User talk:Meshulam

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Meshulam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  and Bruchim Haba'im IZAK 07:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Burshtin

Meshulem, do you know anything about Burshtin (Hasidic dynasty), about it's existence etc.? there is currently a vote for deletion going on Here. Shlomke 21:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Chasidic Judaism-related articles

Hi Meshulam, hope you had a enjoyable peisach. Regarding the last comment on my page about Burshtin, I wasn't sure who you ment but I figured it was about the "defender" of the article. The problem is that some new editors of Chasidic Judaism related articles know very little or nothing about Wikipedia policy like Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There is also a great need for such editors here. There was a special "messege" proposal for those knowledgeable about Chasidisim, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#The Wikipedian Hassidim. The messege will invite them to come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism where they will see whats needed to be done for judaism related stuff and also how to Keep to WP policy's. I just left one on Sunny123's page. (He sure got some klep on his page).

Btw, thanks for the input at the Chabad article. Shlomke 08:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Messege:

Dear new editor. From your contributions to Hasidic Judaism-related articles I've got the impression you are knowledgeable about this field. There are many articles in need of attention, and I was wondering if you could join our discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism|the "Judaism" WikiProject]]. Hope to hear from you ~~~~

Shlomke 08:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Reminder of Wikipedia rules

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Strasheler

Would you ahppen to know the source of a story that I have seen floating around the internet that the Toldos Avraham Yitzchok became a Chabad Chosid according to the Shita of the Strashele? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The will

Meshulam, were you able to find the copys of of the will's on that site? Shlomke 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, your doing alot of work here with the Hasidic dynastys, you might want to add you name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism#Directory of participants. Shlomke 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

M, to say the Rebbe is the last Rebbe is pov; we will find out over the next few years whether that is true or not; for now to say he is the latest is correct, it may mean others will follow, or it may mean that he is the last. Incorrect 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)M, only G-D knows whether there will be another Rebbe. Since I certainly (and you to my best knowledge) are not give G-dly powers, I don't understand how you can speak with such certainty on that point. It may be your belief, hope, prayer, etc. but by definition it can't be to your knowledge.Incorrect 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

/Numbers/ M, I expect your knowledge in this area is superior to mine - how do we go about getting good estimates of numbers for the various hassid groups out there; the information must be available somewhere. Incorrect 06:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking.Incorrect 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Liozna

seeing your discussions about Chabad, i'm pointing you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liozna

Layla Tov!gevaldik! 06:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

how many chassidic jews exist?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hasidic_Judaism#Question_about_How_Many_Chasidic_Jews_exist

KT, JJ211219 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Quit this

Quit your Zionist slander and lies. See my talk page. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hello. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks in advance. בברכה, El_C 09:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I've just noticed the user's unacceptable edit summaries and I have issued him a strong warning to that effect. בברכה, El_C 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

• WP:3RR. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Prophet in Peace be upon him article

Thanks for taking the time to discuss the issue. I do think it improves wikipedia when there can be a rationale understanding of the different sides of an article. My issue with the use of the phrase "Jewish Prophet" was that I felt it was an attempt to monopolize claim to the message Moses came with. I know in the Jewish faith, Moses is revered as a Prophet; he is also viewed as Prophet in Islam. However, Moses in Islam should not be called a jew as he was one who believed in and followed true Islamic monotheism; the only difference between him and Muhammad was that some of the laws. To single him out as a "Jewish Prophet" dismiss the Islamic claim to him. Similarly, given the nature of the change to the article, I felt it this phrase needed to be amended. If my explanation was unclear, I wouldn't mind trying to be more articulate. ZaydHammoudeh 08:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion...

Dear Meshulam:

see my replies on SlimVirgin's page. Bellbird 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I just realised that I left my latest reply above your comment in SlimVirgin's page - oh well. I should probably stop using text-only browsers - they aren't working as a way to dissuade me from logging in during work hours ;) Bellbird 12:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

You reverted my changes to the article, so that it once again presents the IDF version of events as objective fact.

It is not "paranoia" to not automatically accept this version. Israel has an extraordinarly large and active "intelligence community" which would be easily capable of forging a few documents.

