these rules. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I encourage you to read it where you will find that removing warnings from a talk page is at most frowned upon, and is NOT vandalism. Repeatedly messing up my talk page, is however silly, provocative and patronising, and falsly acusing me of vandalism is a personal attack. David Spart 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you currently stalking me?

Jus' wundering, seeing you showing up on the Peekvid.com AfD. David Spart 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Let's get along now. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For watching pages like Racism, they get a bit of attention it seems. I will give a pre-edit note on the talk page in future, in case I get caught in the cross fire. Anyway, thanks for tidying up things on wikipedia. Regards, - Fred 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Purim sprotect

You are a wise man. --Dweller 12:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Hi pinchas

Happy Purim. I just wanted to let you know that I and others have prepared an article on Chabad Messianism which is to in today. I would be grateful for any suggestions you may about how to improve the article. David Spart 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, Pinchas, what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this mediation still ongoing?

The notice has been re-inserted on Talk:Ascended_master that this mediation is still ongoing! Is it? If so, what is going on? Aburesz 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag and closed the case. If there are any new issues, please open a new mediation case. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Shalom

B"H
Shalom!
I hate to have to ask this from you of all people, but can you please unprotect my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ariel_Sokolovsky? Some Indian admin deleted it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ariel_Sokolovsky&action=history and left it protected from being recreated and is ignoring my complaints about it. It was simply a page with my contact info short description of me and links to some of my sites and blogs for years till he deleted it citing "spam" as the reason I posted a copy of the wiki article about me that was deleted on it instead and after that he permanently deleted the page and protected it from recreation. I don't know what is his agenda if it is his own innitiative (which seems unlikely since his contrib history shows no connection to editing Chabad or Jewish related stuff)or someone asked him to do it or hired him, but this is extremely low tactic to use. You also being an admin can undelete or untprotect that page in accordance with Wiki policy . Please do so. Ariel Sokolovsky 11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have acted it accordance with wikipedia policy by deleting it, as it was a repost of the deleted article and was just a collection of your many websites and used for self promotion, see Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. You then went and kept recreating it which is why it was protected. I happen to fully agree with his actions. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

I know but I couldn't find the tag so I put it under screenshot. How do I change it? David Spart (talk Â· contribs Â· logs Â· block user Â· block log) 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your page --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Michist meeting

Are you sure, because the "international conference of shluchim" is the official one, and it is in Crown Heights. David Spart (talk Â· contribs Â· logs Â· block user Â· block log) 13:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am 1,000% sure. The Meshichistim write this on their banner. However the banquet has not been in Crown Heights for years already. This past year it was in New Jersey. The meshichistim have their own break away banquet in 770 with a few hundred people, nearly all of them not official Shluchim. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, on reflection you are correct. Did you see Deutsch in DYK today?! David Spart (talk Â· contribs Â· logs Â· block user Â· block log) 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

Please don't remove the notability tag on Pallywood until the questions posed at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions have been resolved. Several editors have expressed concerns over the article's notability - your comments would be welcomed to help settle the outstanding questions. -- ChrisO 14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

maps

The maps are of both Israel and Palestinian territories. See talk here:

  • Image talk:Israel.png

ChrisO who is part of the discussion there is an admin. --Timeshifter 15:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I created that particular map as well as Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg. Where maps show Israel and the Palestinian territories at an equivalent level of detail, as Image:Israel.png does, they should be listed in both categories. Where either Israel or the territories are shown only as an outline, as in Image:Cia-is-map2.gif, then I agree that they should only be shown in one category. I've used those criteria to categorise those particular maps on the Commons. -- ChrisO 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz] 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag-teaming

Please withdraw your unwarranted allegation here -[5], I have made a single edit to the Pallywood article, where I expressed my concerns about the neologism, if this is "tag-teaming" then you are guilty of the same crime. Catchpole 06:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you did that

Unless you didn't notice the fact that notablibity was established, and that he is a significant force in right-wing Israeli politics as well as chabad. There are at least a dozen name-checks (most with him as the prime target) in the international press in the past few years. The Israeli media really goes to town on him as this search tells you. I dont know why you would escalate this pinchas. David Spart (talk Â· contribs Â· logs Â· block user Â· block log) 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that he is not notable enough. If it is as clear as you say, then it should not have a problem surviving the AFD. Please do not take the AFD personally, and I am not sure what you mean when you write about escalating. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a kosher pessach

Yours, David Spart (talk Â· contribs Â· logs Â· block user Â· block log) 02:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalom Dov Wolpo

