User talk:אֶפְרָתָה

Welcome!

Hello, אֶפְרָתָה, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breslov

I also live in Jerusalem and I know people who are affiliated with Rabbi Yaakov Meir Shechter and the Edah. To my knowledge, this is the core group from which Na Nach, Chut shel Chesed, and others spun off. I would like to leave the information with a fact tag, and find a reference for it. Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. Just because other groups are bigger doesn't invalidate the original group in Mea Shearim, which by the way is still flourishing (as you can see from the picture of Breslover children on the page). I'm fixing the language now and will hopefully come up with a reference soon. Yoninah (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that that it is not a large number, just a small number. Mea Shearim is not the original group, there are many. I feel that if only one Rabbi out of a bunch is affiliated, then it should say so. Maybe something like "In Jerusalem, a small number of Breslov Hasidim are affiliated with the Edah HaChareidis" What do you think?

PS You should drop into Shavu Banim and/or Chut Shel Chessed some time and check them out.

http://www.breslev.co.il/articles/news_and_updates/news/hear_rabbi_arush_and_rabbi_brody_live.aspx?id=10529&language=english If you’re in Israel, take advantage of Chut Shel Chessed’s “Open Yeshiva” Program, every Wednesday afternoon and evening. The Chut Shel Chessed Yeshiva offers weekly emuna lectures that are open to the public. Every Wednesday, there is a 5 PM lecture in English by Rabbi Lazer Brody and a 9 PM Hebrew lecture by Rabbi Shalom Arush. Address: Shmuel HaNavi 13, Jerusalem. Don’t miss this wonderful opportunity! Women are cordially invited too.

Also check out Rabbi Brody/ Arush's new book. I am reading it now and it is amazing! http://www.breslev.co.il/store/books/spirituality_and_faith/the_garden_of_riches.aspx?id=13028&language=english

Shalom Arush

Hi, I see you're expanding this article. Please be aware that everything has to be sourced — even every sentence. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed. Arush's or Brody's websites are not considered reliable sources; you need to find coverage in secondary newspapers and magazines. Also, be careful of POV in describing Arush's influence and stature. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will look for them. I did not add much info. I mostly added some section breaks to make the article easier to read.

אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)אֶפְרָתָה[reply]

Citation style

Hi again, Since you're adding a lot of new references to articles, you may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's citation style. That way, someone else or a bot won't have to redo the citations later on. Best, Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon reviews

Please only use reviews that the reader can verify -- see WP:VERIFY - this means you can't use an excerpt found on Amazon but must link to the actual review so that the reader can find the excerpt in context. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gerald Schroeder. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you that WP:ARBPIA applies to some articles you have been editing

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

It has been established that you've engaged in sock puppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה, and you have therefore been blocked indefinitely.
If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

— HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

אֶפְרָתָה (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not related to other accounts

Decline reason:

This does not address the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/אֶפְרָתָה/Archive. Sandstein 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.