User talk:AddMore-III

Welcome!

Hello, AddMore-III, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Original research

You tagged Hasidic philosophy with a {{Original research}} tag. Please see the edit summary of my consequetive edit: this one. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you. Apart from being written poorly and relying on sources such as "AskMoses.com", all the talk about Nistarim and the "aims of Hasidic thought" strikes me as OR. This article should be put on a crash diet, especially the sections relating to Kabbalah in general. AddMore-III (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I copied this to Talk:Hasidic_philosophy#Original_research_tag. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hasidic Judaism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jewish national movements and Herem. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss!

Please see my edit summary here. Please also review WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hasidic Judaism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater Hungary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hasidic Judaism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decisor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haskalah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism

FYI, your latest edit at Conservative Judaism was reverting an established copy-editor, not an IP editor. meamemg (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AddMore-III (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Place any further information here. AddMore-III (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We'll need your IP address to investigate your claim this is not an open proxy. If you are uncomfortable doing this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yamla, Thank you for unblocking me! I have no idea why it happened. AddMore-III (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AddMore-III. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Reform synagogues

Please explain your removal of internal links to Reform Judaism from several synagogue articles. The use of lewd and silly summaries (such as "lol", "?", "no it ain't" and "BS") is not acceptable. Read Wikipedia:Civility#Edit summary dos and don'ts and familiarize yourself with Help:Edit summary for your future reference. In case your edits are in fact correct, you need to provide references for that. I'd like to believe that you mean well, that's why I would also like to encourage you to avoid WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH in your edits, such as your latest revision as of 09:52, 1 December 2016 to Tempel Synagogue, Lviv. All best, Poeticbent talk 15:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent, my edit summaries were somewhat poignant and I apologize. I wrote Reform Judaism, and am well versed on the subject. These synagogues have had a somewhat reformed (with a small R) ritual, they were not Reform (capital R) synagogues. I have no idea from where the original writers reached that conclusion, and I fear the only OR was made by them. About that Lemberg synagogue, it was built (1845!) before any Jewish community existed in Brighton Beach. Please read historian Michael A. Meyer's summary on synagogue reform (NOT Reform Judaism) in Eastern Europe here. I can bring more from his Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism, especially on the Lemberg synagogue, which was moderately reformed in the style of the Vienna Rite, not Reform. AddMore-III (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much AddMore-III for your prompt response. I feel much better after reading your comments. Please help me resolve this thing in an amicable way because it concerns several multi-language pages in Wikipedia. — Here's a quote from Krzysztof Bielawski (2016). "Progressive Synagogue (Tempel) in Lviv (14 Staryi Rinok Square)". POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews.: The Tempel Synagogue was built in the years 1843−1846 in Rybny Square (14 Stariy Rinok Square). It was the first Reform temple in Galicia. — Here is another quote, from Jewish Virtual Library (2016). "Virtual Jewish World: Lvov, Ukraine". Lvov became the center of the Hasidic movement by the end of the 18th century. Still, other sects were prominent in the city, and in 1844, a Reform synagogue was erected. — Why do you think, that these WP:RS references are not correct, but correct is the source quoted by you: i.e. Michael A. Meyer ("Judaism Within Modernity: Essays on Jewish History and Religion", Wayne State University Press, 2001. pp. 280-281).[1] Could you please try to find a way of marrying all these pronouncements in a coherent way to conform with Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 16:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Poeticbent, Mr. Bielawski is certainly an expert on Polish-Jewish history, but not on the Reform Judaism. Neither was that JVL article written by specialists in that field. Also, during the 19th Century words like "Reformgemeinde" - Reform community - were far less specifically used by authors, and rightly thus because denominational lines were still very blurred; "Reform" was still a generic term.