Hi PinchasC: You recently added {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalom Dov Wolpo}} to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism [6], however as requested at the top of the page ("tag discussions...") you did not complete the process fully. You should have placed the {{subst:delsort|Judaism}} <small>-- ~~~~</small> on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalom Dov Wolpo page. I have done so now, please remember to do so in the future. Thanks. Wishing you a Chag Kasher VeSameach. IZAK 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 10:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

External Link

Please elaborate on where I abused links. I only followed the similar links in similar pages. Please advice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sholom88 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

This is due to WP:EL. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes' RFA

Please note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Kehotlogo.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kehotlogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletions

Thanks for your concern. Someone named "Jayjg" is simply deleting my submissions without discussion. I have opened discussion, but he (she) simply deletes entire blocks without comment. Hoserjoe 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert to Judism

I'm sorry, Is it against the rules to put links to user boxes on main pages? Thank youThedjatclubrock :) 12:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The place for the user box is on your own page not article pages. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeshivah College

You recently protected Yehoishophot Oliver's version of the page. Other than his version being pattently wrong in that an organisation cannot be under the auspices of someone who is dead. Yehoishophot Oliver'S attitude towards me has been disgraceful. He continuously has removed my comments from the article's talk page which relate directly to the issue in question and has not once justified his position on the talk page. I ask that you unprotect the page and revert it to my version. I also ask that you reprimand Yehoishophot Oliver for his unfriendly, unfair and confrontational behaviour towards me. 58.175.200.65 11:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected due to an edit war. The version that it was protected to, is not an endorsement of the protected version. If the wrong version was protected see m:The Wrong Version. Regarding his removal of your comments, I see that he has left your most recent comments which are a repeat of your previous ones. Please let me know if he removes them again. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete David Bar-Hayim

I just noticed that it was deleted on 30-Apr, apparently as a result of a prod tag that went uncontested for 5 days. I was busy around then, and not monitoring my watch list, so I missed it. I'm not sure why it was deleted - the log says COI, but doesn't say why the proposer thought there was one. What's more, the admin who deleted it (and therefore presumably was the one to prod it in the first place) has protected his talk page, so I can't ask him to undo it. In any case, since prod deletions can be undone by any admin with no discussion, could you please undelete it? Sh'koyech. Zsero 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted it per your request here and WP:PROD#Contesting_after_deletion. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. As you can see in the history, I expressed similar concerns in my edit back in February, and hadn't noticed that in late April someone restored the original fancy language. Still, it was a bit much that just six days later someone else came along and prodded it, instead of just backing out the latest change.
Now, can you also undelete the image, or is that gone forever?
Zsero 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot undelete an image, however when it was uploaded, it was stated in the edit summary that the image was taken from http://machonshilo.org/content/view/54/61/ . You can view the image on http://www.answers.com/topic/david-bar-hayim which is a copy of the wikipedia page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ragi image

Hi, you're an admin right? So if you have a source you can simply add it. However the link you provided is still not a source. They simply use the same image. I don't really want to delete the image but if it's so famous why should it be so hard to find a source? I also tried the Jewish encyclopedia but they don't use an image of him either. [7] Garion96 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonable deletions on Werwolf page

I am unable to provide content by a Jewish author to the german Werwolf (SS terrorists) page since one German contributor (markus becker) won't permit any submissions referencing Jewish author, Stephen Plaut. Are you able to help? Reply to my page Hoserjoe 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Chabad article

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 08:40, 17 July 2007
- This user is adding a npov template to the Chabad article, despite being reverted by 3 different editors. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I waited a few days before bringing any discussion of this incident to your user talk page because to me your your words did, and still do, seem deceptive. I did, as you know, try to discuss the issues on the article's talk page. I understand that your motive was to protect the article (and the Chabad movement itself) from the harm you believed I intended to cause. I want to assure you that your words in the above report were effective, and I will make no further effort to edit the Chabad article. Nevertheless, your words in my view were unfair and (perhaps) a violation of the laws of speech: "It is lashon hara to convey a derogatory image of someone even if that image is true and deserved; it is slanderous (motzi shem ra) to do so when the image is false." If my understanding of what transpired is wrong, and most likely you will think I am wrong, then I am sorry. Kwork 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

this might interest you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians --Yeshivish 06:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Messianism section

