en User talk:Chocolatepizza

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!--Will Mak 050389 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha covered

Took care of the Ohr Somayach, Monsey and Kol Yaakov Torah Center articles. SOMEbody seems to have a grudge against Monsey. Please let me know if any more stuff like this comes up. --Yodamace1 16:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yechi merge

Thanks for taking care of it, it was long overdue. Shlomke 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

can you contact me using this feature? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Yehoishophot_Oliver thanks Yehoishophot Oliver 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award you with an Original Barnstar after seeing your excellent edits on the various Chabad articles. Kol ha'kavod! Thank you! Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

please check out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-18 Kol Yaakov Torah Center --Yodamace1 10:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks

Yes, I saw that, and it was completely uncalled for. However, be careful of pots and kettles. Bringing unsourced rumors about HaRav Shach and Lubavitch is a violation of unsourced defamatory biographical information, besides being MiSaper Achar Mitaso Shel Talmid Chocham, which, if I recall correctly, is one of ChaZal's definitions of apikorsus. I think you both should calm down, and only bring well-cited information to an article, instead of you both seeming to use wikipeia as a vehicle to further your various (and idealogical incompatible) interests. -- Avi 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a single thing I wrote there which can fall under the term misaper achar mitaso shel talmid chochom, unlike this gentleman here. I merely took out the ridiculous things this man calls neutral and sourced, and added sourced information from other portions of wikipedia. I may have certain inclinations, but I would never have written what this man suggested about the Lubavitcher Rebbe. 67.81.154.219 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R' Shach

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Elazar Shach. 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. -- Avi 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what I wrote on your talk page. Chocolatepizza 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb, but the following is completely unacceptable Chabad characterized Rabbi Shach's opposition to Rabbi Schneerson as being personal in nature, and stemming from disgustingly egotistical reasons, which came as the result of the following. he applied to become the head of the Lubavitch yeshiva. The students, came to hear a trial lecture, and the students refuted his lecture in its entirety.

The above cannot be allowed in the article, even if it is sourced, it is written in such NPOV, and disgusting, tones, that it is unacceptable. -- Avi 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as I have written I had not added this, I was reverting his entire changes, as he had been removing sourced info and adding much unsourced and pov info. I will be more careful in the future. Chocolatepizza 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only I deleted was THAT uncources and inappropriate language. In addition, I added npov language sourced in other Wikipedia articles. You attempted to vandalize that with your disruptive editing. You knew EXACTLY what you were adding. You let it in.

Highly objectionable content is added on other pages with the justification of sources. If this has sources, why shouldn't it stay? Yehoishophot Oliver 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was unsourced. Do you have a reliable source for the claim? -- Avi 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Rebbe.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rebbe.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm?

Why did you revert all my edits? I just added some more info and sources? Where is the POV? You cant argue that. I am going to revert it and you can revert point by point please.

You cant just revert every diff that I made. Sorry.

Lobojo (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV. Chocolatepizza (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Could you go through the things I added or changed and tell me why? You cant make massive deletions of sources information and simply reply NPOV. Lobojo (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I currently appear to be in an edit war? OH RIGHT WITH YOU!! COOL!! Lobojo (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is you making the massive changes. You are new here. Please read the policies. Chocolatepizza (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making massive changed, I was adding more stuff. Anyway, making massive changes is not a crime. You need to discuss the changes one at a time and not reject them in a lanket fashion. Lobojo (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were mostly reverting to very old versions of the page. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't. And again even if I was that is not a funamental problem. If you object to my changes we need to discuss them one by one. I took the time to make them after all. Lobojo (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please

I make a few edits to Chabad articles and I have a bunch of monkeys on my back within an hour reverting everything I do. I read the talk page first, and there NOTHING to explain why it was removed, they are ALL chabad controversies, without any doubt. IZAK comment on the matter remains unrefuted after 6 months and people keep removing the section.

This is not chabad.org. You can do what you want there buddy. But this needs to reflect all views on Chabad. The views of people that think chabad is the best thing since Jesus Christ, and the views of those who think that it sucks monkey balls, but mainly the views of impartial academics on the subject.

Lobojo (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to me as a bunch of monkeys is a personal attack which can get you blocked. When you are ready to be civil please let me know. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE!! HAve you never heard the expression monkey on your back? Are you unfamiliar with the idiom? I wasn't reffering to you.

I reemain critical of your actions, following me around and reverting all my edits without any justification, and accusing me of Libel, you need to engage in debate and avoid this kind of posturing and prissyness. Lobojo (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobojo

Can you lend a hand? I just had a series of edits on the Menachem Mendel Schneerson page reverted by Lobojo, I see reading around that he has a hand in many pots. The article as it stands is not merely scholarly, it is a charge against the Rebbe's reputation wearing a thin disguise of selective sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.50.83 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad

Can you please explain in Talk on Chabad your recent edits concerning Chabad institutions? I am concerned you are removing too much detail, leaving a plain number of institutions, without any context of what those institutions are. Abe Froman (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I already explained this back in April. See Talk:Chabad#Revisions. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an answer. Why is a plain number being used in your edit, when more detailed numbers, broken out by country and type of institution, are readily available? Abe Froman (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You first need to count them. The count done by David Spart is simply not accurate. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who David Spart is. If the count concerncing breakout by institution type and country is incorrect, submit another. Can you please add back the information that was removed concerning institutions broken out by type and country? Make your own count, it's not the number that is important, but the preservation of detail in the article. This request has also been made on the Talk page at Chabad. Abe Froman (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the discussion on Talk:Chabad. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living person biographies

Hey Chocolatepizza. I am about to sign off but have identified two WP:BLP problematic articles and posted them to the noticeboard. Can you lend a hand with them in any way? (jarbarf) (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

I would appreciate it if you could respond to my comments Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies#Local controversies. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad article AFD

Hi: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House and if you can raise the quality of Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JLI on template

Thank you very much for starting an article on JLI, but don't you think it's premature to put it on the template before the article is developed? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance of photo

Choc, what can you tell me about the provenance of this photo? I'd like to upload it to the Commons and use it in the Chabad article, but I need to know its copyright status. I assume it was taken some time in the 1930s, either in Poland or at some spa, perhaps in Austria. This matters, because if it was in Poland then it's in the public domain and can be uploaded to WP with no probs, but if it's in Austria then it may still be copyright. I'd also like a source other than Scott, so that I don't have to credit him with it :-) I understand that it was distributed to the shluchim at last year's kinus; any idea where it came from? -- Zsero (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you opinate on this

I posted on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Moshe_Rubashkin about an article that you edited. Please, could you go there and comment on the situation? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2008 (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) 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

Hi Chocolate: 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)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vaad Rabonei Lubavitch

The article Vaad Rabonei Lubavitch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced. No evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rebbe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Rebbe.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prod

Proposed deletion of Zalman Shmotkin

The article Zalman Shmotkin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.