User talk:Btk13

April 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Christ has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Christ was changed by Btk13 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.92096 on 2013-04-30T23:22:32+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Christ has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Christ was changed by Btk13 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.966316 on 2013-05-12T20:45:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talmud. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please come to Talk:Talmud if you want to discuss this. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talmud/Gemara

Previous discussion copied from User talk:StevenJ81

(except the green and red emphasis in the next paragraph, which were added by StevenJ81>

Hi, this is user --Btk13 (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Btk13. I'm highly knowledgeable regarding Judaism, as I am an orthodox Jew myself. A few weeks ago, i put a link in Talmud to Gemara, as they are both the exact same thing. StevenJ81 reverted this and holds that this was a "disruptive link". I'd just like to warn everyone that he clearly has no idea what's flying when it comes to Judaism.[reply]

OK.

I'm Orthodox, too, so get over that.
You had best check with your rebbe as to whether Talmud and Gemara are the "exact same thing." In fact, every masechta of Talmud begins ... not with Gemara at all, but with Mishnah. The Gemara then follows. Then there is more Mishnah. Then more Gemara. And so forth. And both of those together are the Talmud. If your rebbe disagrees, he is welcome to dispute that with me in any forum you and he choose ... but I'd be willing to wager he wouldn't disagree.
- For what it's worth, somebody besides me reverted your latest attempt to add the same text. On the same grounds. Before you try a fourth time, would you please ask your rebbe a shailah?
The link is somewhat disruptive in that it is simply incorrect. But if you read what I wrote at Talk:Talmud#Btk13's recent edit, you will know that what was really disruptive was how you did it. See in particular points 2 and 3 from the discussion at Talk:Talmud#Btk13's recent edit. You need more experience with understanding how we do things around here, even when you are correct—and all the more so when you are not.
Finally, for you to start stating things like "... he clearly has no idea what's flying when it comes to Judaism" when you don't know anything about me is, in my view, loshon hara.

Now, if you want to have a civil discussion about the edit you feel you would like to make at Talmud, by all means meet me at Talk:Talmud and start discussing. You are close to what we call edit warring, which can result in your being blocked from editing on this subject. I'm not calling in an administrator on that yet, and if you want to discuss your ideas further at Talk:Talmud, I won't. But if you try to force this "Talmud is the exact same thing as Gemara" idea into the article again directly, I will.

Respectfully,

StevenJ81 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's btk13. I never said that Talmud and Gemara are the same exact thing-originally, I just made a link in "Talmud" to "Gemara". You, for reasons unbeknownst to me, reverted it. In terms of what you said about it being Loshon Hara, it's not - I'm simply warning people to beware, and in no way, shape, or form is that Loshon Hora. When you use the term Gemara, it refers to the entire thing - Mishna and actual Gemara text together. Have you ever said "I'm going to learn Talmud"? No - you say "I'm going to learn Gemara"! As for why you want to report me, I really can't understand. Feel free to contact me at my talk page (talk:Btk13 —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following is a continuation of the above

OK, let me take it one point at a time. Let me emphasize that I will absolutely assume good intentions from this point forward.

You can't just stick a link like

Talmud

above a piece of text. It's just not how you do things here. There were a couple of options of what you might have done. You could have put a hatnote saying "See also: Gemara" or perhaps even "Main article: Gemara." You could have proposed to merge the Gemara and Talmud articles. But you can't just float a link on top of an article in the middle of nowhere.

You did, indeed, say that Talmud and Gemara are the exact same thing. If you look at the first paragraph of this discussion, at the portion that I turned bold and green, you used those words exactly. You used them at least one other time in my memory, and perhaps others as well. So what am I supposed to think? That you didn't mean it?
The fact that you made edits like this two or three times is what made it disruptive, not the content of any one of the edits. Several of us asked you to stop using neutral requests (the top two above), and you did not. Perhaps I should have picked a choice other than "disruptive," but that actually seemed like the most kind choice I had at the first level of escalation.
When you warn people of a true danger, that is not loshon hara. However: (1) Look at the text I turned bold and red up above. On the surface, that sure feels like slander, not to mention loshon hara, to me. At most, if you truly felt you needed to warn people about me, there were ways you could have done so that were a whole lot more respectful than that. (2) I don't see how you dare say of me that I have "no idea what's flying in Judaism" when you don't know me. As far as it goes, my Orthodox shul allows me to daven Ne'ilah from the amud on Yom Kippur. Do you believe that any Orthodox shul allows someone to daven on Yom Kippur who truly has "no idea what's flying"? I don't sit and learn Gemara all day, but "no idea what's flying"? Really? You owe me an apology for that.
Yes, we all say "I'm going to learn Gemara," not "I'm going to learn Talmud." But as much as that is the normal way we (frummies) all refer to it, it's shorthand. It's yeshivish, if you will, not standard English. It's a reasonable shorthand. After all, Gemara is the greater, and more difficult, portion of Talmud. But it's still shorthand. So if you want to include somewhere in these articles—probably not at the very top—that people tend to refer to things that way, you're welcome to do so. But to say that they're the same thing is just plain wrong, when we're being precise in our language. And we must be precise in our language here.

So it comes to this. If you do things carefully and politely, and according to Wikipedia's rules, then I'll be the first to welcome you. We need more knowledgeable Judaism writers. (Frankly, if you are good at writing in Simple English, I could use some help fleshing out Judaism articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. I'd love to have you.)
On the other hand, if you're going to edit not according to normal Wikipedia rules and styles, if you are going to make over-the-top accusations, and if you are going to be yeshivish-ly sloppy in your language, then I will report you. It's just that simple. Good Shabbos. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]