Can page numbers or quotes be provided to buttress the contradictory claims made in this section? Affadavits quoted in a Forward article contradict claims in that section. Without page numbers or quotes, it is impossible to synthesise the conflicting claims. Abe Froman 02:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The affidavit was by a meshichist lubavitcher and opposing this are what many researchers have found. I say we go according to the researchers as opposed to one affidavit. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What researchers? The sources you give, a college newspaper, Jewish Press Op ed, and book on Christian messianism seem a little out of place as "research". What page numbers in your sources support whitewashing the senior Chabad rabbi's statements? Abe Froman 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
According to www.chabad.org/centers he is not a chabad rabbi. I don't see a Jewish press op-ed. I do see a book on messianism, a jewish week article and a columbia spectator article opposing what a messianist rabbi who is trying to promoter his beliefs says. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The chief gabbai of 770 Eastern Parkway directly contradicts the claims in the college newspaper and book on Christian messianism. You seem to be unable to provide quotes or page numbers from your sources as well. Whitewashing his statement out of the article is highly troubling. Also, where is your source saying the Ohio rabbi is a "messianist"? Abe Froman 03:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Responded on Talk:Chabad and he says in the affidavit that every lubavitcher is a messianist, I guess that he is including himself. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09_Chabad

You have been named as party to this mediation by User:Abe.Froman. Participation on your part is entirely optional, and this being an informal mediation, it has no ability to rule in any fashion. It is simply an opportunity to converse and try to work out issues in a civil fashion and try to find common ground. It would be great if you choose to engage in mediation, so please reply to this as soon as you can. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you.

The above comment was copied and posted onto your talkpage because it applies equally to you. I offer to talk things over so that some very blatant NPOV problems can be resolve. Otherwise, you will be getting into an unnecessary edit war, as your changes are not at all neutral and inappropriate. Please remain cool in your discussions and maintain objectivity. It is inappropriate to clothe your political agendas in Wikipedia articles.

Thank you. 67.81.31.122 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiseguy, my undoing other mpov revisions on the Lubavitcher and Medrash Shmuel are entirely appropriate. Your continuous abuse on my talk page, however, is not. Please stop writing disingenuous posts on my talk page and answer my questions. Otherwise you will be warned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.31.122 (talk)

Chaim Dov Keller

This article you nominated for WP:PROD was deleted, but subsequently contested and has now been restored. You may nominate it for AFD if you wish. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Pinchas: It is actually quite sad that you went ahead and prodded the article. For the record, here is what I wrote to User:Xaosflux when I noticed this highly unusual action: "Hello Xaosflux: Could you please explain why you chose to delete the article about Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller as reported: "01:09, 6 August 2007 Xaosflux deleted "Chaim Dov Keller" (content was: 'dated prod|concern = concern|not notable under WP:BIO|month = July|day = 31|year = 2007|time = 02:52)"? Why did you prod this article about a very famous currently living rabbi? Did you consult some editors familair with this topic? Did you place a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism? Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller is probably one of the best known rabbis in Chicago at the present time. He is not a congregational rabbi, but serves as the rosh yeshiva ("dean") of the largest yeshiva in Chicago. He is mentioned in key articles relating to Haredi Judaism. A Google search for "Chaim Dov Keller" yields over 470 hits (a large number for such a person in the world of Orthodox Judaism) many connected to numerous and significant publications in the world of American Orthodox Judaism and particularly Haredi Judaism for which he is leading spokesman and scholar with Agudath Israel of America. He co-heads the Telshe yeshiva (Chicago) and he has played a major role is speaking out on the issue of the messianic claims concerning Rabbi M.M. Schneerson of Lubavitch, see Controversies of Chabad#The soul as "the essence of God". Kindly restore the article ASAP. Thank you." IZAK 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Etiquette

Hello PinchasC: Gut Voch. As a Wikipedia admin you should be doubly cautious when going about your business and following your heart's desires on Wikipedia. Take a good look at Wikipedia:Etiquette for a start! While you have the right to nominate articles for deletion, it is very disappointing to see that you did not follow some very basic Wikipedia:Etiquette when nominating the Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller article first for prodding and then for deletion. You know quite well that Rabbi Keller is an important rosh yeshiva in the Litvish Agudath Israel of America world, so why did you prod it of all things? So you should have at least asked for some input from other editors before you prodded the article for deletion. Now that it has been restored, you have again ignored Wikipedia:Etiquette because you did not inform the original creator of the article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion: "...While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion... on User talk:David Spart which I have now done. Furthermore, why didn't you also place a notification on the very important Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism page so that editors who keep track of these nominations can get a chance to see for themselves what's going on, or don't you care about all this stuff? It's hard to know. I trust that these words are understood in the spirit in which they are made. Sincerely, IZAK 08:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A Question

PinchasC, if I ask you a question, will you be willing to answer? It has nothing to do with the disagreement on the Chabad article, but rather about the article for a New Age writer who was very antisemitic [8]. Kwork 11:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hareidim and Zionism

