User talk:Winchester2313

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Winchester2313! I am Pharaoh of the Wizards and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Essence and Being [of G-d] placed into a body"[edit]

You added:

This concept is mentioned often in the classic Kaballistic and Chassidic texts, such as Pardes Rimonim 16:6 and 22:3 by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Zohar-2 38a, and Zohar-3 79b, and Sefer Tanya ch. 22 & 23.
See also Zohar-1 9a, Zohar-2 163b, Mechilta on Exodus 18, Bereishit Rabba 63 & 86, Tanchuma Tissa 27, and the well-known Chassidic principle ascribing fundamentally the same status to the soul of any Jew, as elaborated on by R. SZ of Liadi in Tanya ch.2.

Do these sources specify that there talking about "atzmus u'mahus" itself? Yonoson3 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm traveling now, and don't have access to my seforim, however, in those sources I quoted that I did manage to check (via copies of their respective texts that I found online), various tzadikim are alternately referred to as "shechinta" "hashem" "pnei ha'odon hashem" and "e-l". The reference made by the LR re. "atzmus umehus" was simply a mention of this unique status accorded to a rebbe/tzaddik/nossi etc. (IIRC, in the Baal haTanya's 'likkutei torah' he uses the same term, but I couldn't pull up that text online.) Were said mention to have been made in context of a discussion of different levels of Gdliness, the specific choice of term may have been material - but in this case it clearly was not. Interestingly, this concept is rarely mentioned in chabad texts, compared to the frequent mention of same in seforim like the Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, etc. See also Rashi on the passuk "vayikra lo kel elokei yisroel..." Winchester2313 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"The reference made by the LR re. "atzmus umehus" was simply a mention of this unique status accorded to a rebbe/tzaddik/nossi etc." - But does this chiddush of the Lubavitcher Rebbe have any earlier source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talkcontribs) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How many gods do you have? How do you think atzmus umehus is different from the terms used in the sources provided? How much closer do you get than ויקרא לו קל אלקי ישראל? -- Zsero (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Rabbi Elazar Shach Page & the lack of an Oposition Section In the Rebbe's Page[edit]

Hi,on the Rabbi Elazar Shach page you expanded the "Opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe" section considerably. Do you feel that the information should also be added to the Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson page? I find it interesting that the Rebbe's page has no mention at all of any opposition to the Rebbe.

Why should there be? It's a fact about his opponents, not about him. -- Zsero (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be, imho, historically dishonest. What I added was accurate historical context, sourced in many media reports. R'Shachs public/media presence during the 80's & 90's was defined by his frequent attacks on Chabad. This was fodder for the Israeli media, and it got R'Schach some coverage. Contrast this with the media coverage of Chabad in the US during those years, and the opposition in Israel barely made the comments section. It was also largely ignored by the mainstream in the US at the time. Check out the Israeli media reports of Chabad/Schach during those years, and contrast that with the press coverage in the rest of the world - it was largely a non-issue outside Israel. Chabad & the LR were making the news roughly weekly for any number of reasons / campaigns / contro's / events. R'Schach made press only for attacks and criticisms. The record does not lie...