What I'm saying is Wikipedia should not accept the claims made by one side of a war against the other side, especially when the only corroborating evidence could very easily have been forged.

Eleland 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NK isn't a side in a war, despite you assertions. It isn't like the IDF and the PA disagree over NK's involvement in Arafat's regime. Were that the case, it would be wrong to take sides between warring fractions here on Wikipedia. However, there is no compelling reason for IDF to make up lies about NK, an organization that is annoying at best. Furthermore, I'm not even sure NK responded to the allegations. Certainly, they would not be offended at the assertion that they were involved with an anti-Zionist regime! They appear alongside the President of Iran frequently.

What is paranoia is questioning every proclamation made by a certain government. That would lead to articles that are unnecessarily full of equivocal language like "alleged" and "claimed." Where would that end? "The US claims that the Southern border of Florida is the ocean." "The Bahamas claims to be a series of Islands." "Environmentalists claim that the Bald Eagle is a bird." If there is no compelling reason not to believe something, and it has been verified, why not state it like it is? --Meshulam 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I had no intention of asserting NK was a side in a war; the two sides I had in mind were Israel and the PA.

It's ludicrous to claim that anyone is "questioning every proclamation" made by Israel. What I'm questioning is Israel's ability and willingness to produce wartime propaganda about their opponents. If the US was envolved in a 60-year border war with someone over Florida it would be very sensible to question US proclamations about Florida's borders, and whatever documents they used to support those proclamations.

In any case it's a fairly minor aspect of a niche article and I don't really care enough to argue with you any more. Eleland 20:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself, buddy. NK is not a side in the conflict. They haven't even controverted the allegation that they are in league with the enemies of Israel (rather, they pretend that their friends are not the enemies of Israel, which is entirely different). If you were talking about something that was asserted by Israel, and was disputed by the Palestinians, I would agree with you. But we're talking about something that is asserted by Israel, and isn't disputed by anybody. --Meshulam 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1929

Btw friend, you might be interested to stick your teeth into the original article of 1929 Palestine riots. From here the Hebron article was created, and now there are 2 versions. This earlier version needs to concentrate on the other killings and also remove some of the POV against Jews there. Note that a very pov introduction was removed by me in the past, and there are users who might want to push that in again. it will be under heavier attack from specific users you can see in history of that page. Amoruso 08:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER

You had some questions that, with respect, we've answered in the Zvhil discussion. Hope that clears things up and you find it helpful.--ChosidFrumBirth 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I asked any questions, though I've see you've provided some answers. I have responded in the article.--Meshulam 02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)

Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a {{merge to}} template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.) IZAK 10:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My contention isn't that it is a small group. It is that there is no difference between this article and at least 2 other articles. The Medzhibozh article is irrelevant because it is pre-empted, not because it is small.--Meshulam 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi: What do you mean by "pre-empted" - I don't understand the context or the meaning of how you are using this word here. I repeat, if you think that this article should be merged with another article then take that route, but don't try to blast it out of existence before it has even had a chance to be nurtured by other editors who may be able to add to it. Is that what you mean by "pre-empted" you are suffocating it before its birth, before it can develop into something of its own? Please have in mind that these are complex, complicated, and delicate topics, and Wikipedia is providing a forum and format to publish these important articles, so please do not vent against this one prematurely with rash acts, as it seems you are "picking on it" unfairly. Please re-read what I have written to you above. Thanks, and be well. Kol Tuv! IZAK 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry we got off to a bad start. Sometimes, the lack of inflection can make anyone's criticism seem overly harsh. On the other hand, perhaps I have been too harsh. Either way, I hope we can put any problems aside. For clarification purposes, I do not have a personal issue with R' Korff. I nominated the article for deletion because I believed there were issues with it. I will continue to work on editing it to make sure that it is accurate, and complies with Wikipedia policy. As you know, from learning Gemara, enduring criticism leads to perfection. I hope that between your knowledge of Zhvill-Mezbuz and some other editors criticism (including my own), we can arrive at a finished project that is both informative and accurate. I hope this helps. Either way, it looks like we'll be stuck with each other: the editors of articles about Chassidus on Wikipedia form a small community. Take care, and have fun.--Meshulam 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. I really appreciate it. With that approach I don't feel "stuck" with you at all, and look forward to cooperating with you in any way I can. Although I am not one of the Rebbe's hasidim (I have communicated with him but haven't really met him yet), he is a distant cousin on the Chernobyl side through Tolne and I do know a good deal about his family and Zvill-Mezuz. Let me know what I can do to help -- I will keep an eye on the related pages (as well as others). Please don't be offended at all if I correct what you or others may edit. I will only do so if I am sure of my facts. Again, thank you. (I don't know if you get this here or if I have to put this on your page -- I will do so there, but please let me know proper procedure or protocol.) --ChosidFrumBirth 22:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)--ChosidFrumBirth 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note

