User talk:IZAK/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

Shame on you!

You really should know better than this. I am surprised by you to say the least. You are going on 4 years here now yet I have to remind you about the purpose of article talk pages. Please use them to discuss the article, not to editorialize on the article's subject. You may take this as a shocked warning.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Ditto the above. From an anonymous or new user I could understand this, but not an experienced one. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-15 19:38Z

Mediation Cabal

Please see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. Thank you. IZAK 12:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

World Jewry

I would like to make a new series on worldwide Jewish community/population/jewry. I am entiteling all articles on the Jewish Community of that country as '0000' Jewry, eg History of French Jews is now 'French Jewry' and I would like to change British Jews to British Jewry too. How do i make a new category in the 'Jews and Judaism' series? Shkoiach. Chavatshimshon 19:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have posted the following on yout talk page. IZAK 10:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC):
STOP your changes NOW!
Dear Chavatshimshon: Welcome, and thank you for contacting me. Regarding your changes @ Chavatshimshon edits Please do not make any more changes or moves to Jewish articles. You are too new to Wikipedia. You are not even reverting articles correctly (by creating multiple double reverts). You are also creating duplicate articles of existing articles, which creates even more problems. The articles you are fiddling around with have been worked on for many years. You cannot move and change these articles without discussing it with the nearly one hundred known members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism; Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history; Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture and others. I am going to ask some experienced editors, who are also admins, to examine your recent changes and to revert your moves until we can get some better idea of what it is that you are doing, and if it is going to help the Jewish and Judaism articles on Wikipedia. Stay tuned. This message is being shared with User:Jmabel; User:Jayjg; User:Jfdwolff; User:TShilo12 and User:Humus sapiens. Thank you. IZAK 08:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ups, sorry. I am new, yes but I've been reading up on as many of the relevant guidelines as possible as I go along. I'm aware I haven't got the editing technique right yet and would appreciate assistance. Thanks for Wikipedia:Assume good faith. About the World Jewry article, its staying and the Jewish Population will hopefully be moved into it. My basic intention is to categorise all the articles on Jewish national and local communities worldwide into Category:World Jewry. The four articles, namely American, British, French and Russian Jewry have (with crztalk's approval) been thus been renamed so far. I wanted to start this in the framework of a wikiproject but he advised against it. Am tuned. Chavatshimshon 11:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, I've had a look and I agree that he is going totally the wrong direction. And I can't imagine how Crzrussian rather than the relevant Wikiprojects somehow became the authority. - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Same-sex marriage in South Africa

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. While your comments are about the subject of the article, they are not about the article itself. In much the same way, I am prevented from going to the talk page on Veronica Mars and writing about how it's totally awesome and everyone should watch it. There's a clear distinction between discussing the article and adding a comment to demonstrate your POV. (Yes, I understand that many religious groups oppose same-sex marriage. But your edits, with subject lines like "Shame on South Africa", are clearly POV-pushing, even if it's not within an article.) Your comments should not be included on the talk page. If you want to write about your feelings concerning the matter, get a blog. -- Merope 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In that vein, please see WP:SOAP. JoshuaZ 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Please see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. Thank you. IZAK 12:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

heter iska

For now, im gunna lie low and wait for my next chance to rephrase jewish population as world jewry. Whilst my term is clearly more understandible and certainly more encyclopedic, i need to establish myself in the group. anyways... what are your thoughts on heter iska? i would like to wikify it, what are the guidlines on halochos!? are they in the correct categories etc? thanks Chavatshimshon 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Chavatshimshon, Shavua Tov: I have asked a few editors to see what they can do. The article is a very good start. Best wishes, IZAK 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Host desecration

I need the assistance regarding Host desecration; my attempt to edit this article is being reverted resulting in a supression of fact that attempts to whitewash catholic antisemitism. You seem to have alot of experience in editing Wikipedia; and any advice would be appreciated. Please read the discussion page and the edit history for the article; and comment as you see fit. Thank you in advance for the assistance.--Lance talk 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Mediation

I wanted to respond to your message in the South Africa mediation - but because I'm not so much responding to your comments as commenting on them, I thought I'd do this more privately. First, a disclaimer - I want to help you reach consensus, but I think this mediation is not going as well as it could. There are ways you can help with that, and I want to bring them to your attention. I'm not willing to get more involved, and am merely offering a bit of advice before I go on my way - so you can take all of this or leave it at your discretion. But a few points:

  1. If you want people to engage in this discussion, please write shorter posts. No offense, but it is hard to get through all of your post.
  2. As a brief reality check, from an outsider perspective it seems that there was nothing "violent" or "threatening" about people reminding you that your comments were in the wrong place. The more people think that dealing with you will result in assertions that they've somehow acted out of POV malice or the like...the less people will want to engage with you. You need people to engage with you in order to get anything done here.
  3. The easiest way to get people to do that are: first, assume good faith, and, second, avoid words like "communist" and "atheist" and the like. People skim over arguments that say things like that, because they assume that they're polemic rants rather than discussions. So even if you're right, no one will ever know it - that's harsh, but I think it's true.
  4. As far as writing a controversy section, my suggestion would be to tone down the rhetoric and try to reach consensus. That you cite sources doesn't mean that you're not making an argument - arguments cite sources, too. It can be hard to shake that instinct to argue - so how do you do it? You say you've got good experience in writing NPOV, so I don't want to offer too much advice - but you could try writing the controversy section from the other side of your own beliefs. Put yourself in the other side's shoes and try to write about the controversy - what would you say that the controversy is about? Then try to find a mid-point that tells us about each argument, without making either.

I hope these suggestions help. Right now I doubt the mediation is going to take you anywhere, because I don't think anyone wants to engage in the debate you want to engage in. People are ignoring what you're saying - that's harsh, but I think it's true. Consider how you could re-structure your statements to make them more likely to help other people engage with you, and more likely to reach consensus. That's just my two cents, and I hope this helps.--TheOtherBob 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear TheOtherBob: Thank you for your suggestions and constructive crticism, I enjoyed reading it. While I do not agree with everything you say or suggest here, I do appreciate what it is you are saying, as well as what it is you are trying to say, and that you have made the effort to contact me and taken the time to do so. Finally, if there is no headway in the mediation, which reflects very poorly on my "critics" and at the same time it also shows that I am open and amenable to discussion. I will try my best to re-introduce and edit the section I wrote that was deleted by others, but this time, with even more sources that back it up. Thanks a lot again, and please feel free to contact me with advice, you may be surprised to learn and know that I do take advice to heart. Sincerely, IZAK 08:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Military history of South Africa

I couldn't recognize the article after i left it as a stub a couple of days ago. That was a fantastic work. Good job! -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi FaysalF, yes, I'm still putting some finishing touches to it. You had an excellent idea to start it and work on it. Thanks. IZAK 11:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a picture to Chaim Soloveitchik

what did i do wrong? why wenever i put a pic up, it wont show? Chavatshimshon 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

South Africa categories

Hi! Just to let you know, the convention is not to nest battle categories for older states in those for their "successors". Thus, Category:Battles of the Zulu shouldn't be placed in Category:Battles of South Africa (similarly to how Category:Battles of England isn't placed under Category:Battles of the United Kingdom); nesting through the "Military history of ..." catgories is fine, but anything deeper than that should be avoided. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Kirill: Thank you for letting me know. I was wondering about it, but I was confused when I saw "Battles of the Boer War" so I was somewhat confused, and decided to be more more inclusive. But as long as you have a rationale here, I agree with you. Thanks again. IZAK 12:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proselytism

the fact remains, you were, at first, abusing the talk page to proselytize. this is not ok. please keep your preachin' off wikipedia. Morwen - Talk 09:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Morwen: I see that Wikipedia has an article about preaching, not that I go along with it. Knowledge can be come at and presented in different ways, and quoting a Bible verse is one of them. It did inspire me to write even more that can be digested encyclopedically. Thanks for your response though. IZAK 09:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semites Cat vote

Actually the preceeding bit was me in that talk in the vote. I've just stumbled on one of the anon campaigners though - the irony is he also removed the NPOV tag I put on the category - regardless of the vote, the NPOV claim needs a serious analysis, Anon is inconsistent. There is got to be a better way to handle this category - it is just too open to abuse by it's nature, it's very easy to Tag a bio and have it go unnoticed. You, and many others have great grounds for this category - but Uranium is very useful - I wouldn't advocate everyone has it. There has been too much abuse in this category - this is why I argue that though these lists should be made and circulated, Wiki is not the appropiate place for them. Maybe there's another way to retain it and not have it polarized? The problem is there are extremeists around this categories existance on both sides. Revisionists trying to rewrite and sanitize fact, and those who will Tag with little analysis. It's people like you and I who do not disagree on the issue of anti-semitism who need to find a way forward. Both of us have used rational arguements towards what we wanted (though with a divergent goal). The silent majority must stand up or the extremes will win. I agree, many of the anons campaigning are revisionists. I wish they realized that one of the tenets here is Wikipedia is not a democracy. One rational claim can outweight 50 anon rants etc. Rcnet 11:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Rcnet: Thank you for your comments, but I think that this discussion needs to be centralized for now at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 23#Category:Anti-Semitic people until the debate is over, so that we don't get cross-wires and stumble over each other's communications. Let's see what some of the other venerable editors familiar with Jews and Judaism will have to say about this subject in the days to come. IZAK 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Need to think about this one...