Dear admin, i would like u to read the talk page of Haredim and Zionism regarding the grave concern that the current version is slanderous POV to say that all other Hasidim who r not satmar do support Zionism, (Its a long standing satmar belief that since u take money and u vote u r supporting Zionism.) the main user responsible for injecting this non neutral POV (Eidah/Danial and more) is already blocked indefinitely from editing wiki because of his personal attacks on other users, and the article should be opened or at least, that's why i am turning to a Frum Jewish sysop, reverted to the best unbiased version in your eyes. Thanks--יודל 12:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does not appear to be protected anymore. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks i was fooled by the cosed template. Good Day--יודל 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It will be protected again if you keep reverting without discussing things first. Yossiea (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Pinchas only reverted a maintenance think its not warented to place it on the talk page. And Pinchus please check into his contributions if he is not user Eidah/Danial, something is really suspicious, why would he want the article bloked?!--יודל 14:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I want the article protected because YOU keep on editing without discussing it on the talk page OF THE ARTICLE. Yossiea (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a simple lie, and when u wriote in bold u wont win the situation. Everybody can look in the Talk page and see that.--יודל 14:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
By all means, look at the talk page. I don't really see you "heavily" using the talk page as you claim.Yossiea (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Update it was again blocked by another now Jewish sysop, so i cannot blame him for not understanding the issue, this sysop openly declares that negative statements must be sourced but he wont delete this statement before a week, i ask him to consider the basic wikipedia policy to not et unsourced statements about living persons for even one second standing, even if one user doesn't consider that negative, this policy is for future users who will read it and will look at Belz in a negative way because the article claims they support Zionism. Please feel free to act or to open it or to erase this slanderers statement by some that: Belz is among the Hasidic groups who Support Zionism. i know u may not agree with me on everything but as a sysop who is jewish maybe u can balance here this subject. Thanks--יודל 19:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am just asking to delete this line Groups which are generally supportive of the State of Israel the rest can wait for a week i see nothing emergency requiring a block or an open there.--יודל 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With all the problems this guy is causing, don't you think we should have him banned from the Wikipedia community? Get this through your head, harassment is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Dreadstar † 05:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ipholdings.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ipholdings.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gpc logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Gpc logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gpci logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Gpci logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo situation

I've checked and rechecked and I still can't see how Lobojo has broken the three revert rule. He only undid the work of other editors three times and not four. I propose to unblock him but to warn him against getting into revert wars and discuss his edits. Would you have a problem with that? Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem with this. There was a previous version which he reverted to 4 times. This was listed in the report. Reverts include partial reverts and full reverts. He was restoring the older version of the controversy paragraph all 4 times. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The previous version listed was from 19 April 2007. Compare that with the first supposed revert and you get this mess of changes. That edit was not a revert. The second, third and fourth listed were reverts. I am not sure whether you should have handled the report given that you have contributed to the article; it should generally be an uninvolved administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In that mess of changes there is this clear revert of the controversy section each time. I am uninvolved as I have not made any edits which removed Lobojo's edits. My editing of that article in the past is a benefit as I am familiar with the material. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Gil Student

This article should be deleted. It is not notable. It was already selected for deletion. I have nominated it. --Meshulam (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Lerner AFD #2

Just a heads-up, since you created the article. Emcee (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:links removal

Hi Pinchar! Thanks for the complements to my edits. Articles tend to attract a lot of links and "smarties" trying to increase traffic to their sites. Do you think the remaining links complement the articles well?--Legionarius (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I restored them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool :-)--Legionarius (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Lerner, GPCI, etc.

Hello PinchasC,

I ask that you don't take this as a lack of WP:AGF, but I just wanted to make you aware of the WP:COI guideline, since you seemed to have put in a lot of effort on these articles; they seem to have a lot of unreliable sourcing, and I'm not sure either one of them really deserves a Wikipedia page. I do not know if you have a personal or financial interest in or relationship to Mr. Lerner or GPCI, and will not inquire further about this, in the assumption of good faith, but wanted to be sure that you were aware of the standards of conflict of interest and disclosure. Regards, Emcee (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any personal or financial interest in or relationship to Mr. Lerner or GPCI. I also hope that you do not have any WP:COI in wanting to get them deleted. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not have any COI. I do own a copy of Mr. Lerner's first book, but am not aware of any other connection or interest that I have in relationship to him or his company. My interest in having it deleted is that I don't think it even comes close to meeting the standards of WP:BIO or WP:RS. It reads mostly like a PR piece, since it is based so heavily on the self-published information. Emcee (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please also confirm that you have no relation to Neil G. Cohen [9], Assistant General Counsel of GPCI? Thanks, Emcee (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I have no relation to Neil G. Cohen. Cohen is one of the more common Jewish names. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pinchas

Thank you for your heads up. I am confused about the copyright business, though it is never my intent to disrupt. It seems that you need to be a lawyer to upload images here. Anyhow I have clarified the position with the three images you queried hopefully to the satisfaction of wikipedia.

