User talk:Rabbeinu

Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! IZAK 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Tzitzit

Hi. I can see what you were trying to do, but I think you've flipped the POV entirely. An unbalanced article is unbalanced and it's bad either way. I'm going to try to balance it out. Please do join in. --Dweller 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was very POV. But it's not true that no poskim approve its use - just no poskim that you recognise, lol! Have a look now. I've also reordered it, so that people with no knowledge can make better sense of the issue. --Dweller 09:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, good to have you here. Enjoy editing. If I can help you with anything, drop me a line. --Dweller 09:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your amendment is fine. I was surprised to find that Haredi poskim would approve it; that was the sense implied in the version you'd edited. If that was an error, it's good that we've eradicated it. Nice one, I think between us, we've improved the article considerably, in terms of sense, POV and accuracy. --Dweller 09:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a general problem in Wikipedia articles on halachic issues where people push a POV. The Haredi contributors (who are few) in particular are sometimes at fault because they see no other way, which is understandable. For example, there was an edit war some time ago between two contributors about the use of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin. Would you believe, the chareidi was arguing that most Jews use both. Presumably, he'd never seen anyone daven without both. The other guy presumably had never seen someone with both, and was arguing that very few Jews use both. In the end, the whole thing's a nonsense, because actually most Jews don't wear tefillin at all. So, in the absence of hard numbers, that no-one has, what was needed was to amend the article. What people needed to know was who does/does not do it and why, not whether one group or another constitutes a monopoly. Sigh. A bit of ahavat yisrael goes a long way... why are we so bad at it, even after all these years of galut?! --Dweller 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's a nice example of transparent POV. But it'd have been equally POV to edit the article to suggest that it's a bonkers practice with no real adherence. --Dweller 12:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

חסידיש

Rabbeinu: 1. I presume you speak Yiddish. In that case you know that the word חסידיש is not pronounced chasidish with a vowel after the ח in Yiddish. There just is no vowel there in Yiddish pronunciation. 2. The Google test is not an absolute arbiter of spelling on Wikipedia. --Redaktor 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hasidic dynasties

Rabbeinu: you wrote: 'international', if you require that, we should delete Ger... only Chabad/Satmar/Belz/Bobov would remain. What on earth are you talking about. Ger is represented in Europe, USA (about 20 shtiblekh) and Australia. you don't get much more international than that. Likewise Vizhnitz is international. But if you don't like inernational, please come up with a better criterion.--Redaktor 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation case

I really appreciate that you took the time to talk to me about it. If only someone else was there to back me up on it then maybe the discussion would be different. However, there's one good thing that has come from it: one less thing to mediate on. Jac_roe 00:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Mount

I noticed the message you recently left to 189.1.10.119. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it.
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. 189.1.10.119 made one edit that doesn't seem to be malicious, and a Level 3 deletion warning seems like a very severe way of responding to it. Level 3 - Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist. Please consider using lower level warnings when dealing with new editors whose edits are not blatant vandalism. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can determine, on the basis of a single edit, that an anonymous editor who didn't leave an edit summary "obviously knew very well what he was doing." It doesn't matter if you think "It is typically something done by extreme-right wing Zionists," and that "A person deleting particularly *that* phrase knows very well what he is doing." The truth is that neither one of us knows why the edit was made. That's why we're supposed to assume good faith.

Let me offer another possibility. Maybe it was a boy who had learned from his rabbi that the Jews aren't supposed to cede control over any part of Eretz Yisrael to non-Jews. He looked at Wikipedia, and it said that the Israelis gave away control of Har Habayit to the Muslims. Surely his rabbi couldn't be wrong, so he deleted the sentence in the encyclopedia that contradicted his rabbi and his lessons. Are you still convinced that "A person deleting particularly *that* phrase knows very well what he is doing"? Are you still prepared to recommend an indefinite block?

In the future, please try to keep in mind the Wikipedia guidelines I cited above about newcomers and assuming good faith. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for mediation/Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. IZAK 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

"... you seem to be the craziest editor I have ever seen. And that is not meant in a positive way ..."

LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that 1) you stop "vandalizing" my talk page if you are going to whine about me posting to yours 2) you clean up this clowning around and repeating of your prohibited insults before you two clowns involve the admins, because it's going to look bad for you. Fourdee 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More LOLs

You should have given me a warning, really, I was really balancing on the edge of a Personal Attack.... Though the guy'd better be happy that he's a couple of thousand km's away from me. --Rabbeinu 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lil ol me??? Why should I be happy about it, would we have a fistfight if not for a couple million meters? BTW, calling someone crazy is not "the edge" of a personal attack it is one. Happens I guess, but I'm not clear what you are even upset over. Seems to be some kind of inner rage or something, not anything in particular that I did, seeing as "eradication" is widely used including by scholars, and the article already reads "extermination" - the mere idea that someone would think it was more neutral to refer to the holocaust as "extermination" or "eradication" than "mass murder" makes it necessary for someone to be glad you are not breathing down their neck in rage? So if the article on hitler currently read "hitler was an evil monster" and someone wanted to change that, they'd need to buy a gun or move to the other side of the country? I shudder to ask your opinions on the Palestinian conflict or anything else that might have two sides. I get the feeling the other guys are always wrong and better be glad they arent within arm's reach of you. Fourdee 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEy Rabbeinu

Hey it's me. You should check out the debate on Human RIghts in Israel concerning Sexual Brutality as a Weopon. The hasbarah people are trying to block all mention of it. I thought you and I could also try to get a section together on systamatic brutality towards the Heradi. THere's enough video on U-tube that we can get a big section, plus all the letter the Eidah has sent the UN, and the raid on Toldos Aaron. If you know my number, call me. If you don't, you can go to yahoo answers, look up rebyoshi, or reb_yoshi, I forget how I'm in there, and contact me that way. Then I'll email you my number. Shia1 08:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Jewish name of God

Thank you for your note, Rabbeinu. This would seem to be a rather complex issue. Thanks for the link to Names of God in Judaism -- I took the time to read the relevant passages. It is without a doubt true that some/many Jews (especially ultra-Orthodox, such as yourself) consider the term "Yahweh" to be "highly offensive" -- but I think it's an overstatement to say simply that "Jews" (implying ALL Jews) so consider it.

However, from my perspective, that is actually beside the point. I was coming at it from a historical perspective, and I was a bit bothered by the use of the word "God" -- a modern English term, after all -- in a passage discussing what is regarded as a historical event that took place several thousand years ago. (When I say "bothered", I mean something between "annoyed" and "mildly offended" -- in somewhat the same way that I tend to roll my eyes when people who come from a Christian background unthinkingly use the term "Old Testament" when referring to the Jewish/Hebrew scriptures.) In any event, I find the word "God" rather out of place in the context of Abraham & Isaac. Before I made the change to "Yahweh" I had already read through the discussion in the article I linked to at Yahweh, and I believe that in some form that is the historically correct term. After receiving your note and giving it further reflection, I think perhaps it would be better to go with "YHWH" (linked to "Yahweh"), which maintains historical accuracy while avoiding the issues of pronunciation, etc.

Regards, --User:Cgingold 23:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

Any user who breaches Wikipedia policy must be warned, whether that be you or me or anyone else. You removed a large chunk of information from a discussion page, if my revert was in error please bring it up on my talk page, otherwise do not feel that just because you are an established user you have free reign. Guycalledryan 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. --Rabbeinu 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please accept my apologies for my revert and warning. Next time consider upholding wikipedia policy in your edit summaries Guycalledryan 11:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]