I saw this and wanted to note it so that at some point I can consider its merits/demerits: User:Uncle G/On notability. IZAK 14:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Chabad

I'm not sure; I suspect that once a username has been used, it stays used essentially forever. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Welcome

Thank you for the welcome.--Tales of the Gold Monkey 22:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi: You're welcome. IZAK 06:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

contact info

Thanks for the reminder, I acutally prefer not to list it though. Shabbat shalom Avraham 05:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks, just wanted to make sure that you were aware. Thanks. IZAK 06:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

AustinKnight

I'm afraid AustinKnight had worn out his welcome well before you welcomed him. Thanks, Andjam 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh well, I wasn't looking at his home page. Often when I see a red link name, I go straight to his/her talk page and put down the welcome mat for any users, I asssume most are new, but every now an then some are old and expired users (and this time even a blocked user) it seems. Can't say I'm not being friendly! ;-) IZAK 12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Review Ebionites Article

Loremaster and I would appreciate it if you would look over the Ebionites article and provide suggestions to get it ready for nomination as a featured article. We just finished incorporating the suggestions from peer review. Shabbat shalom. Ovadyah 05:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I love that Jerusalem picture. I am learning here how to use things and sorry if I made mistakes. How do you add pictures in here? I don't understand how that is done. Noahlaws

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish

Hi IZAK, I jut found out you are a native speaker of Yiddish. Doesn't this also give you a good level of understanding German or Dutch? Wandalstouring 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • True I do speak Yiddish, but I would mostly definitely not say that that would give any speaker of Yiddish "a good level of understanding German or Dutch" which are pronounced and spoken entirely differently. Also Yiddish's content is basically 50% Hebrew, and depending on which region of Europe it carries many additional Polish or Russian or Lithuanian or Hungarian words and expressions. An intelligent Yiddish-speaker should be able to catch the basic sense of many German words. Dutch is much more difficult for Yiddish-speakers. Why do you ask by the way? IZAK 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It often happens to me that people think I'm from Israel or at least a Jew (even Jews mistook me for one), because I speak with a slight Banat-German accent (the alveolar trill is pronounced a bit stronger than usually in German, even more than in southern German dialect). There was a German population and a German/Yiddish speaking population of Jews in this region. I supposed it may be the result of mutual influence (some other words in the Banat-German show influence of other languages of this region) and I expected the two languages to be quite close (like Suomi and Eesti) from what I knew. Yiddish is strongly based on German vocabulary, while much Hebrew vocabulary of Yiddish became standard German vocabulary. I just wondered whether you could or tried the limits of your abilities on this. In wikipedia it is often useful to basically understand other languages (especially the German/French/Polish/Dutch wiki) and find helpful ideas, facts or concepts in other wiki's articles, even more so if articles are likely to contain systemic bias (there are often tendencies to see a subject in a certain fashion within a language group). So I wanted to find out your linguistic range or slightly encourage you to try it. Wandalstouring 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi Wandals: At this point I am totally involved with the English Wiki and I am swamped as it is. I have been asked a couple of times to get involved in the Yiddish Wiki but I just don't have time for it, besides it's very limited. Thanks for your encouragement. IZAK 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tagging articles

The syntax of the tag itself is at {{WPMILHIST}}, and the instructions for the article assessment part of it are at WP:MHA. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. IZAK 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Frum