However, a strong distinction appears already in the first serious history of the Reform movement, the 1907 book by David Philipson I've linked to from "Vienna Rite" above; as you may observe, he stresses (and that's only one example) that Vienna was not "reform congregation by any sense when judged by doctrine" etc. Michael A. Meyer is the world's leading historian of the subject, a history professor at Hebrew Union College, and his Response is truly the most seminal work. Reform Judaism is quite a specific thing, unlike "synagogue reform" which is generic. On the Lemberg Temple, allow me to quote someone else. Rachel Manekin, one the highest living authorities on Galician Jewry, in this (scathing) book review, p. 216: Stanislawski calls the Lemberg temple "Reform," even though its charter stipulated that the service was to be conducted according to the Vienna and Prague models, without any injury to Jewish law and religion, with order and decorum, sermons in German, and a choir. The Orthodox rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes, in his anti-Reform 1849 work, Minhat kena'ot, stated that the synagogues in Vienna, Prague, Pest, and Lemberg did not countenance any deviation that lacked a basis in Jewish law. Why, then, does the author insist on the term "Reform"? Only because of his assertion that Kohn abolished the requirement that women cover their hair in synagogue. She then proves Kohn actually never did. AddMore-III (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is what Philipson says on page 103: in 1841 ... this modern spirit had made its influence felt in many quarters with more or less pronounced results. There can, in truth, be no doubt that the spirit of progress which was embodied in the Hamburg congregation was at work in many places, and although no other congregation had labeled itself "reformed", still was the influence of the new learning and culture thrown into the scale for religious reforms of some sort. — In other words, new synagogues built in the east were in fact "reformed" although not in the modern sense of what Reform Judaism stands for. — On page 106 David Philipson continues: A striking instance of how widespread the movements against the old order were is offered by a remarkable address issued by fifty-four Jews of Wilna in September 1840, to their co-religionists in Russian Poland ... — Please tell, is there a way of linking the 'reformation' movement to anything other than Reform Judaism#Beginnings in order to accommodate other sources which mention the interwar synagogues as 'reformed'. In the Polish language they are also known (singular form) as Synagoga Postępowa which were built in many Polish cities including in Warsaw, Krakow, and of course in formerly Polish Lwow.[2] Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 19:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Something like Reform_(religion) is probably appropriate. Also,this discussion should probably move to an article talk page. meamemg (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Poeticbent, that 1840 petition is part of the Haskalah. That sweeping changes and modernization engulfed all quarters of Jewish society is unquestionable, but it can't really broken down to synagogue labels. In the west, Reform and other things crystallized doctrinally more or less by the 1844-6 Rabbinic conferences. In the East, the impulse for modernization did not reach beyond the most basic changes to synagogue service, it was vented elsewhere, in secularist forms. I suggest to keep the description of these prayerhouses as "progressive" (but not Progressive). One things that is helpful is that many of those specifically employed the Vienna Rite, so you can link to Isaac Noah Mannheimer. Or write something like "moderately reformed service, along the Mannheimer|Vienna - Michael Sachs|Prague model." AddMore-III (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

AddMore-III. For the unsuspecting reader the phrase "moderately reformed" would probably sound POVed. It is inconsistent with the reliable sources provided. That's why I prefer the solution proposed by meamemg; avoid linking to Reform Judaism and instead, link to Reform (religion) which (according to Wikipedia's own article) "aims at the reform of religious teachings" which is exactly what it was all about. Please read what the Museum of the History of Polish Jews says. Reform synagogues in Poland were not as much about the philosophy of the movement, as they were about an architectural revival in a much broader sense; our Reform Judaism article might in fact be incomplete in that regard, and skewed towards Germany. Quote from Bergman and Piechotek (Polish Scientific Publishers) "Synagogue. Glossary": By analogy to other religions, the supporters of the reforms regarded the synagogue as a temple. The layout of the Reform synagogues was similar to that of Evangelical churches with the type of presbytery for the elders of the community, the Torah Ark in the apse, the bimah in front of the Torah Ark and benches for the followers facing them, matronea for women open to the interior of the hall; along with rectangular halls, central halls were also constructed; first Reform synagogues were built in Germany (Seesen, 1810; Kassel, 1836–39; Dresden, 1840). Throughout the 19th century, appropriate architectural forms were sought for both traditional and Reform synagogues, renowned architects were employed; the structures erected were larger and larger (with towers, often topped with cupolas), with rich eclectic (Oriental, Romanesque, Renaissance Revival and Neoclassical) decorations of the structures (among others, Lviv — the Reform Synagogue, Cracow — the Tempel, Warsaw — the Great Synagogue at Tłomackie Street, Stanisławów, Łódź); Orthodox communities continued to erect brick and wooden synagogues with traditional layouts.[3] — If a reliable source says "Reformed" we should keep it in order to conform with Wikipedia's core sourcing policy. Poeticbent talk 16:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Jacques Roux

Hello, AddMore-III.

It is very unlikely that this image portrays Jacques Roux.

The only source indicated is ar.wikipedia.org.

Besides, another file was already - and also incorrectly - displayed in this page.

In fact, no contemporary portrait seems to have survived.