BS"D

In your message on Wiki talk Hebrew You said the ashkenazic of Sfat Emet is Tzfas Emes, It's not. It's Sfas Emes. --Shaul avrom 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. I think I was distracted when I wrote that. I commented on it about 10 minutes later, and resolved to fix it. I thought I had fixed it. Feel free to do so. Thanks.--Meshulam 21:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel

Take a look at Daniel's page. Yossiea 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it before. I even read the pages he cited as proof that I had given him a hard time. Honestly, all I ever do with him is enforce wikipedia policy. He likes to input his own POV and his own OR into articles. I correct the articles, and he flies into a fit. He once called me a Zionist in the same paragraph as he said that all Zionists should "perish immediately." Not exactly a statesman. I imagine you have a similar history with the guy.--Meshulam 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and if he's true to himself, he'll be back soon, either as Daniel or as a different screenname. That's his general MO. On one site I'm on, he's been banned like 6 times already. Yossiea 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He's already said goodbye, and come back, once. But I'm not interested in beating a dead horse. I'm more interested in the issues here.--Meshulam 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your note re: Daniel

Not a strange request at all, but perfectly reasonable. I've removed the names from the user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Antagonist [an-tag-uh-nist] –noun- 1. a person who is opposed to, struggles against, or competes with another; opponent; adversary.

You guys are on opposite sides of issue in these wars. Hence, you are antagonists. If that's a personal attack, I am an elephant. - crz crztalk 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Are his attacks against me acceptable as well? I think he has gone overboard. Why is he allowed to continously get away with things? Yossiea 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jew who becomes a Christian

Until he decides to become a Jew again, he is considered a goy for all purposes. His exact status is a matter of dispute. If I recall correctly, the Rambam says he becomes a plain goy and will need to do a giur to become a Jew again. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Practically, we treat him like a goy for the purposes of being posul wine, etc. But I know of no modern poskim that say he needs to be megiyer again. --Meshulam 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noahide

Hi, please join in the discussion on the Noahide Laws talk page about cleaning it up etc. Thanks! Chavatshimshon 08:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry for the confusing edit summary. I thought I was on HaEdah HaCharedis. My browser is having some trouble. --Erliche Yid 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Comments

I didn't initiate the deletions -- Greenbrook checked and said we each had the right to delete our own comments, particularly if we found out our comments were wrong, so we both deleted our own comments (he did it for me). So I've reverted it. On the other Zvl page I just noticed the deletions there, but I do agree with whoever did it. Putting aside our own personal feelings, if wrong information has been resolved, shouldn't the discussion, which includings misleading information and could be libels, be archived at some point? I've left that one alone for the moment. Thanks. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it - thanks. But what about statements like "he's not respected" which was deleted from the article after discussion (I wasn't involved in that) -- shouldn't something like that be archived somehow as being outdated or irrelevant or misleading; what about things that are blatantly wrong in any article -- do they stay up forever? There should be some mechanism for archiving once issues are resolved, no? --ChosidFrumBirth 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Content disputes as opposed to vandalism

Regarding [1] the edit is a content dispute, not vandalism. Please don't call it as such (in any event, it would be good to source the entire section which is woefully lacking in sources for such a controversial topic). JoshuaZ 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 01:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you please take a step back. Remember that incivility by others is not an excuse to be uncivil to anther editor. If you are having an edit conflict, and you can't resolve it on your own, try bringing the issue to the mediation cabal. While not official by any means, these cabalists seem to have the art of dispute resolution down quite well. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mesh, do you have specific articles I can take a look at in particular and what the relevant matters are? Also, note that I can't protect things simply due to an editor putting in conent. Protection occurs if multiple users are repeatedly edit-warring over content and then it occurs with no regard to what version was protected. JoshuaZ 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tough Guy

