User talk:Shmaltz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  IZAK 08:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism

Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism#Directory of participants. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. IZAK 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism

Hi again Shmaltz: Thought you would be interested in the latest adventure that has started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism (perhaps you may want to join) and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re BMG: I hear, but I'm not so convinced that your conclussion is so straight forward so as to write that in an Encyclopedia...Phetter 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask anybody that went thru the process, it's up to his discretion, and *his* discretion *only*.--Shmaltz 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] א שיינעם דאנק

פאר דיין לייגן דא אינטערוויקיס צום יידישן וויקיפעדיע, דאס איז זייער וויכטיק אויף צו בריינגען דארט מער מענטשן און בארימען אונדזער וויקיפעדיע. Jiddisch 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote request

Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is Wiktionary:anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 70.49.85.238 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chillul Hashem

In our politically correct society, the term "The Crazy House" would be considered a lack of sensitivity to the mentally challenged. I am sure it is not your intention to add to a stereotype of yeshivish people being haughty and unkind.

While I agree with you, it stil doesn't change the fact that it is called 'The crazy house' and as such I'm going to reverse it. Because the only reason you give is the C"H, you are admiting that you are writing false info in a Wikipedia article.--Shmaltz 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I dispute that it is called the crazy house; I was merely calling your attention to the fact that the Original research that you insist on including in the article is a C"H. My friend, the burden of proof lies with you- do you have a verifiable source saying that a Beth Medrash Gevoha dormitory building is commonly called "the crazy house"? If you do, then by all means source it in the article. If not, then please do not include original research in Wikipedia. 38.117.213.19 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You say that you dispute that it is called the crazy house, are you currently a student in BMG? I am, and it is called the crazy house. NOR is what you mean, and read it again, this doesn't qualify as original research, if anything I'm a primary source. I'm therefore reversing it.--Shmaltz 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR, baby. And if you are indeed a student at BMG, what on earth are you doing on Wikipedia? ;0) - crz crztalk 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Shmaltz, I will quote from wikipedia policy "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia ". That means that your anectodal evidence is just that- unverifiable, and cannot be included in wikipedia. 38.117.213.19 06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Again you are chosing what to write so that you can push your agenda. I will quote from that same policy: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. Since I'm a student I am a primary source.--Shmaltz 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy. What you have quoted is the definition of what a primary source is. However, if you continue reading the policy you will notice that the very next sentence says that "only primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used" in wikipedia. Since you have not provided any source quoting you, as of now your information is unverifiable and cannot be included.68.198.236.57 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
For your edification, I quote from another wikipedia policy, No Original Research,
"Citing oneself:
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."
Good luck editing in the future, and remember to carefully read wikipedia policy. 68.198.236.57 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Read that policy again, it does NOT put a condition for being published somwhere if you are the person close to the situation. You are pushing an agenda with false information which in wikipedia means vandalism. To do that you had to add a word to the policy you added the word Only which is NOT present in the policy. The second policy you quote about (which is actuly the same as the first) is only when someone is acting from his knowledge, thats not what I'm doing, I'm a person close to the situation because I'm a student at BMG and thats what we call that building every time we refer to it, and that's what that article is saying what that building is called.--Shmaltz 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
My friend, even without the word "only" the policy remains the same: "primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used".
I understand your frustration, however please understand that the differentiation between primary sources and secondary sources is primarily concerning interpretation, i.e. a primary source quoted (with sources) must remain uninterpreted by an editor. A secondary source is considered the only way to validly interpret a happening or fact. Again, please read the policies carefully. Wikipedia welcomes everyones contributions- as long as they comply with the three core policies. Good luck.68.198.236.57 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy House

