User talk:PinchasC/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Mariaremy 2 Liadi 3 Help with new Halakha subject article 4 Messianics again 5 RfM problem 6 Messianic "Halakha" etc? 6.1 Welcome the NotJudaism template 7 Edaevich 8 Can you correct the spelling of my name? 9 Noahide Laws cleanup 10 Clerk for Requests for Checkuser 11 why should an article from blogspot be removed? 12 Wikilogos 13 reply to you 14 Reviewing Pco's block 15 Page lock request for heat 16 Thank you 17 Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion 17.1 NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism 18 Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism 19 Shulchan Aruch HaRav 20 Shach 21 Jewish eschatology 22 Barry Gurary and Blogs 23 Source citations 24 Thank you for your consideration 25 You left a comment on my "talk" page 26 Hi PinchasC 27 Edit to Yechi 28 My RfA 29 A mistake must have been made... 30 AfD Nomination: Paul Lerner 31 68.34.178.213 32 Paul Lerner photo 33 Image copyright problem with Image:Paul_Lerner.jpg 34 Chabad Messiansim 35 Oh and also 36 Why will you not even discuss this reasonably 37 Chabad Messianism 38 My talk page, my rules 39 Are you currently stalking me? 40 Thanks 41 Purim sprotect 42 Survey Invitation 43 Hi pinchas 44 Is this mediation still ongoing? 45 Shalom

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

• 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 [1] 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.
• User:Stjamie (contributions) created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about Boaz Michael (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)

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:

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! —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 · 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  ►  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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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?—The preceding unsigned comment was 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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)