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Guise, Thanks. I wasn't sure either but saw it on Alpha history too, so I decided to add it. AddMore-III (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haskalah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia and Lodomeria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2017 Huwara shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Huwara shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Huwara shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

==DYK nomination of Yiddish cinema==

Hello! Your submission of Yiddish cinema at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Yiddish cinema

On 20 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yiddish cinema, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that due to violent disruptions by Hebrew-only proponents, Yiddish films screened in Mandatory Palestine had to be dubbed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yiddish cinema. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Yiddish cinema), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AddMore-III. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Pasazerka.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AddMore-III. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AddMore-III. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews

Hello, I removed your edits regarding Mizrahi Jews because it seems wrong to reduce a Jewish sub-group millions identify with to "an Israeli sociological term referring to non-white Jews." It's firstly false because being "Eastern," or "Mizrahi" doesn't make you non-White by definition. It's secondarily false because there are many non-White Jews (such as the Beta Israel) who nobody refers to as Mizrahi. Mizrahim is a well established term which refers to certain Jewish communities which are mentioned in the article. It has it's roots in modern Israel, however as a term it doesn't solely apply to Jews in Israel. Hope you understand where i'm coming from.

--Gruzinim (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gruzinim, I understand that one's reasoning is not equivalent to academic sources. The wording in my rewrite-temp was perhaps not ideal, but my new intro was quite exact. I quoted a lengthy passage by a leading scholar in the talkpage, and received assent from another user. I wholly reject your statement that people identify themselves as Mizrahim outside the Israeli context (if they do, it is under Israeli influence, and they're probably expats). All the research done by Ellah Shohat, Yehouda Shenhav, Sami Shalom Chetrit is on my side, and my edits reflect the sociological consensus on the matter. I will add other quotes to talkpage, and will wait some time for you to present a source of an equal level before I'll revert. I'll also ask for comment. AddMore-III (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You are not wrong to say Israeli sociologists agree that “Mizrahim” is an artificial term created fairly recently within Israel. However, we are talking about a Jewish sub-group which millions identify with in the current year and has real life implications. You claimed people don’t identify with it outside of Israel, yet there are Mizrahi Caucuses among Jewish groups in America that have little or nothing to do with Israel. It seems to me everything you wrote would fit perfectly on Mizrahi Jews in Israel, but to treat Mizrahi Jews as an article more about Mizrahi Jews in Israel and politics feels like a political agenda. I think it was well written too, everything you wrote perfectly describes the Mizrahi Jewish relationship with Israel. However, the main article should focus on the varying Jewish communities from the Middle East and North Africa, because that is relevant to the subject. --Gruzinim (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I wholly disagree with the claim that "Mizrahim" applies anywhere outside the Israeli context. Do these Caucasian Jews regard themselves as such traditionally? Not as a loanword from Israeli discourse? If they did, please present sources. There was no such thing as "Mizrahi Jews". People from communities as disparate as Iran and Morocco, Yemen and Turkey, which have very little in common, were designed as "Mizrahim" only in Israel. It's not my opinion nor can I be blamed of partisanship, for I write what all leading academics agree upon. AddMore-III (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Now you are asking me to source a claim i've never made. I agree completely this term has its roots in Israel, there is nobody who is arguing otherwise. However, I will repeat, just because something has roots in one country doesn't mean as a concept it applies only to that country. I will now source examples Mizrahi Jewish identity outside of Israel (which is the claim being made, not that Gruzinim have regarded themselves as Mizrahi going back generations): JIMENA, (An American Mizrahi Jewish non-profit organization), Mizrahi Caucus of Jews for Racial & Economic Justice (Mostly focuses on American Economic issues). Outside of Israel, the concept still applies. --Gruzinim (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't get you clearly. Sorry. Now, a small organization of ex-Israelis and a tiny caucus (which seems like a front for JVP really) are hardly evidence. But more importantly, you interpreting reality is akin to manufacturing a primary source. You need an academic researcher, or at least a learned observer, to substantiate your claim. You contend that "millions identify as Mizrahi", though academics say that many, perhaps most, Mizrahim (in Israel!) do not regard this as their primary identity or even do not self-identify as such at all (it is a label imposed on them from the outside). By the way, Georgian Jews and other arrivals from the Asian USSR are somewhat unique in Israel's ethnic cascade, I only found a single article linking them with Mizrahi-ness and even then very marginally - Sephardic Jewry and Mizrahi Jews, Volume 22, p. 9. Independent observations and assessments are not sources. But we'll continue on Talk:Mizrahi Jews. AddMore-III (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually skipped over the "Jews of Color & Mizrahi/Sephardi Caucus" because that is an actual JVP related organization. The ones I listed are all American based, and are not connected to JVP. Also, these people aren't "ex-Israelis." JIMENA was founded by Joseph Wahed, who was born in Egypt fled to America. He started an non-profit for Mizrahim in America, not related at all with Israel. I don't see how you can say it's a label imposed on them, whilst simultaneously citing sources saying that Mizrahi Jews embraced the term. We have Mizrahi music, Mizrahi food, we have a page to discuss Mizrahi Hebrew (It's obviously a blanket term for many dialects, however it makes more sense than creating a bunch of pages noting minor differences between Juhurim and Bukharim pronunciation). I think the history of the term and how it's evolved should be expanded on in the article, however it shouldn't be the main point of the article. --Gruzinim (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sect