I'm impressed with the lengths to which you're willing to go to defend your Rebbe. I know very little about him (other than what I posted earlier). But the fact that he has such a Chosid like this speaks volumes about his gadlus. (This is not to cause anyone to have gaavah... the comment was purely about the Rebbe :-P ). Keep it up. --Meshulam 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "compliment" I think. You sound like an interesting person yourself (and you seem to know quite a lot about the Rebbe, tho not all of it accurate or from reliable sources without an agenda) -- ever get to the New York area? --ChosidFrumBirth 15:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Haven't heard back from you -- everything OK? --ChosidFrumBirth 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel is Back

Yet again, this IP is him.Yossiea 18:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardal

I suggest marking any of the facts which you consider to be particularly suspect with fact tags. I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll try to take a look at the concerns in more detail when I have time. JoshuaZ 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Der Yid

Meshulam: you edited Der Yid to the following:

Der Yid does not use standard YIVO Yiddish. Instead, it uses a Yiddish dialect more commonly spoken by religious Jews.

The YIVO standard is a standard for spelling Yiddish, not for speaking it. Can you please rewrite your edit so that it makes sense (since you didn't like my much more amusing edit). --Redaktor 13:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Point (though YIVO also has attempted to keep the Yiddish vocabulary strictly Yiddish, making up words for things like "Coffee House," while Hassidim have integrated English words into their standard Yiddish). I only changed it because there seemed to be a judgment about which Yiddish was standard Yiddish, and which was not standard. I'll go change it. --Meshulam 15:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Meshulam Feish Segal

Are you the same person as Meshulam Feish Segal, Rebbe of the Tosher Chassidim...? Noogster 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The image of the Tosher Rebbe using a typewriter, much less a computer, made me smile. Thank you. --Meshulam 21:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that Chassidim can't use computers? Just because they're strictly Orthodox doesn't mean they're 'tarded about technology. :D Noogster 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that Chassidim can't use computers? Just because they're strictly Orthodox doesn't mean they're 'tarded about technology. :D Noogster 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. 1 Most Chassidisher Rebbeim have forbidden their Chassidim from using computers.
2. 2 Tosh is more insular than most Chassidim (which means, a fortiori, the computer is frowned upon in the Tosher Rebbe's community.
3. 3 The Tosher Rebbe himself is too busy, most likely, running his community to come onto Wikipedia and edit articles about himself.

I assume you're joking, and its not a bad joke. --Meshulam 17:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see this afd

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_of_Chabad-Lubavitch --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel575 is back

How do I report "Bear and Dragon" as a socketpuppet of Daniel575? --Historian2 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for participation

Please give your view on Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Despite the fact that we disagree quite often, I would value your view. --Bear and Dragon 13:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) at Mediation Cabal

A long-simmering editorial dispute between Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs) over how to deal with information about certain Hasidic topics has reached the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Please see and provide any helpful input at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Thank you, IZAK 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rabbeinu

BS"D

On his User page, the seforim list matches his list on Dutch Wikipedia+chovos halevovos. Its takeh got to be Daniel --Shuliavrumi 12:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The URL for the book list from dutch wiki is [1

Conduct

I meant exactly that. There was a lot of incivility, accusations of religious motivation, all of those wonderful types of things. If you didn't do that, I didn't mean you. If you did, then I did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chabad article

I'd appreciate your comments on the Chabad article talk page. I feel sources in the messianism controversy section are being mis-summarized by an admin, and want a second opinion. Thanks. Abe Froman 22:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

re: your accusatory comments on my talk page. I am not the anon editor who left that "parasites" rant. We both know that is an anti semitic code word. I had nothing to do with it. Abe Froman 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I retrieved this from the Abe.Froman user talk files because I want to reply:

I do not know what "contributions" you suggested, but by your tone, it sounds like you were attempting to do a hit piece. Calling Chabad a "cult grop" and "opportunistic religious fanatics" is fairly POV. If your edits betrayed that POV, then they were violative of Wikipedia policy. I read the page, and I don't see these fatal flaws that you talk about. Finally, when asking for my help on an article on an article, you should be careful before the subject of your edits "parasites." It appears as though this conversation is over.--Meshulam 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My discussion with the Chabad editors came just before Abe.Froman tried editing the article. All you need to do is look. Below is part of what I said. I am not anti-Chabad, but actually feel very close to them, and have had a lot of discussion with some of their rabbis. But there is no denying that there are points of disagreement.

