User talk:High Leader

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Please don't leave empty parameters in templates, like you did in this edit. Leave only those parameters that you will actually use in the template. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry High Leader (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just teaching you good editing practices. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Skyraider1. I wanted to let you know that I undid your recent edit to Grumman F4F Wildcat; near as I can tell, the information/sources removed seemed relevant to the article. If I missed something, feel free to edit again to help improve the article. It's very helpful if you leave an edit summary, so that other editors don't have to guess why edits were made. Thanks! Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry that "edit" was a complete accident, I didn't even realize that it happened. Thanks for undoing it. I may have been trying to delete an extra space or something and accidentally selected a bunch of text without realizing. High Leader (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming good faith, I appreciate it. High Leader (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again, there's a space between the word "Martlet" and the reference which comes after it which I had wanted to remove. For some reason I wasn't able to edit in source so I tried using visual editor instead, although it doesn't work well on my phone & makes it very easy to mess up large amounts of text without realizing it... Which is apparently what happened. High Leader (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. No worries. Happy editing! Skyraider1 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that shouldn't be included, shouldn't parents know what education their children receive there? Somerabbis (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, if you want to put it on, it should be written in a more neutral tone - for instance, describing it as "hate" is opinionated (my guess is that it was more about making fun of a group they view as ridiculous - kind of like kids laughing at a monkey).

However, I think it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in the first place. Even if I would fully agree that parents should know about it, that would not mean it deserves to be on an encyclopedia. If every time bochurim in a Litvish yeshiva poked fun at Chabad (or vice versa) it got onto Wikipedia, there would be no end to it. In a yeshiva I was in guys burned Lubavitch kuntresim and regularly made fun of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, & our Rosh Yeshiva didn't care. Should that go on Wikipedia? These things are not significant enough to deserve mention, in my opinion. High Leader (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard plenty of stories about Lubavitch bochurim making fun of Litvishe gedolim (calling bathroom "Kotler", singing "Bnei banav shel Haman lamdu Torah biBnei Brak" about R' Shach, etc). Do we really want to start a mud slinging fight on Wikipedia, where every nasty thing anyone ever said about anyone else is recorded? High Leader (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amen Zeke921 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With an education that it's perfectly ok to poke fun at other gedolim, and compare them to monkeys, I wonder how frum you truly are. I also wonder who's the Rosh Yeshiva who didn't care about Ahavas Yisroel and Lashon Horah. Please enlighten me. Somerabbis (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kristallnacht, I've never heard of the costom of burning Jewish books. Perhaps that itself deserves a Wiki Page? Somerabbis (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey relax, I'm not trying to offend you, please don't take offense. I specifically avoided mentioning my own opinions here because they are irrelevant. The "monkey comparison" was explaining the perspective of the bochurim in Ner Yisroel - I didn't say or imply that it was my opinion. My point is that these type of things happen on a regular basis - "boys will be boys". It doesn't deserve a mention on Wikipedia. I do think a page about the relationship of Lubavitch with the broader chareidi community is a good idea, IF (big if there) it is written in an unbiased manner and documents the behavior of both sides. High Leader (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me asking, but have you studied in a mainstream Lubavitch high school? Your surprise at this type of behavior gives me the impression that you did not. Again, I genuinely do not wish to insult you or engage in a personal fight; please do not take offense. High Leader (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sensitivity. Yes, I went through the regular Chabad System, and due to my business fly around the world often. I see first hand the Achdus in Klal Yisroel, weather it's a Lakewood family spending Shabbos in a Chabad house, or the entire world praying and then rejoicing for Rubashkin. The days of Machlokes are long over. In Lubavitch itself, you will never hear someone poke fun at today's Gedolim. I've never seen any Yeshivos poking fun at Rav Shteimen, or others for an 'Adar Shpil'. What upsets me about the Ner Yisroel incident, is not only the children's behavior, rather where was their Hanhala to condemn them? If such a thing would happen in Lubavitch, there would be days of Achdus Asifos to follow. And there comes my question, does the Hanhala care about Totah and Mitzvos, or is it only their way of life that interests them? As per poking fun of Shach, I believe it's a clear Gemara, החולק על רבו מצוה לשונאו, I think we can all agree that Shach was a hater of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Somerabbis (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Somerabbis (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you hold it's legitimate to make fun of R' Shach, & they think it's legitimate to make fun of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Both were cholek on the other, neither respected the other, nor did their students. If Lubavitch can make fun of R' Shach, why can't followers of R' Shach make fun of the Rebbe? And it's not limited to R' Shach either. R' Ahron Kotler is not referred to very respectfully in Lubavitch, and neither is the Satmar Rebbe. I have heard of Lubavitchers making fun of the Vilna Gaon (but never once did I hear of anyone making fun of the Baal Hatanya or Rashab etc). If it's ok for one side it's ok for the other. You are fully entitled to your opinion, they are to theirs. High Leader (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that the Shach/Chabad conflict was a one way conflict. The Rebbe never, and I repeat never, poked fun at Shach, or his students. Shach on the other hand, continuously tried bashing Chabad and the Rebbe. (It doesn't take much to check that out, just open up any of his books and you'll see for yourself). Since his times BH, there has been almost no Machlokes between Litvish and Chabad. There is no other Gadol which you'll hear Chabad making fun of, they may disagree, but that's where it ends. Somerabbis (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebbe never said that R' Shach had possul tefilin? And I have seen Lubavitchers making fun of R' Ahron Kotler - you're telling me you have never heard of such a thing? But either way, it still seems rather unfair to demand that no one make fun of the Rebbe while openly mocking R' Shach.