Regarding this claim. It is true in American English, but please see Sect#In_other_languages. I hope you understand now why I replaced "sect" with "movement" or "group". Debresser (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been speaking and reading BE ever since I studied English (though I use the Oxford and not standard spelling here), and I must say the word doesn't immediately raise this context. But alright. AddMore-III (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nationalism sidebar

Here you changed a link with a comment "per TP request". First of all, I do no see a request to do so. Secondly, what you added was a link to a disambiguation page. Could you correct that so its point to a real article? The Banner talk 07:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:The Banner, the talkpage request is here. There's simply no article in itself, only a disambig. AddMore-III (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That other talk page is in fact also a request to give a link/links to proper articles. The Banner talk 18:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, in the sidebar, no single article exists. Anyway, Zionism does not equal Jewish nationalism. AddMore-III (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Did I Hit a Nerve?

I notice you've been "following" my revisions, and reverting (at least twice) with an "extreme POV" comment? Hello! What is this? You're obviously Jewish. Do you have something to offer besides in exchange for the blanket removal of the effort I've made in the Conservative Judaism page? If you actually read my revisions, I do not see how you'd come up with the conclusion that they were of any "slant." Please elaborate. Thanks in advance. בס״ד 69.112.128.69 (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And you are obviously some sort of BT. Your revisions were both incorrect and slanted. Even before the POV issues, you don't understand what Higher Criticism is and you removed large swaths concerning Conservative theology. AddMore-III (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Jayjg

Hello, AddMore-III. You have new messages at Talk:Sholom_Dovber_Schneersohn.
Message added 18:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Article lede

AddMore, I appreciate the quality of the sources and material you are bringing to Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Please note that the article lede should not introduce new information or new citations; nor should it contradict material in the article body. Rather, it should be a summary of material already in the article. So, in this case, one should add the material to the article body, then summarize in the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, also, when you include a reference like "We Want to See Our King": Apparitions in Messianic Habad, in Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology 41 (1):98-126 (2013), you should provide a specific page number; ~30 pages is simply too large a range to ask editors to read through to find the specific material supporting the claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, though the present lede does not conform to MoS and is replete with citations (to rather flattering statements), and that's why I was less hesitant to make such a massive addition. I also felt it was required to correct the obviously biased tone. The body of the article needs work, I'll do what I can for the section I referred to at the edit summary. AddMore-III (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I just looked into the article more carefully. This is propaganda in action, even Osho and Sun Myung Moon have more balanced articles. AddMore-III (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Following WP:LEDE, putting material in the body and summarizing in the lede, would be most helpful. Also, did you have a specific page number for that source I mentioned? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick note about Beth Medrash Govoha

I agree that it's more helpful to label Beth Medrash Govoha a "yeshiva." But it's not entirely accurate to say that it's "not some college" when it does, in fact, award not only undergraduate degrees but also Master's degrees (albeit all in Talmudic studies). ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The accreditation is a mere formality, and BMG's own "faculty" and "students" would be both befuddled and insulted by implying anything else (their model, just like that of the Israeli yeshivas which lack any such accreditation, is the classical yeshivas of Europe). Any NJ native may walk in there and try calling the bokhurim and avreichim "undergraduates" and "postgraduates". I'd like to see the look on their faces. AddMore-III (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Issues with your editing on Wikipedia

I noticed that on Orthodox Judaism you have been accused of WP:OWN issues. Admittedly, the accusation were made very loudly.[4][5] But still I find it interesting, because I actually came here for that same reason...

Your attitude on a number of articles can be described more or less in the following way: you make an edit, that edit is reverted, you keep repeating your edit (either verbatim or the gist of the edit), you may also make unpleasant comments about the editor who opposes you in edit summaries, you do not see the need to open a discussion on the talkpage even though sensible and Wikipedia policy based arguments are brought against your point of view. Or variations thereof.