However, one of your actions in particular was very disloyal considering a confidence I gave you a month ago.

You pointed out the distinction between cc 2 and 3, something I did not realize, and was not clear when I uploaded it that there was some inferior cc. In your haste, you didn't notice that some of the images were cc 2.0 and allowed for commercial use. Which are fine on wikipedia Template:Cc-by-2.0 - see there. I kindly request that you undelete those ones ASAP. Please be more cautious in future, if you had checked (you claimed that you did) you would have merely changed the tags. Thanks. Lobojo (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not just a matter of the wrong tags. No matter which tag was placed there, these images would not have been allowed as CC 2.0 is only allowed if it is allowed for commercial use. All of the images that you uploaded under the creative commons license clearly state that it is CC 2.0 for non-commercial use only which is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses and this email from Jimbo, these images are to be deleted on sight. Regarding the confidence item, I will send you an email. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No Pinchas you are incorrect. At least 4 of them did not have that restriction. But you deleted them anyway. Could you please save me the trouble of uploading them again by undeleting them. cc2.0 does not necessarily imply "non-commercial" as I have now found out. Lobojo (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
At the time that I deleted them, all the creative commons ones that you uploaded had the non-commercial restriction (I checked each one). Please reply with the ones that did not have it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm asuming good faith here, and will say then that when you checked each one you missed the ones that didn't have the NC restrictions. Since I can no longer see the pages, b/c you deleted them it is a lot of work for me to work it out. For you it is easy. Please do this pinchas and don't make me waste time uploading them again. Lobojo (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
All the URL's of the images appear to be in your edit summary when you uploaded the images which can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Lobojo
Flickr is down right now, but you should be able to take a look at those images as soon as they are back up. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I will try tomorow if I have time. Lobojo (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Flickr is back up and I rechecked all the images and you are correct that 4 of the images do not currently have the non-commercial requirement. I am sorry for this mistake and I have restored these images. However they do have the wrong license attached to them, so please go and update the licenses. The rest have the non-commercial requirement problem and will therefore remain deleted and should not be re-uploaded. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much Pinchas, you saved me a job. Lobojo (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Protect

Can you protect the Iswatchbot page that I created. It was an example of a bot user page. Please reply on my user talk. Iswatch20 (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House

An article that you have been involved in editing, Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House. Thank you. Eliyak T·C 22:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Non-free use disputed for Image:Kehotlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kehotlogo.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Pinchas.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect

Why don't YOU talk about your problems with the page in the talk page, rather than insert or assist other in asserting completely erroneous information or remove information with citations from Rav Shach's article? This is the not the first time you have demonstrated some serious biad in your edits. You will be blocked if you continue to act like this. Once again, keep your issues in my talk page or the Shach talk page. Thank you. 67.81.155.106 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting yourself in your last edit. It seems like you now realize what was wrong with your edits. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop trying to be cute. But I thank you for revealing that you are operating with your "feelings" about what is "wrong" rather than facts. This demonstrates that you are not capable of discussing this mater with me in a neutral fashion and that you should not be involved in this matter. If you decide to stay here, no problem. But don;t remove cited sources or simply revert to incorrect or pov articles. Trust me, I can do the same game zero and Yonasan did to Rav Shahc's page on the Rebbe's page. But its wrong, so I don't do it. Please guide yourself accordingly, too. Thank you. 67.81.155.106 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you are playing games, pretending to self revert and then adding back in the material. The basic problem with your edits is that you are removing sourced material. You are adding unsourced material which is coming from a non-neutral point of view. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not playing games, merely correcting mistakes. You are the one adding unsourced material coming from a non-neutral point of view. My input is all sourced and with sources, unlike your comments. Once again, I can easily manipulate Wikipedia rules to insert a huge section of quotes of the rebbe against rav shach and others. You really want this? We can go through each item carefully, or you can continue to lose everyone's respect with your personal political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.155.106 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
See the comments from Yonason3 left on the talk page at Talk:Elazar_Shach#Recent_editing_of_67.81.155.106_does_not_conform_to_rules for an explanation of what was wrong with your edits. Continue all conversation about your edits to that article on that article's talk page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)