User talk:AddMore der Zweite

Greetings...

Hello, AddMore der Zweite, and welcome to Wikipedia!
To get started, please click here.
For a list of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please click here.
Warning: Wikipedia can be addictive!
Happy editing! -- -- -- 22:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reform Judaism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brunswick. 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) 11:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reform Judaism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albany. 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) 11:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Reform Judaism

added links pointing to Karaite, Phylacteries and Prayer shawl

Posek

added a link pointing to David Einhorn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Reform Jewish Prod removal

When I declined your Prod I had a typo in my edit summary. The proper venue for nominating this redirect for deletion is WP:RFD. There are no valid speedy deletion criterion and WP:PROD can not be used on redirects. -- GB fan 13:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GB, okey, no prob. I just find all these redirects irritating, a waste of server space.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion does not cleanup server space, it actually increases the amount of server space used. Every edit is retained, all deletion does is remove the ability of most editors to see the content. -- GB fan 14:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hamburg Temple disputes

added links pointing to Enlightenment, Posen, Leghorn and Altona

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Judaism

You don't just turn a large page into a redirect without prior discussion. Where was this discussed? Debresser (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, actually I posted a merge template over a year ago at Progressive Judaism and RfC'd in wp:Judaism. The only one who bothered to answer in talk:Reform Judaism (bottom) is now inactive. I also asked Malik Shabbaz, but can't find the section. I'd be more than happy to debate the matter thoroughly, if you could find someone who cares, for I didn't. BTW, I I didn't turn 16K of info into a redirect, for 80% of that mirrored other articles. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really. You say yourself that there was no real discussion. Which means you admit there was no consensus. Even if 80% of that article is repeated in other articles, it still is a 16k article, and you should show some positive consensus, before redirecting it. This is unacceptable.

I will also give some though to the question of the merge itself. By the way, did you post at WT:JUDAISM about this? That is the logical starting point. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And where was the merge from Reform Movement in Judaism into Reform Judaism discussed? Not that I think it is necessarily a bad idea. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. talk page. Both Malik and HG (in the talk:Reform Judaism) endorsed it, and I have found my post on WP:JEW for that one.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the talkpage. I do tend to do my homework. Could you please provide a link to the specific section where you claim this consensus was reached. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good for you. That's all there was, no one else seemed to bother. I didn't intend to go cap in hand among editors. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to the specific section on the talkpage where you claim this consensus was reached. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was all I got. Apart from HG and Malik, another editor attempted to revert. I explained the matter to him and hoped he'll ask more, but he dropped it. I'll now wait patiently for other editors to comment (I'll be thrilled to debate, trust me), hopefully less than 18 months.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for the third time what the name of the section is. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"RfC: redundance?" in the TP there, + "clear up terminology" in talk:Reform Judaism and also this. I hope you're enjoying this. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is a tempest in a teapot, if you ask me (which you haven't).
For the most part, AddMore, I think you've been handling this situation fairly responsibly, and I can certainly assume good faith on your part. I can appreciate @Debresser's concerns, though. All of this is happening about ten months after you posted a query at WT:JUDAISM, so it's not so fresh in people's minds. And one certainly must err on the side of (editorial) conservatism in vastly overhauling an article that long and that longstanding.
I think you should probably post one more time at WT:JUDAISM. While it's fine for most of the description to remain at Talk:Reform Judaism, you ought to provide a little bit more detail at WT:JUDAISM so people know what the question is. After that, I think I'll be ok with your approach to untangling the terminology issues, provided that the following subjects don't get lost in the sauce:

Somewhere there is still a description of what the term Progressive Judaism does—and doesn't—mean, and accordingly how far the grouping per se does—and doesn't—go.
Where two separate Geigerian (let's call them) movements developed in parallel (such as UK Liberal and UK Reform), make sure we don't lose the fundamental differences between them.
Do please make sure that your descriptions of the distinctions are well-sourced. I noticed a comment somewhere that suggested that UK Reform was more like US Conservative, and you disagreed. I don't really know the answer, but just make sure that distinctions are well-sourced and not based only on your opinion. (Also, if a comparison will be made with US Conservative, remember that there are some pretty substantial differences, too, within that movement, and between the US and ex-US branches of that movement.)
Finally, somewhere in the tangle of these explanations, at least one comment (not yours, I don't think) suggested that Conservative Judaism was part of the Progressive Judaism tangle. De facto, parts of that movement are not very far away. But the reality is that Conservatism has formally and theologically been quite separate from Reform for over 100 years, so my judgment is that it should not be included. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StevenJ81 , thank you for your response. I know it seems a bit rash, but I'm sincerely a *massive* freak of Jewish denominations. Love it. Can't have enough of it. Anyway, the main problem with the structure of this list of articles is that the very basics got lost. Reform Judaism became a disambig., while the definition of Progressive Judaism is, and I quote: "They embrace pluralism, modernity, equality and social justice as core values and believe that such values are consistent with a committed Jewish life". That's nice, but also total BS. And That's it! Nothing more, zilch. Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement is one the worst articles I've ever seen (Oh, and I've seen!), full with bolted lists, meaningless sentences and looong quotes. The ~15k people hitting Reform Judaism every month weren't getting their money's worth, not by a long shot. As to Conservative Judaism, it really has never been part of Reform proper, i.e. shared its basic concept (if you're interested, read this: goes back to 1842). Though you might say it's part of a wider effort to "reform" (in the generic sense) Judaism. As to the British Movement for Reform Judaism, there are excellent sources clarifying that and I already rewrote the article. Thanks again. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, I think your voice could lend much needed support to AddMore der Zweite's proposals at Talk:Reform Judaism. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, howdee. Any ideas from whom may I ask for comment? It's been over a week, nothing's budged in the talkpage. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ask Steven to post there as well. Debresser (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. StevenJ81 , care to post that on talk:Reform Judaism as well? AddMore der Zweite (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Give me a couple of hours from now; I'm about to go into a meeting. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on specific changes

Hi. I saw you removed a link on Reform Confirmation ceremonies. I also saw that the content appears to have been removed from the initial link target. All fine. But does that information exist anywhere else now except on the page Shavuot? If so, try to link there. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StevenJ81, howdee, good to hear from you. Firstly, some of these confirmation links actually meant "bat mitzvah" (it was once a common translation) - i.e. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was raised sorta Conservadox. The rite of confirmation is elaborated upon both in Reform Judaism#Observance and Union for Reform Judaism#Belief and practice. More place then I would have given it in a blog that's wholly mine, but it appears to be of some sentimental value, so why not. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's more than sentimental value there, truth tell. While Bar and Bat Mitzvah are now pretty normative again, Shavuot Confirmation was a very important and explicit substitute for a long while, and a fairly important co-existent ceremony for a while after that. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's well covered in all relevant places. I'm not sure to which degree it's prevalent today.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reform Judaism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

under the names "Reform", "Liberal" and "Progressive." In 1945, the Associated British Synagogues (later [[Movement for Reform Judaism]] joined as well. In 1990, [[Reconstructionist Judaism]]
They had the consistent, though not unequivocal support of one rabbi of progressive convictions, [[Aaron Chorin] of [[Arad, Romania|Arad]]. The massive Orthodox reaction halted the advance of the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cremation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

out of space, cremation became an approved means of corpse disposal amongst the liberal Jews]]. Current liberal movements like [[Reform Judaism]] still support cremation, although burial

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Judaism

Hi AddMore.

Just wanted to drop you a quick note to say thanks for the re-write you are working on at Conservative Judaism. I look forward to reading it once you are done. ---meamemg (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thanks. You people certainly know how to keep someone hooked!AddMore der Zweite (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Barnstar of David
		Thank you for the excellent work you've been doing with Conservative Judaism and other articles related to Judaism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truly appreciated, good to see you back! AddMore der Zweite (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Pallache

FYI, I have made fairly major updates to the entry on Samuel Pallache, to which you have contributed. Cheers --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AddMore der Zweite. 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)[reply]