User talk:TrachtGut

Welcome!

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

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

Chabad-Lubavitch Article

Hello, the list of Standard appendices contains a "Further Reading" one, so it's not only permitted but standard. I agree the references and further reading should ordinarily be separated. If not all the material in the section represents references and you're not able to do the work of separating out which is which, it might be better to leave the header in place for the time being rather than representing everything is a reference when it's not. You might want to discuss the issue in the article's Talk section, Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch Best, --Shirahadasha 03:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad-Lubavitch

You seem new here. The edits you made (and continue to revert to) undo the products of numerous discussions in the talk page. If you think the article ought to be different, the onus is on you to explain why. Obviously, the Chabad-Lubavitch article is the product of some controversy. Its important to realize that Wikipedia is not a soap box. It is an encyclopedia. Sort of like Fox News, the attitude here is "we report, you decide." While I can appreicate that you have a certain ideology that is guiding your edits, articles here must conform to WP:POV. That not only means that edits that add information must have a neutral point of view, but that edits that remove material must similarly have a neutral point of view. Specifically, the psak din that you keep on erasing expresses an important point of view in the aforementioned controversy, just like many of the other statements in the article reflect the opposite point of view. You insist that the "soundbyte" from the sichoh quoted in the article reflect that the Rebbe is alive "in a spiritual sense." That may well be the case, but the sichoh does not state that. The sichoh does not qualify itself. If you want to read the statement with a certain slant, that is your right and prerogative. But the article must reflect the reality in an encyclopedic way. Since the sichoh does not say "in a spiritual sense," the article must not either. As I said above, the onus is on you to explain the edits, since they effectively change the article from what it has always said. Nonetheless, I have explained myself. The edits therefore are no longer "unexplained." Both according to Wikipedia standards, and according to your own logic, you may no longer unilaterally edit that article without first creating a consensus in the talk page. Good Luck editing, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Meshulam 02:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have unilaterally edited material on the Chabad-Lubavitch page in defiance of a previous consensus. Your edits are not mere housekeeping. They are controversial at best. Therefore, they must be the subject of consensus before you can unilaterally make edits to the article.--Meshulam 00:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop stalking me, and reverting my contributions. For example why did you remove my edits that I linked to the main articles on the camps and campus? Are those controversial? I don't think you even looked at my edits before blindly erasing my hard work. --TrachtGut 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you couch otherwise good edits in WP:POV edits, they will get reverted with everything else. Please go to the talk page if you want to edit material that has already been agreed to. --Meshulam 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not POV edits. Stop harassing me. --TrachtGut 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yechi Article

I do not think your recent edits to the Yechi page are complete, yet. Simply blanking material, without adding to the article, is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Removing other editor's work with offhand comments in the edit summary is not polite. Can you return the page to its original state, and then improve the article by inserting your differing viewpoint as well? Abe Froman 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some material which has no source and appears to be made up. I do not have any differing opinion to add as the article is valid without this material that I removed. From what I understand you are not allowed to add material to wikipedia that does not have a source as otherwise anyone can just make up anything as it appears to have been done to that page before I cleaned it up. --TrachtGut 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The passages you claim are 'made up' and remove are the work of a Yeshiva University educated rabbi. [1] I ask that you add your (cited) point of view to the article, rather than delete others work without explanation. Abe Froman 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad

You have have twice removed Chabad-Strashelye from the Chabad disambig with the edit summary "removed article that was never called by this name and does not have this name". However, Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty) (which is the article that the redirect Chabad-Strashelye points to) does call the group Chabad Strashelye. If you believe this to be incorrect, then you should fix the target article. Otherwise, Chabad as a disambiguation page should list all articles that refer to Chabad in someway and the anom user is quite within rights to include it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for you comments and suggestions, I am new here and I am not yet familiar with everything. I have fixed the target page as per your suggestion. --TrachtGut 23:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes and deletion's to Chabad-Lubavitch and other articles

I would advise you to start using the talk pages of the articles you keep changing, and discuss your changes with other editors. kind regards, --Shlomke 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomke, I would advise you to start using the talk page as I have done, instead of reverting to your biased and POV version. --TrachtGut 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad on Wikipedia arbitration request

There is a recently-filed request for arbitration that mentions you as a concerned party. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

Hi Tracht: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]