I would give an oppose vote, but I think the discussion is already closed. By the way, don't you know that the Zionists control the media r"l. A kisiva v'chasima toyve [[User:Lobbuss|Lobbuss]] 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would give an oppose vote, but I think the discussion is already closed. By the way, don't you know that the Zionists control the media r"l. A kisiva v'chasima toyve [[User:Lobbuss|Lobbuss]] 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
== Language ==
Careful about the language you use, especially on talk pages. I know that you're concerned with the veracity of some of the articles with respect to Zionism. That is understandable. The problem is that your message is easily dismissed if you use inflammatory language to explain your edits. Dushinsky Chassidus may well be anti-Zionist (remember to bring citations), but that does not necessitate you telling everyone that you're going to throw up if you hear this or that name. (If you indeed do throw up, all power to you :-P, but it isn't necessary for me to know that. More importantly, it isn't necessary to give ammo to your detractors... your position is not popular on this forum lechatchila, so you'll be more successful if you don't give people excuses to revert you)--[[User:Meshulam|Meshulam]] 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:53, 28 August 2007
Handshake
Hmm, a Dutch Anti-Zionist with a thing for Dushinsky, the Eidah, and Givat Shaul... At the very least, I have to give you credit for sticking to your guns. This time, lets work together. You have a lot to say. Maybe I can help refine the message, and make it acceptable for Wikipedia. Despite your protestations, I am not a Zionist. And my edits to some of your friend Daniel's posts were kinder and gentler than others would have allowed had they gotten there first. --Meshulam04:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word extremist is a problem because its POV. It is possible to say that one side views the other side as extremist. But it is not ok to quote the leading figure in one side of the conflict as proof that the other side is extremist. Yes, your edits comply with WP:OR. But they do not comply with WP:POV. I suggest that it be changed to something suggesting that one side considers the other side "extremist." Then show how. Then, maybe, provide (sourced) examples.--Meshulam11:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to remember is that if you're perceived as being a pain, you'll never win an edit war. And a 24 hr block means that everyone gets free reign on the articles in question until you're done. And then if you go back to edit warring, they'll just block you again. If you can reach a consensus (I'll help you on this one), then things will be more permanant.--Meshulam01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to your statement on my page: better, perhaps, to say that people consider them extremist. Extremist is a POV term. If you say that they are considered extremist (and name who thinks they're extremist... like Satmar Rebbeim, for example), then you aren't giving your POV, but rather reporting on facts. --Meshulam23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Torah v'Yiroh
I agree that it is beautiful. In the States' Torah v'Yiroh is normally a Satmar name. Is that Beis Midrash affiliated with Satmar? I thought NK was independent.--Meshulam21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's Rav Katzenellenbogen's BM. See the NK article! There is a Satmar yeshiva in the same building, but they are not really affiliated, though of course there are friendly ties. Just that on Yom Ha'atzamos, the mourning is a bit more intense at NK then at Satmar. Aside from that they're basically the same. But it is a separate group - for example, at NK, the nusach is Ashkenaz (nusach haGro). It's right next to the shtieblach in M.S., on the 2nd floor. If you're ever here, it's definitely worth a visit. BEAUTIFUL. Compare with [1] - before the renovation! --Eidah21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is against wikipedia:etiquette, i am not a liar, and not a Zionist, i can sometimes lie and sometimes be a Zionist by standing up for my rights against the gentiles when they do wrong against me in business. Listen i feel u have a good agenda of inflating the orthodox Jewish cause against Zionism today. orthodox judaism is no question opposed to Zionism, but lets be frank they are not considered active anti Zionists, only if you make this category so broad that all of orthodox Jewry should be part of it. thanks and looking forward for some discussion about this in a civil way.--יודל16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orthodox Anti-Zionism
I would give an oppose vote, but I think the discussion is already closed. By the way, don't you know that the Zionists control the media r"l. A kisiva v'chasima toyve Lobbuss21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Language
Careful about the language you use, especially on talk pages. I know that you're concerned with the veracity of some of the articles with respect to Zionism. That is understandable. The problem is that your message is easily dismissed if you use inflammatory language to explain your edits. Dushinsky Chassidus may well be anti-Zionist (remember to bring citations), but that does not necessitate you telling everyone that you're going to throw up if you hear this or that name. (If you indeed do throw up, all power to you :-P, but it isn't necessary for me to know that. More importantly, it isn't necessary to give ammo to your detractors... your position is not popular on this forum lechatchila, so you'll be more successful if you don't give people excuses to revert you)--Meshulam23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