Articles I am referring to:

1. Menachem Mendel Schneerson - [6], [7]
2. Sholom Dovber Schneersohn - [8], [9], [10]
3. Misnagdim - [11], [12], [13]
4. Lithuanian Jews (which you edited to help you make your point on the Misnagdim article) - [14]

In short, you ignore the fact that this is a community based project, where you have to deal with the fact that other editors may have opinions diverging from yours, as well as the fact that if you make a change and are reverted, you should not insists on repeating your edit till you can show that your change was indeed a good idea, and in short are irritating you fellow editors here with edit warring and what is slowly becoming recognizable as WP:OWN issues.

Please stop this behavior, or you will be reported, which will likely result in restrictions of your editing privileges per WP:BAN or even WP:BLOCK. Debresser (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I had a good look at your talkpage, and saw that I actually asked you three years ago already to review WP:BRD... My edit summary in that edit is still 100% fitting: "It is time this editor start discussing, instead of making unilateral changes. Especially when he sees that they are contested." Debresser (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm very much looking forward for greater involvement of other editors in the disputed articles. First, however much wiki-lawyering jargon anyone may use, wikipedia is first and foremost an endeavor to present the readership with the best possible information. Not about placating the interest groups among the editors, or their personal whims. You know very well that my sources are superior, academia-level ones.

As to the issues at hand: I did not edit "Lithuanian Jews" to "prove my point", but to make the lede somewhat more readable. The article already "proves my point", and is clearly concerned with the ethnic group, not "religious stream". In Misnagdim, you accepted all my edits except a strange fixation on keeping references to the same source at the end of every paragraph in the same section, rather than a single reference at the end of the section; and on the words "non-Hasidic stream of Eastern European Judaism" at the see also, which is plainly wrong, because that article, again, concerns the ethnic group. The "non-Hasidic stream of Eastern European Judaism" is Misnagdim, who were later dubbed "Litvaks". At Sholom Dovber Schneersohn, you know extremely well that no serious source "disputes" the findings, as was established in the talkpage. I await User:Jayjg's involvement, or indeed any other editor who is not involved with Chabad. Finally, at Menachem Mendel Schneerson (which has many issues), the claim that מנחם מענדל שניאורסאהן is in "Yiddish" while מנחם מנדל שניאורסון is in Hebrew is at best inaccurate, at worst utterly wrong. The latter is in Modern Hebrew (Israeli), while the former follows the old-fashioned spelling conventions, which may be described as related to Yiddish but predate its emergence as a wholly separate language. These spelling conventions are of course preserved in ultra-Orthodox use. בעלזא, סאטמאר, סלאנים, ברונא etc. are not "Yiddish", neither is פראנץ דעליטש. I very much await other editors, and do beseech you to report me. Perhaps it'll be proven to me that en.wiki is indeed about "democracy" (that is, indulging the editors), and I'll stop wasting time on attempting to improve it. AddMore-III (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you on all the issues above. And I must insist that you follow proper consensus building procedures, like discussion on article talkpages, possibly Rfc's, all the while adhering to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can not continue edit warring or behaving like you own articles, all the while ignoring or bending the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I have no issue with your edits other than that I consider them wrong, and I think your statement that you welcome involvement of non-Chabad editors tells us more about your issues with Chabad than about the issues of editors who are Chabad adherents on Wikipedia.

If you feel that you are wasting your time because you are not able to push your POVs, then please feel free to stop editing. Wikipedia is not in need of another POV editor. If, however, you feel you can contribute collegial and professionally, please stay, because Wikipedia is in need of such editors. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'll adjust to the current working ethic, in which we should all work out compromises between the editors, because it's all about satisfying them. Oh, wait, no it isn't. This is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not an internet forum. I don't have "POVs", I have superior sources, and also plain reasoning. We are (supposed) to create quality articles for the general public, the readership, not indulge the whims and wishes of editors. My position is objectively correct in each and every single one of these articles, and every informed, knowledgeable party will have concurred. I'm waiting for User:Jayjg to return and then we'll discuss the sexual abuse. From there I'll move on to the rest of the articles. AddMore-III (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, AddMore-III, you are correct in pretty much everything you have written above. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayjg:, good to see you back. I was expecting your response mainly because you were involved with the sexual abuse in Talk:Sholom Dovber Schneersohn. Sparring alone with Debresser is quite futile. I hope you can restate the obvious at that talkapage and article, after these edits, which sought to qualify the info based on non-sources. To be honest, I also hope you could assist me with the other articles in which Debresser and myself quarreled. I know wiki-politics from he.wiki: sources and reason have zero bearing if you can't marshal enough editors to support you. AddMore-III (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