Why is Modern Orthodox Judaism not a section in the Orthodox Judaism? People are thinking up new casts every day. If we put these two under one article, all the 'new' ones will never be lent any credence, which is the way it should be. Accepting the veracity of 'Modern Orthodox' identity will just lead to more identities etc. As far as I'm concerned there is frum and frei and blurring the line weakens both. Chavatshimshon 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Chavat: I haven't looked at the Orthodox Judaism article in a while, but when last I saw it, over a year ago or more, it did state that Modern Orthodox Judaism is one of the parts of Orthodox Judaism. On the other hand, to combine everything into one article, would make it too long (as I am sure you are not sayong this either.) Ther have been a few very "fafrumte" editors wielding hatchets recently, so I am not sure what they have been up to either. Let me take a look. IZAK 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi again, Chavat: I just looked and it's still there, so I am not sure what your complaint is. See Orthodox Judaism#Subgroups where it clearly states: "...These groups, broadly, comprise Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism, the latter comprising Hasidic Judaism and Litvish (non-Hasidic Hareidi) Judaism" and it goes on to explain the differences. And again in the section Orthodox Judaism#The development of Orthodoxy there is ample description of the place of Modern Orthodoxy. Further, in the section Orthodox Judaism#Orthodox organizations and groups it specifies which rabbinic organizations belong to Modern Orthodoxy etc. If anything, the article lacks more detailed information about the Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism groups, so I am left puzzled by whatexactly your comments mean and what you are complaining about. Please let me know. IZAK 02:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I see...

Hi Chavat: Now I get it, you are in England, where Modern Orthodoxy does not get any coinage in the realm of the "Frum", however, in the USA, Modern Orthodox Judaism (calls itself as such) and is a huge movement very different to Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and we need to follow the known words and terms. We can't come here and start bandying around words like "frum" and "frei" (especially if the word "frei" is actually a serious slur towards non-religious Jews) as it's not all "black and white." Try to be patient and read up more on the subjects via their articles to give you some idea. That's why you ran into a problem when you started changing the names of articles on Wikipedia to "Jewry this" and "Jewry that" without realizing that it is not the way these subjects are viewed academically -- you need to get used to the idea that Wikipedia is not a Bais medrash or yeshiva and we can't just lump the world into perspectives that only "frum" people use -- Wikipedia is an international and universal encyclopedia that must make sense to all of humanity and not just to the frum oilem that will not be using Wikipedia in any case because it's assur to use or be on the Internet. Now I think I understand you, and I hope you are understanding me. IZAK 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll dig that, but not about Jewry. I know that Modern Orthodoxy is more acknowledged in the US, but I kinda detest that, soon we're going to be listing all the different sects/genres/casts/groups on Wikispecies. My point was its complicated and should be simplified. I've been reading up on it allot and thought about possible changes, I guess it takes more then knowing about something here on wikipedia, its about how high you stand. In the meantime I will read on. About Jewry, no no and no, that not just a British "zach", oh la la, refer back to the conversation that went on. It was proposed it was a negative term even, that was all sheer ignorance, that only came about because my quest infringed on the history project's navigational terms etc - the word Jewry is the most fitting term demographically and geographical combined. Admittedly in statistical only publications; 'Jewish Population' is the most oft term. If I even believe in this wikipedia enough to carry on editing etc, I'll just be waiting for my time, ready to propose that on again. Chavatshimshon 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Chavat: You would be a doing a very dangerous thing if you were to call Modern Orthodoxy part of "sects/genres/casts/groups on Wikispecies" which is just not true and not accurate. So please do not tamper with those articles or subjects without first discussing your planned changes on the talk pages or by contacting editors like myself and others active with Judaism articles. While it may not be evident to you, there is a delicate balance and a de facto consensus on many subjects that has been built up over the years on Wikipedia. All Modern Orthodox Jews are Shommer Shabbes and keep the mitsvas, but they have more lenient leanings and interpretations of some things in Halachah, for which there are allowances, and they have some famous rabbonim to cite, so I wouldn't get into that area, it would be a waste of time, and Wikipedia is not a battle ground. The vast majority of the Modern Orthodox are most definitely not like the Conservatives or Reform, although every group does have its "left" and "right" wings. Coming back to the usage of the "Jewry" term, I wasn't saying it's unique to the British, what I was saying was that you jumped in to impose your view by renaming articles, especially very serious ones, when a more experienced Wikipedian would have known to be more cautious and not to justify it by saying well there are some academics who use the term "Jewry" as well, which while it may be true, it nevertheless does have a connotation as a more "religious" (meaning "frum" - as you put it) term. For example, Israelis (who constitute almost half the world's Jews nowadays) and who are mostly secular (or to use your term "frei") do not like to consider themselves or call themselves "Israeli Jewry" even though they (mostly) do acknowledge being Jews. Personally I have no problem with the term "Jewry" but I am at the same time aware that it is also a loaded term laden with power (unfortunately, even sometimes negative, as this label has and is used by antisemites as well for their own nefarious propaganda against Jews) that makes many people (including many Jews) nervous and they object to it on a variety of grounds. IZAK 03:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing, wtvr. Anyways, I'll not be changing stuff without discussing it first, and also I didn't mean 'frei' in the negative sence though it prob is mostly often used asuch. I have a view that there is the Orthodox group, and the Secular group and all that is in between blur the lines; which weakens the identity of these two main groups. My view. Chavatshimshon 05:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sleep well ;-)