Winchester2313 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is historically dishonest to deny that there was opposition by many to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. These include Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner, Rabbi Shach, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, Rabbi Aharon Kotler and many others. -- MrSnagIt (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Your inclusion of the Satmar Rov is a blatant falsehood. You cannot cite a single word he ever said against the Lubavitcher Rebbe (or vice versa). I don't know whether R Hutner ever said anything in public against him either. Kotler hated all chassidus and chassidim, and his major beef was not with the LR but with his father-in-law; I'm not aware of anything he actually ever said against the LR himself. So that leaves Shach; yes, he opposed the LR, and that opposition played a major role in his career, but what role did it play in the LR's? How was the LR affected by it? There's simply no reason to mention it in the LR's biography, because it's not a significant fact about him, any more than the brand of socks he wore, or the name of his cleaning lady. -- Zsero (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your lack of credible sources for these wild allegations speaks for itself. What is indisputable is that Rav Hutner maintained a correspondence with the LR for at-least the 1953-1973 period, and addressed the LR in his letters with tremendous respect. This is a matter of record, no matter how much consternation it might cause in certain circles. What correspondence occurred during R'Hutners final years will become known in the next year or two, as the publication of the LR's letters from those years goes to press. There is some credible evidence of mutual respect between the LR & the SR,and absolutely none to the contrary. This is an encyclopedia, not a soap-box. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting that you use "Kotler" and "Shach", but LR instead of Schneerson. Rabbi Kotler was indeed referring to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson when he denounced his Shor Shenagach speach with an "ehr main az ehr is moshiach". The Brisker Rov also denounced Rabbi Schneerson. Can you please provide a reference for the "Kotler hated all chassidus" statement? MrSnagIt (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It needs no support. Everyone knows it, including you. The piece he attacked was not shor shenogach but kol baalei shir, which was from the previous LR and had nothing to do with RMMS. Kotler renewed the war against chassidus, and he didn't have the excuse that the original misnagdim had. The GRA and his colleagues made a terrible mistake, but at least they meant it leshem shomayim, not knowing where chassidus would end up. Kotler could see that chassidim are still observant, and he still made war against them. R Chaim Brisker said that nowadays (i.e. in his day) there is no such thing as a misnaged leshem shomayim; kal vachomer that it was so in Kotler's day and in Shach's. Neither of them deserves any respect. -- Zsero (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the Rav Shach page and posted what follows to the discussion. In case you don't see it, here's what I wrote:
Winchester and Zsero's edits to the footnotes have no business in an encyclopedia article about Rav Shach: they are nothing more than an attempt to repudiate the charges against their rebbe. If they would like to create a new Wiki page on "refutations to anti-Chabad charges of idolatry" I'm game. But Zsero's title "this is a footnote, not an essay" is as relevant to his edits as mine.
I cut these two some slack by leaving their footnotes largely intact but adding some corrective information (to the effect that their sources neither corroborated their claim nor, in all but the Tanya instances, had anything to do with their rebbe's sicha).
Therefore, I've largely removed both footnotes - leaving only direct links to the offending sicha so readers can draw their own conclusions (I believe in empowering people to make educated decisions...others seem to disagree). If Winchester and Zsero insist on turning this page into a platform for tangential (and incorrect) ideological rhetoric, I may launch a neutrality complaint.Tikkunsofrim (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

An outrageous and factually unsupported accusation has no place in an encyclopedia, unless placed in context, which is what the sources I quoted provide. Insistence on hair-splitting semantics do not do justice to the issue, other than (perhaps) serve as a convenient red herring. Fact is, 'atzmus umehus' is a term used to describe God, largely (almost exclusively) found in texts associated with the school of Chabad philosophy, begining with the Tanya. Claiming it to mean something else because you don't find it in earlier texts, is like claiming that 'google' and 'search' have different meanings, simply because you won't find the term 'google it' in any text more than 20 years old. Thus your contention borders on the absurd, and leads to an obviously invalid conclusion. If you'd like, I have no objection to removing the entire paragraph dealing with that particular accusation of R' Schach, should you wish it to remain, however, context is critical. Winchester2313 (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


You need to include references within the article, not just the edit summary. (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He is. What are you talking about? -- Zsero (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of the edits to Elazar Shach made today. (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you please be more specific - give me an example Winchester2313 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any edits that needed sources and didn't give them -- Zsero (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

R' Shach's criticisims of R' Steinsaltz and R' Goren[edit]

