- 1 Talkback
- 2 Talkback
- 3 Discussion on Ashkenazi Jews talk page - should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage
- 4 Disambiguation link notification for May 19
- 5 I understand your revert
- 6 Deputy leaders of the thirty-third Israeli government
- 7 Jews, Khazar hypothesis
- 8 Adoption?
- 9 Participant/Project
- 10 Problematic wording
- 11 Template:Culture of Asia
- 12 Clarifying what Elhaik means by the "Khazarian hypothesis"
- 13 Both are not indigenous to the Levant
- 14 Disambiguation link notification for July 29
- 15 July 2013 block
- 16 Talkback
- 17 Talkback
- 18 You and User:Scythian77
- 19 Talkback
- 20 Talkback
- 21 Jewish Diaspora
- 22 December 2013
Discussion on Ashkenazi Jews talk page - should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage
Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.
There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Model minority, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White collar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I understand your revert
Hi :-) I understand your revert! But if you look at the talk page you'll see it was already kind of decided, it was Avaya1 and Jayig who were trying to revert war on a consensus (and even Avaya1 acknowledged that Sholem Aleichem will be in the selection). They tried to argue that when people voted for Sholem Aleichem and Botvinnik those were not votes against Von Neumann and Gershwin, which they actually were because it was obvious in the first vote who they will come instead, so I started a more specific one which just made the first one more clear. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I saw you showed interested in the topic of Jews expelled from Arabic countries! I recommend you to watch The Forgotten Refugees, a good documentary. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deputy leaders of the thirty-third Israeli government
Jews, Khazar hypothesis
I notice that you have a userbox saying want to be adopted by other experienced editors here. Would you be still interested in it?
Hi - I have removed the WikiProject Asia tag from your user page - users/editors are participants not components of projects - cheers sats 08:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:UNDUE.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Culture of Asia
Hello, I noticed that on the template you redirected Culture of Israel to Jewish culture in this template. I was wondering why you did this. They are two different articles and all of the other links in that template link to Culture of [insert name of country]. --PiMaster3 talk 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Clarifying what Elhaik means by the "Khazarian hypothesis"
Elhaik's quote describing what he means by the "Khazarian hypothesis" is already in the included quote. Do you want me to move that quote into the body text? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Both are not indigenous to the Levant
First of all, I am not saying that Jews do not have roots in the Arab World(why do you think I did not remove Mizrahim who are Arab Jews?) rather that Ashkenazim and Sephardim did not indigenous in the Levant. Also, just so you know, two of your sources don't discuss ether of the two, but rather Jews in general. PNAS does, but only the Ashkenazi branch of Judaism. According to the Free Dictionary, indigenous means; Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment. Both Ashkenazim and Sephardim did not originate nor develop in the Levant. Ashkenazim developed in central Europe and Sephardim in the Iberian peninsula. This is due to the arrival of Jews to the regions and mixing in with non Jews. Both sects do have roots in the Middle East but does not make their sect indigenous. Nor do the two "occurring naturally" there like a Lemur would in the Madagascar. Ashkenazis came during the 20th century in fear of persecution, for economic reasons, and other reasons. Sephardis, however, have been around in Palestine as early as the Jewish and Muslim expulsion from Spain and Portugal. The Ottoman empire even sent ships to bring them to Palestine so they could resettle there.
This is the same thing with English people. They are part of the larger Germanic people who have roots in Germany. Dispute having roots in Germany, English people are not indigenous to Germany but rather the southern portion of Great Britain. I also do agree with Yuvn86, on his removal of the two and the adding of Israelis. AcidSnow (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you understood my point. Ashkenazim and Sephardim are both subsets of Jews, who are indigenous to the Levant because that is where their culture and identity were forged. The only reason they were in Europe in the first place is because of displacement from their ancestral lands. Ashkenazi and Sephardi culture both came about as a means to adapt to their new environment. The English analogy is not particularly useful, as that was a group who completely abandoned their former identity and culture and created a new one. Jews never did this. They always identified as Jews first and foremost, preserved Jewish traditions, etc. In fact, the "Ashkenazi/Sephardi/Mizrahi" monikers were given to these groups by historians in recent times. They never actually identified as such until recently.
- If you want to put Jews in, rather than all 3 of those groups, I would not object. As long as it is historically accurate, I don't have any opinion one way or the other.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White Latin American, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scandinavians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
July 2013 block
I have blocked you from editing for 31 hours due to disruptive edit warring at Category:American Jews. You have reverted other users' edits five times in 25 hours and four times in 23 hours, which is a clear violation of 3RR. After your block expires, please discuss the issue in question rather than simply reverting again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You and User:Scythian77
You and User:Scythian77 seem to be engaged in edit warring on several pages without any discussion taking place on the relevant Talk pages. Please discuss your disagreement with Scythian77 and seek dispute resolution if necessary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I think that the wisest option for you, if you don't mind me giving you advice, would be to engage on the talkpage to build consensus for your views. This rather than approaching other editors directly (diff diff diff) to complain about me and trying to edit without consensus (diff). Further, removing recent warnings (diff) from your talkpage seems a bit weird. Now you said in December 2012 you'd find the sources we discussed. If you have them, I'd be curious to see them. By the way, do you have ideas how user Caroling99 happened to make his very first edit in this very issue? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.