As an aside, I would disagree with your assertion that R' Shach was continuously bashing the Rebbe. Most of R' Shachs statements about Lubavitch ignore the Rebbe or only hint to him; he definitely did mock him at times, but it's not as if you can open up Michtavim Umaamarim or Avi Ezri and find him making fun of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. High Leader (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebbe was trying to help him, by telling him he had Posul Tefilin, which he actually did. Would you take it offensive if someone says he thinks your Teffilin are Posul, and indeed they were? Somerabbis (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He openly called the Rebbe a lunatic Somerabbis (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source that his tefilin were actually found to be possul?

And yes, I'm not denying that he made fun of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. High Leader (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how anything the Rebbe said, was met with criticism. Mivtza Teffilin - everyone does that today, children Lag B'omer parades, Learning Rambam - Shach himself wrote Seforim on Rambam. Demanding Moshiach - again, something which everyone agrees to today. And the list goes on and on. Somerabbis (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Teffilin, I remember Shach wanted the Rebbe to be put the Rebbe on Cherem for saying that his Teffilin were Posul, the Rabbinim told him he must actually check them before anything, and that was the end of it. Somerabbis (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Shach declared that eeived in Golus for 2000 years, and it won't bother us to live in Golus another 2000 years. This goes against the clear belief in אחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא Somerabbis (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what kind of Gadol the Chofetz Chaim would consider Shach after saying such words Somerabbis (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey we can fight about this for a few years, I don't really see any point to it. I'm not going to convince you, and you aren't going to convince me. I understand that you don't like R' Shach, and that's fine. I'm not going to explode. High Leader (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy way out, just don't put him and the Rebbe in the same category Somerabbis (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr some rabbis do you not realize your hypocrisy, you talk about ahavat yisroel, and tikun olam, and all that reform theology, but the second it comes to HaRav Shach you go off the rail?? Zeke921 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who doesn't believe in Moshiach, isn't HaRav. See what the Rambam calls such a person Somerabbis (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic on hand, let's write up a non biased paragraph to include the incident on Ner Yisroel's page Somerabbis (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this: In February of 2018, controversy arose when the Students of Ner Yisroel mocked the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Chabad. Some Chabadnicks took the incident personally, and we're upset that the administration refused to apologise. Somerabbis (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source will be neutral, for example The Forward Somerabbis (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I still think it doesn't deserve mention, but I won't fight it if it's neutral. I would change the phrasing from "the students" to "some students" (just a השערה, but this whole thing was probably the work of two or three guys). High Leader (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, agree Somerabbis (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the rebbe say that Rabbi Shach is a shota? Also, can you explain what the rebbe meant when he said that a tzaddik is Hashem in levush gashmi in a non- blasphemous way? Charlie Ferd (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebbe never called Shach a Shota. Learn the Sicha of Achron Shel Pesach 5710, to see what the Rebbe said about Atzmus Umehus Mlubash Bguf. ====

Uriel da Costa Zeke921 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, 'Pirates' presented a much more positive view of him. Completely ignored claim that he wanted to murder cousin, rejected (or at least entertained possibility of rejecting) divine origin of the Torah & afterlife, & was going out of his way to fight with everyone. He could have just left the community or kept his idiotic ideas to himself. No need to act like a maniac. And being that he denied afterlife, why did he care about the whole thing, he should have just converted to Christianity and partied until he dropped. High Leader (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim. Agav he was put into cherem by Isaac Aboab da Fonseca and possibly Professor Moriarty

Zeke921 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Sherlock Holmes put people in חרם?? -user:Editor8778 —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need the Kashruth part back by the Braekel article! user:Editor8778

Hello, High Leader. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A request has been opened at WP:ANI which concerns your behavior. Please respond there.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fluke High Leader (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]