Winchester, do you even own a Michtavim Umaamarim? Get your sources straight first before putting up stuff. Are you the same guy as the one who calls himself shloime over here (, or are you just cutting and pasting and making the whole thing into a mumble jumble?Yonoson3 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I usually just borrow it from the kollel next door - its a mix of 2 different sets, one much older than the other. I will re-check as you suggest, and resubmit the information with details of the edition I'm using. My name is certainly not 'Shloime' (or anything remotely similar), and that blog looks like a lot of drivel to me - somebody there needs some sedatives.... I object to deliberate mischaracterizations being presented as 'facts', and that is what I'm trying to correct here. An encyclopedia should be both honest and neutral. An (even) rudimentary search of the media reports of the '80s and '90s puts the lie to much of what is being said here, and I believe in letting people speak for themselves. R'Schach certainly did - which you seem intent on re-casting. Do you speak yiddish -listen carefully to what he says on those tapes, his yiddish is much better than his ivrit.... Oh, and by the way- you do realize that many of the 'sources' for the stuff in this article are unverified (or unverifiable) single-party accounts from partisan 'researchers' like Shlomo Lorencz, don't you? So Deiah-veDibbur doesn't help much. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcripts of R' Shach's speeches[edit]

Winchester, would you be able to email those transcripts to I'm interested in seeing them. Yonoson3 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Shach's speeches at Binyanei Ha"Uma and Yad Eliyahu[edit]

Winchester, you mentioned on the Elazar Shach talk page that you have the transcripts of those two speeches (Binyanei Ha'Uma and Yad Eliyahu). Being that the Yad Eliyahu one doesn't even have any subtitles on it, I am very interested in seeing the exact wording. Would you be able to email them to  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talkcontribs) 03:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I must respectfully decline, having seen your performance on these pages. What you surely meant to say is "Having a blatantly revisionist agenda, which has been exposed on these pages and is now obvious to all....I'm worried about which other facts may now come to light". Providing more fodder to a shameless revisionist isn't very high on my 'to do' list at present. I will post more verifiable information here in coming days and weeks, for all to share. Winchester2313 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for those transcripts... There's nothing for me to hide; I can't change what he said... Yonoson3 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Elazar Shach[edit]

I noticed you are edit warring on Elazar Shach. please stop this now, and use the talk page to reach consensus. Remember that this page was protected previously, and nobody wants that to happen again. Failure to resolve your issues on the talk page and continued edit warring will likely result in a personal block against you. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How long is reasonable enough time for no response on the talk page?Winchester2313 (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how often the other party edits on Wikipedia. A couple of days is surely reasonable. All of this IMHO, of course. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Menachem Mendel Schneerson[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so I understand this correctly... Were some professor at a Chinese university to publish in 2025 a book about the Obama presidency, and he claimed to have been told by David Axelrod that Mr. Obama regularly had difficulty waking up before 10am - notwithstanding the fact that this would be a 'highly exceptional' claim, or the fact that none of the many other books about Obama mention this, or the vast documentary evidence showing Obama at meetings and conferences at much earlier hours, this would now be 'verified' by Wiki standards, and could not be removed unless a published source disputed this outlandish claim?!! Is that what you're saying, because, and sure seem to be saying something else. Winchester2313 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I would guess that an unusual claim would need much better verification than just one man printing in his own book what he claimed he was told?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#M._Avrum_Ehrlich. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Brisker Rav[edit]

What other seforim did the Brisker Rav write haskamos to? Yonoson3 (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded on the page where I edited out the nonsense. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies, you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I merely restored the information you deleted, so I'm not sure what you're on about. I'd imagine the rules apply to yourself as well as others..... Might I again draw your attention to (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted several complete sections of the article. See here. Blindly reverting is a very bad idea, and these kinds of wholesale deletions are the kind that will get you blocked. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I see what you mean, and hadn't noticed the last few paragraphs you obviously refer to, as they were so far down the page. I only meant to restore the significant references which you deleted. If you redo your edit without touching that one paragraph, I'd have no problem. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You must take responsibility for your edits. You are the one who has deleted the material. You are the one who has restored the WP:MOSBIO violations (repeating "Rabbi" in practically every sentence). It is you who must fix the problems you have created. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It was fixed five minutes later :) Winchester2313 (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your desperate lies? Perhaps you should rethink that comment too. Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculative categorization[edit]

