User talk:Elmahag91

Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Honorable Elmahag91! judging by your comment and lack of specifics, I must conclude that you don't have any advanced English education or training. Let me spell out why I started editing the Rebbe's article here--it seems to be a rough draft, written by someone who does not have any good sense about proper writing techniques. The contributors probably either aren't native English speakers or did not care about English past 3rd grade. This kind of writing would not fly in the Atlantic or Time magazines. But you don't care, I understand. Here are a few flaws: 1. "Russian Empire-born American Orthodox Jewish rabbi." This phrase has 7 adjectives in a raw before a noun! This is not a good thing, to say the least. It makes it hard to read, plus it is a bad taste in writing. I recommend reducing or breaking it up like I did. 2. "Orthodox Jewish rabbi." This sounds very funny and superfluous because there is no such thing as a non-Jewish orthodox rabbi, so "Orthodox rabbi" would have been enough. But if you want to leave it as "sweet sugary sugar", be my guest. It is redundant and crude, which makes it sound non-English. 3. The author has a few favorite phrases like "one of the most" and words like "influential" that need to be replaced by synonyms. His repetitive use of same words and phrases make him sound like a broken record or a person with a speech impairment. Professional writers ensure that their work does not contain repetitive words, phrases, or ideas. No redundancies is a good thing! Many intelligent readers (like me) appreciate this fact because it makes the author seem very intelligent, having a big head on his shoulders if you will. 4. There are also repeating ideas that spiral, which makes me think that the author was sort of "rambling" on paper, writing in great haste, or experiencing great fog in his mind at the time. 5. Missing or improperly placed articles "a" and "the". 6. Many statements are just dropped into the text, without any regard to logical flow of ideas. They seem like bullet points put together into a paragraph, with no connection to previous or following sentences—Ouch! 7. Not enough transitional phrases in paragraphs to make them flow. Lack of cohesiveness and story-telling brilliancy. 8. "wide-ranging contributions to traditional Torah scholarship." There are two problems. One, "wide-ranging" contradicts "traditional". Traditional implies specific, and wide-ranging implies all over the place. It seems, wide-ranging should be replaced with a word "substantial" or "extensive" or “enormous.” Two, "traditional" is superfluous to Torah scholarship. Torah scholarship is all traditional, because even the Reform and the Conservative learn Torah from the same sources as the orthodox: Chumash, Talmud, Mishna Berura, even Shulchan Aruch. Their practices are less traditional because their tradition is only a 150 years old. So traditional Torah scholarship doesn't really convey the message that the author had in mind. So it should have said just "Torah scholarship within the framework of orthodox practice of Judaism", or simply Torah scholarship. 9. Basically, I recommend adjusting the writing style for the target audience. If you think that the main audience is orthodox Jews like Chabad or Hasidim, you may leave it as is. Most of them may not feel the difference. If you think that the target reader is a non-religious English-speaking crowd, including Anglo Jews 14-30 years of age, you might want to improve the style and grammar to make it more appealing and easy to read. Plus, you may do the honors to the Rebbe. Additionally, there are many (Jewish) orthodox publications out there that boast excellent story-telling English, which pale this article about such a great Rebbe. Best and good luck to you, dear Elmahag91! MS — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenNameMS (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Elmahag, your revert was perfectly reasonable, so feel free to ignore or remove the above comment from an editor trying to push a biased WP:POV. It's your talk page, so I'll leave the decision to you whether to remove it; however, it's a shame for anyone's first message on Wikipedia to be something other than a warm welcome, so please consider this your warm welcome! I've included our standard welcome message below. -- Tamzin (they/she) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 08:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi Elmahag91! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! -- Tamzin (they/she) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 08:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)