As fond as I am of the Chabad teaching, I have to tell you guys that this article reads like a promotional piece, and not like an encyclopedia article. Even the "Controversies" section manages to avoid mentioning any of the real criticism that has exists, and that has been published. If nothing is done to improve the article I will tag it for its non-neutral point of view. Kwork 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at this article, and really it amounts to Chabad propaganda. This is to the point where I think there are grounds to nominate it for deletion. I have tagged the article for its lack of neutrality. I understand that strong personal beliefs are involve in this article, but Wikipedia is not about promoting one's personal beliefs, or promoting one's favorite religious organization. There are plenty of Chabad web sites that do that already. Wikipedia articles here are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Kwork 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I had suggested that the material about the Chabad outreach and service activities be put in a separate article, leaving the emphasis in the main article on the Chabad history and the (most important) Chabad spiritual teaching. I thought, and still do think, that this would improve the article considerably because most of what gives the article its current promotional quality is associated with the pitch for that part of their work.

The Chabad editors are very dedicated, and very effective at preventing unwanted changes; and in disgust with Wikipedia (because the main fault is in Wikipedia) I had my user page deleted. However, just the other day I discovered I can still sign my user name....Kwork 18:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For your remarks on my user page. They are noted. Please participate in the discussion on Talk:Neturei Karta. As I wrote there: it must be clarified that the vast majority of NK adherents DO NOT support Ahmedinejad and Hamas. Hirsch's faction is a tiny faction of radicals/extremists, as Odenheimer says. Odenheimer is a much more reliable source than Arutz Sheva or the ADL; I assume that you do understand this, unlike some of our Zionist editors... --Eidah 09:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please step in to confirm that indeed Hirsch's faction is the "extremist" fashion. Leaving that out makes the entire article useless. If Hirsch's faction is not characterized as "extremist", then WHAT is the difference between the two groups, if not the fact that one is extremist/radical and the other is more moderate? The usage of the word "extremist" is not POV in this regard, just like calling Osama Bin Laden an extremist when comparing him to reformist pro-Western Muslims. --Eidah 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

category anti Zionism

user eidah tries pouting al Jewish pages with some statements against Zionism in this category i see u had this issue before in the pages itself please comment on this issue as well thanks very much--יודל 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

Please see the article and talk page for yidisheryid's edits and POV pushing. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also call on meshulam to edit my POV. thanks--יודל 14:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shraga Hager

Hi, there is currently a discussion about the notability of Rabbi Shraga Hager your insight on this would greatly be appreciated[2]. Have a beautiful day--יודל 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rav Moshe Feinstein on Zionism

Where did you get the information about Rav Moshe saying that one should not say "first flowering of the redemtion"? I thought Rav Moshe never talked about Zionism! (Please respond to me on the user talk:TorahTemima)

Zionist intolerance

Hello! Rabbi or Mr. Meshulam. I am relativelly new in the Wikipedia, but I see that the Zionists made themselves very comfortable here, and are attacking everyone that believes different then them. I have created the Yishuv haYashan article, which is something important historically speaking. I see they are trying to remove any information about the Haredim who didn't participate in the Zionist movement. Furthermore the whole history of the Yishuv haYashan Kollelim was ignored but instead an article about Halukka in a negative spotlight. They are trying to persuade that all those who did for our brothers in Eretz Yisroel were Zionists. I would suggest that we incorporate in a WikiProject:Yishuv haYashan or WikiProject:Torah Judaism in order to clearify the facts.

HagiMalachi (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism related deletion

An article who voted on in the past concerning to delete it or not, has been recreated and nommed for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein 3rd nom --Joseph3333 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

Hi Meshulam: 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) 05:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)