No, I am not a student there. Yes, I've been there and it's called the crazy house. It is still OR. Therefore, unless you can site a fricken independent reliable source to the contrary, we won't have this on WP. Besides, why would you want this chillul D' here? - crz crztalk 19:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please go and manually revert yourself. You are in the wrong. - crz crztalk 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No you are wrong, since all you are telling me is that because of C"H you are vadalising an article, That's why I'll keep changing it back.--Shmaltz 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
C"H notwithstanding, my point was based on OR. I'll get someone else to revert you. Thx. - crz crztalk 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
But that is still vandalism if it is not the truth, which even if someone else reverses it, I will still reveres it back to the truth. And BTW, look thru that policy again, since I'm a student at BMG I'm primary source and NOT OR.--Shmaltz 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not a source of any kind. I have asked for a third opinion from a familiar non-jewish sysop, user:youngamerican, who has no interest or exposure to BMG. - crz crztalk 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that user. In any case, since you yourself say that it is called the crazy house, changing it to anything else is vandalism.--Shmaltz 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait! He has to opine first before you disagree with him! Gosh! Btw, I have sent you an email. - crz crztalk 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry didn't realize he hasn't taken sides yet. My mistake. And for that I will agree on his opinion about the NOR but I still think that to change it when you know that it is the truth is called vandalism. --Shmaltz 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Shmaltz, you should be aware that even if you know something to be the truth, it does not mean that it can be included in wikipedia. I am sure you are not the only beginning editor who feels frustrated by this. However, bear in mind that if anyone could edit articles based on personal witness or whim, wikipedia would be a wasteland of chaos.
P.S. By the way, I studied in BMG for many years, in fact I dormed in the facility on Clifton. Regardless of what you say it is called, wikipedia prohibits inclusion of Original Research.68.198.236.57 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But as long as you don't know otherwise, or in this case that C"H is the agenda and not the truth, it is considered vandalism.--Shmaltz 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but you are wrong. Even if I agreed with you, and said that the dormitory is indeed called "the crazy house", it would make no difference. Wikipedia policies are clear- primary sources must be quoted from a published source. Also, please do not attribute "agendas" to those who disagree with you. Instead, assume good faith and rest assured that the goal is only to comply with the standards of wikipedia. Again, good luck in your future edits.68.198.236.57 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Talkpage rights

Actually, for your information the vandalism policy specifically excludes your own personal talkpage. I quote from WP:vandalism

"Talk page vandalism-
Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

Pretty clear. LOL 68.198.236.57 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yi Wiki unblock and sysopship.

There was a matter on stewards channel on IRC, all stewards agreed with this and I was put in charge of doing it. Please refer to m:User talk:Danny for more information. -Romihaitza 09:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] page blank

I was removing it from WP:JEW because WP:JEW isn't going to make every jew article part of their project only things relevant to the project--Java7837 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, but it should be somewhere, at least I think so.--Shmaltz 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of User talk:Shmaltz/Sandbox

I've nominated User talk:Shmaltz/Sandbox, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Shmaltz/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Shmaltz/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shmaltz 12:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shraga Hager

Hi, there is currently a discussion about the notability of Rabbi Shraga Hager your insight on this would greatly be appreciated[1]. Have a beautiful day--יודל 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you--Shmaltz 14:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent reversion

Your recent reverts of edits ([2][3]) by 208.104.207.30, while warranted, should not have been labelled as vandalism. Remember to assume good faith when dealing with others. --Xanzzibar 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you that it could have not been labelled as vandalism I labelled it as such based on the fact that it was done to more than one article.--Shmaltz 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response

I've responded on my talk page. However before you view it, please note that my actions were taken in response to a complaint to the Wikimedia Support Team's legal department. Please thoroughly read m:OTRS and understand what we do and how we work before responding with unfounded accusations that I am operating on the behalf of the yeshivah. In short, you do not have access to information about the complaint, and you have nothing more than speculation as to who it is from and what it is about, so please refrain from such speculation (especially when formed as an accusation against another editor.) Thank you. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You need to relax, its Christmas after all

I am an experienced user, and you wont succeed in bothering me like that with passive-aggressive warnings to provoke anger. It is just to puerile to work. This is the main Spinka article and there needs to a mention of the most newsworthy event to happen in the movement perhaps ever. Lobojo (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to the talk page of Spinka. Thank you.--Shmaltz (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have in no way edit warred with you. I reverted you once, yet you reverted the same materail 3 times now. I have tried to satisfy you by moving the information per Summary style guidelines. If you continue to post bogus warnings to my user page I will just delete them. Can you possibly think of a less productive way of resolving a content dispute? You need to stop flaming and spamming me with bogus warning and sit down like a mench and discuss. Lobojo (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you add it in then you are edit warring, you have to resolve it first on the talk page. Thank you. BTW, do your math before you accuse me again [4]--Shmaltz (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS discussion

It will have to be carried out elsewhere, as that talk page needed to be deleted. May I suggest Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources? -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yiddish Stubs in this Wikipedia

Hi Shmaltz: As one of Wikipedia's Yiddish experts you may be interested that I recently created a {{Yiddish-stub}} but it has now been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/December/20. What do you think? Sincerely,--יודל (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for Talmud articles

Hi Shmaltz: I am reposting the following request from User Sh76us (talk · contribs) on my user talk page for wider notification:

I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Wikipedia to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Idea for Talmud articles. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)