For the record, I object to your categorization of myself as you did here Whether I am or am not a "follower of Menachem Mendel Schneerson" is irrelevant, as reasonable people expect positions and contributions to be judged exclusively on their merits. I therefore take pains to source my edits. Regarding your reference to my relatively new status, might I draw your attention to; Winchester2313 (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not speculating, and I've done my best to explain WP:NOR to you, but you've completely rejected any acceptance or understanding of it, except when you want to claim (erroneously) that others are doing it. I'm happy to treat you as a newcomer if you're willing to recognize that you are a newcomer, and are seriously failing to comply with existing Wikipedia policies. There's no shame in that, as they're often complex and sometimes even counter-intuitive, but you must accept that you have to learn before you will actually learn. Jayjg (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why, if you post complaints on my talk page (which makes sense), why would you then remove my complaints to you from your own talk page? Is there a clear rule about this? Winchester2313 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Olidort on the record[edit]

Do you have any status updates on Mr. Olidort responding on the record regarding Erlich's quotes / comments?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry for not responding in any sort of timely fashion - I've been too busy in RL to make any substantial contributions on Wiki, and therefore haven't signed on or followed anything. AFAIK, David Olidort posted his denial on a blog he started, which I understand from the previous discussion is likely insufficient. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisting Édmée Schneerson[edit]

As reviewing administrator, I thought the nature of the AfD discussion had so far degenerated that, invoking IAR, I thought it advisable to close, blank, and relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Édmée Schneerson (2nd nomination). I'm sorry that you'll have to give the argument over again, but see my note at the AfD 2. And please avoid mentioning other matters than the article in question. I find it helps to avoid the word "you". DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your user page, may be associated with other blocked puppets[edit]

Hi Winchester2313: Since you have been active for well over a year, it would be nice if, like most normal active users on Wikipedia, you filled in your still-blank "User page" with some information about your interests to make inter-acting with you a little more pleasant and to make sure that you have no connection to a number of other "Winchesters+numerals" that are blocked on Wikipedia -- because there is also a problem that the main part of your "Winchester" user name belongs to banned names such as the blocked puppets User:Winchester53, User:Winchester54, User:Winchester55, User:Winchester Admiral, User:Winchesterfive. So as you can see, some clear-cut clarification from you that you are not connected to these or any banned sock puppets and vandals would go along way to adding to your credibility on Wikipedia. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI- I am not, have not, and will not be involved in any sock-puppetry or the like, and take umbrage at your repeated insinuations (on other pages) and accusations to that effect. Please stop it now. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The problem is that you share a user name "Winchester" with multiple blocked sock puppets so you need to clear it us as ASAP. Why not finally make your User page into something more than an empty hulking red link that just raises suspicions and does not help your credibility, especially since you are an unabashed (judging by your edit history) pro-Chabad POV WP:WARIOR, just listen to your angry and confrontational language and tones. You need to calm down and abide by WP:CIVIL. derech eretz kadma leTorah! Remember? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk at Shulchan Aruch talk page[edit]