AddMore-III, I haven't looked at the specific edits or articles in question, so don't know to whom or what you are specifically referring. That said, in general, followers of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, and adherents of the Lubavitch faith, are quite resistant to any material they believe shows their faith and its leaders in a negative light, so you will likely find any discussions with them of this type protracted and difficult. I would suggest you bring the source(s) to WP:RSN, where (one hopes) experienced outside editors can evaluate their quality. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-translation translations

Hello. I saw you making a few changes such as changing mezuzah to a doorpost amulet. Please do not do this. As you can see, the latter is a redlink, and it violates the principle of least surprise not to mention common naming and understandings. Nobody calls a mezuzah a doorpost amulet - the English word for it is simply its name, mezuzah. Andre🚐 00:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Anachronism?

In what way is this correcting an anachronism? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Jewish peoplehood is in shambles. It mixes pre-modern notions of Jewish collective existence, (modern) Jewish nationalism and the correct subject matter, i.e. a conception developed chiefly by Mordecai Kaplan in the 1940s (Cf. Noam Pianko, Jewish Peoplehood: An American Innovation, Rutgers University Press, 2015). It is a very specific ideology, accepted since in the American Jewish community. While I used the term "peoplehood" in the article Reform Judaism (which I largely wrote myself), I've employed it generically. I might have used "nationhood" etc. instead. Linking to [[Jewish peoplehood" will confuse the reader, and besides, that article is truly awful. AddMore-III (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You perhaps should explain such things a wee bit more thoroughly in your edit summaries? Or comment on the talk page or something. Saves time for other editors. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Help

Curious to know what you consider to be a botch. Also, the edits on Orthodox Judaism that you reverted were all in a single, paragraph. Lfstevens (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in the latter point. "American Jewry of the 19th century was full of religious innovation, even though it was small and lacked institutions and rabbinic leadership due to its largely recent arrival" - a juxtaposition when the original meant it was a hotbed because it lacked tradition. "In the mid-19th century, Reform Judaism spread, advocating rejecting traditions that few there observed. The United States was derisively named the Treife Medina, or "Profane Country", in Yiddish" - this is rather mute and inexplicable compared to the restored version. "Lacking rabbinic ordination and less committed to European standards, Leeser was an ultra-traditionalist" - here you removed the juxtaposition. This was all meant to convey that Leeser, who would have been regarded as a non-rabbi and non-Orthodox in traditional Europe, was a conservative in America. The very local context of Orthodoxy (demonstrated by the travails and tribulationas of Hirsch and Hildesheimer, conservative German rabbis dismissed as heretics by old-style Orthodox outside their country) is a key theme of the history section. AddMore-III (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

On the first sentence, the original did not have that implication. The only causal element was "due to...", which did not relate to hotbededness. That's why I separated the two. 2nd attempt I added the missing causal element.

On the second, reading "rather mute and inexplicable" cracked me up. I have no idea what you're getting at, but way to reflect the problems with the original in your critique.

On the third, I split the paragraph to give proper focus to Leeser. I think I have your point about the US v Europe perspectives.

The broader point here is that much of this article presents incredibly involute syntax, which reads to me as both grandiose and deliberately obscure. I will continue trying to increase the materials' readability. WP is to be read, not admired. Lfstevens (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"tendency to smirk and condescend towards the less-Orthodox (i.e. everybody else)"

Please, could you remove the unconstructive 'tendency to smirk and condescend towards the less-Orthodox (i.e. everybody else)'? Rejedef (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Zionism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Note that as an Israel-Palestine topic, WP:1RR applies on this article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the issues at Anti-Zionism, I've blocked both you and GotMilked from Criticism of Judaism for 1 week for slow-motion edit warring. However, after examining the edit history and restoring the status-quo ante, my assessment is that no block against you is necessary at this time, as the extent of disruptive editing on your part was responding to GotMilked's edits. Please do be more careful about responding to edit-warring with edit-warring in the future, and instead report edit-warring behavior to WP:ANEW after attempts to resolve the matter on a talk page fail. Insofar as the content relates to Israel-Palestine (which it did in this case), it is governed by WP:1RR, not the usual 3RR, and can be reported on that basis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)