Hi there Winschester: There was no need for you to sound "alarm bells" at the Shulchan Aruch talk page. I read through the article very carefully, I spent a couple of hours looking it over, and I made some helpful improvements to it. When writing I cannot add a reference to every word and line, but I know that what I added was verifiable and true and anyone is free to improve the article -- that aspect's always true on any Wikipedia articles, but first articles must be written. Some of the material you deleted I took directly from other articles on Wikipedia, so it's odd you object to them. Your accusations are baseless and violate WP:AGF as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with your dismissive tones against me (but I have come to get used to that from you albeit it is not right). In any case, if you had any problems with my edits, the way to go about it is to contact me on my talk page and/or start a discussion on the article's talk page or at WP:TALKJUDAISM (why are you so allergic to seeking WP:CONSENSUS?) and note the points you are disputing and then let a good faith discussion take place. I have now done so, at Talk:Shulchan Aruch#Recent edits, but I still cannot fathom why you placed a comment there out of order that I had to go searching for it in earlier comments. I do commend you on the high quality of your very constructive edits though. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The information I removed was that which I found to clearly fail WP:VERIFY and WP:SOURCE. The other corrections made were largely grammatical in nature, and stand on their respective merits (or lack thereof).... I also removed information related to the Maimonides page that had no direct relevance to the Shulchan Aruch. Regarding the discussion or lack thereof, I note that you didn't see fit to discuss your edits in advance, regardless of the likelihood that WP:UNSOURCED material will be subject to WP:CHALLENGE. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • You left more in than removed, and the stuff about the Rambam was from the article about him, and was very relevant, especially in understanding the historical Ashkenazi opposition to Sephardi pesak especially in the light of the cherem that the Ashkenazim put on the Rambam and burnt his seforim, even the Mishneh Torah (sound familiar -- maybe it's why you object so much?) -- the cherem still stands de facto on the Moreh Nevuchim -- but that is not the point. You just want to fight, fight, fight, and that is how you intimidate and wear out editors who do not agree with you, or better yet, you violently disagree with. Think of how you called others "liars" on the Rav Shach page, you just want to spread your virulent and confrontational derech wherever you land. Just stop it, will you, it will get you nowhere quickly. IZAK (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite... In fact, I take the WP:VERIFY rule very seriously, as it protects the integrity of the entire project, and am sorry if you don't. The rules are quite clear, namely, if you can't provide a reliable source then it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Please STOP with your personal attacks, I'm not the one plastering pages with speculative or blatantly false material. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yitzchok Hutner[edit]

Please discuss points and information you may dispute, and your reasoning, but do not remove material by blanket reverts that are counter-productive. If you wish to request more sources etc please do so by contacting other editors or by placing a note at WP:TALKJUDAISM for example. Please adhere to: (1) Wikipedia:Civility; (2) Wikipedia:Etiquette; (3) Wikipedia:No personal attacks; (4) Wikipedia:Assume good faith; (5) Wikipedia:Edit warring. Amazing how you consider yourself an "expert" on Litvisher roshei yeshiva, like Rav Shach and Rav Hutner, and it's just because their strong opposition to Chabad at various times is on the record. You obviously just want to wage wars to protect Chabad in the most blatant POV way, and to "shield" yourself you merrily blindly invoke all sorts of WP "policies" in the hope that no one will no notice what you are doing. Well, your game is up. Stop the monkey business ASAP. Be that as it may, I wanted to let you know that I got your latest message on my talk page and I have started a section at the Rav Hutner article's talk page where points can be discussed at length and CIVILLY (i.e. in a derech eretzdikker way) now that I am expanding the article even more, see Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

STOP your vandalism FINAL WARNING[edit]

Look here Winchester, I am trying to be reasonable with you. I have asked you to join me at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions for rational and sane discussions. Per your request I have added at least 10+ excellent references. I am adding more all the time. Feel free to be rational, but wild and blanket reverts like you are doing is vandalism and I will not warn you again. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your repeated threats and intimidation, specifically when you constantly level accusations of some spurious Chabad-POV in articles having nothing to do with Chabad. Lacking other recourse, and as you seem determined to continue with the threats and warring, I have no choice but to request an arbitrators involvement, which I will do shortly. Winchester2313 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Winchester2313. Thank you. — Favonian (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Hi Winchester231: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Winchester2313. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Refiling complaint @ ANI[edit]

Hi Winchester2313. The admins failed to reach any consensus, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Comment. Based on their comments, I have refiled the complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Winchester2313 summarized. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your scholarly contributions, and especially the work you do adding citations to some articles that have almost none. Especially the work you've done on Shulchan Aruch and Yitzchok Hutner. Please don't let the harrassment by User:IZAK stop your valuable contributions.Csteffen13 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Elazar Shach, you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually find your edits on this article to be disruptive editing and have left a message on both your page as well as the article's talk page attempting to reach consensus. I find your combative and high-handed approach whenever anybody disagrees with you on this (and similar) pages to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:CON, and request again that you attempt a discussion that doesn't look like you WP:OWN this site. Thanks again, Winchester2313 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

If you restore the material without consensus again, it goes straight back to AN/I. It's bad enough recruiting the meatpuppets, and the IP proxies were even worse. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem or something credible, please take it to ANI by all means. I don't appreciate what I see as your repeated carping and immature (and false) assertions of meatpuppetry on my part. I responded to your first fishing expedition quite clearly (I thought) regarding my lack of any involvement with other editors etc. The same truth remains. Please do not dump your accusations on my talk page in the future. Thank you. --Winchester2313 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Winchester2313. You have new messages at Talk:Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah#Collective noun / grammar edit.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elazar Shach[edit]

Hi. I saw your last three edits to Elazar Shach. And I don't think they made any sense. Are you by any chance a Lubavitcher? Debresser (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I simply removed information lacking credible sourcing as per WP:RS AND WP:OR. Self-published polemics lacking credible editorial oversight clearly fail the standards for inclusion. As does work by unknown pseudonyms, or blatant revisionists which a certain editor here seems to favor. What is a 'Lubavitcher' and why would that be relevant? --Winchester2313 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A "Lubavitcher" is a follower of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, whom Shach adamantly opposed. Debresser (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the relevance still escapes me...--Winchester2313 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edits seem to be inspired by pro-Lubavitch sentiments. For the record, that would be fine with me personally. Just asking. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My edits are inspired first by an affinity for history, and second by my anti-revisionist persuasion. I try to keep my personal sentiments out of my edits and let them stand on my research - hopefully I often succeed...?--Winchester2313 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

External Links on Siyum HaShas Page[edit]


Regarding your deletion of 2 links on the Siyum HaShas page (, can you please specify what's wrong with those links? Yonoson3 (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:EL and WP:ELNO. Those links serve no purpose here, and if every speech given at a 'Siyum Hashas' was linked the results would be predictably bizarre.--Winchester2313 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Menachem Mendel Schneerson, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to actually read the edit summary of my edit of Jan 26th, you would have seen that I had "revised wording to quote source precisely". I have now removed the tags you keep needlessly attaching to the sentence in question.--Winchester2313 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you were quoting a source, then why didn't you put the words in quotation marks? Please review WP:Plagiarism. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Hello. May I ask you to put your comments at the end of discussions and use the proper indents. I am referring to the discussion on Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#Deliberate_censorship_of_well-known_racist_comments_made_by_Rabbi_M._M._Schneerson_by_his_followers. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent discussion on Elazar Shach page[edit]


Do you have a response to what I responded to you here  ? If not, I'm restoring those edits. Yonoson3 (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello Winchester, regarding the latest at the Rabbi Shach talk page: Kindly avoid confrontational and deprecating terminology such as calling other user's material "nonsense" and "false claims" multiple times that's a violation of WP:CIVIL. Feel free to disagree but why are you insulting Yonoson all the time while he is respectful of you? The way you are going about constantly attacking Yonoson violates WP:CONSENSUS and of course WP:NPA by implication by making Yonoson seem like a spouter of "nonsense" and a "violator" while you take on the role of the one who "knows" what is "right and wrong". If you have a problem there are better ways to deal with it, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But the bickering and insults must stop. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good morning to you, IZAK and thank you for visiting my page. Although Yonoson3 has been active on Wikipedia for longer than I have, he doesn't seem to have bothered reading the guidelines and clearly has no interest in abiding by them. Quite aside from his blatant biases and WP:SPA status, he refuses to adhere to any of the guidelines and actually linked to a hate site before I removed it - see his activity here; I note your typical screed and personal attacks, and am truly sorry if requesting adherence to basic guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS affects your blood pressure in any unhealthy way.--Winchester2313 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moshe Teitelbaum (Ujhel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Satmar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi ,

In your revert of my edit on Chabad here, you write "Reverted as per source, which clearly calls them a 'small sect'." Could you specify in which source you found that language?

Thanks, (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. No. 7 on the article reference list; Winchester2313 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Winchester2313. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)