T'was a pleasure jousting w/ you. (→Netscott) 05:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you, likewise. IZAK 11:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Binyamin_Kahane.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Binyamin_Kahane.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, it has been a few years since I received that photo, and it's been fine till now. I don't have the time to run around looking for the citations. Thanks. IZAK 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Jelineks

Jelinek seems to be referrenced in the 11th Brittanica and the Jewish Encyclopedia. I don't have time at the moment to look at those entries but such information is presumably contained there. The long hair also doesn't seem necessarily odd for the time period. I'm not a hair style expert but it wouldn't surprise me if long hair of that form was acceptable in the time period. If his father was some sort of scholar I think that would be relevant. Given the time period I wouldn't be surprised if the son's conversion was one of convenience. JoshuaZ 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC

  • Hi JoshuaZ: I am still hoping that someone has more detailed info, and I agree with you about the timeframe. IZAK 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Messianic Judaism

Hi IZAK! I must confess I don't know how to dispute a WikiProject hierarchy. Doubtless JoshuaZ and TShilo12 can help you and can give you advice about how to proceed technically and so far as policies are concerned. My belief is that this Wikiproject subprojects a are voluntary undertakings of a WikiProject, and hence a WikiProject should not represent itself as being a subproject of another Wikiproject without their consent, and I believe this should be a matter of basic policy. I don't think it's our business whether it's a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity or not, that's between them to decide. If neither want it can simply be a standalone WikiProject. I think that's the relevant thing to do for now. --Shirahadasha 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings.

Please respond on my talk page. I am curious to know what your stance is regarding Messianic Judaism. If you like I can give you my email address and we can debate the issues. You have a lot of questions and accusations that haven't been fairly addressed since I felt they were raised in inappropriate pages to start a discussion on the issues. I would like to know if you'd like to chat with me sometime. I find we seem to be butting heads a lot recently. I'd like to talk with you about your biases, perhaps we can resolve our differences and work to create a better Wikipedia together. inigmatus 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Inigmatus: I don't have "biases" I am a serious, if somewhat passionate, scholar of Judaism and many other areas of academic knowledge. I have a strong Torah and secular educational background, and I enjoy editing Wikipedia articles and debating any differences with other editors on talk pages. I would prefer that our debates be on any Wikipedia talk page of your choosing. Business is business. If you are indeed a Jew and would like to recant of your Messianic Judaism ways and need personal help, feel free to let me know and I might then consider opening a personal dialogue with you, otherwise let's keep things "official" on Wikipedia. Thanks for contacting me. IZAK 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I applaud your passion. We share educational backgrounds it seems. No wonder we butt heads. Not even Shammai and Hillel saw eye to eye on many issues. I just want you to be aware that Messianic Judaism and related articles have had a history of edit wars, a past history I might add, because up until this last week it's been relatively quiet. Most of the editors on all sides of the article debates have worked hard to get them to the NPOV place they are at. As an editing team we all have concluded that in light of the passions that can be aroused between editors of all sides, is what is best is for everyone to propose major changes and insertions in the discussion pages, and wait for a response or consensus FIRST before adding them into the article. Doing so slows down the number of reverts, and actually helps rather than hinders the development of the articles. If you feel an issue is disputed, please let us know in the talk pages rather than arbitrarily change significant work that we have all worked hard to achieve kind of a peaceful "status quo." We all want to assume good faith, but edit wars destroy that trust. Please, I ask personally as a fellow editor, that if you value true NPOV, that you post in talk pages first and wait for a consensus on changes to the article that are obvious to provoke an edit war: this includes what others might think are disruptive POV changes, article renames, section edits, link name edits, etc. As a scholarly man, I believe you too are versed somewhat in Wikipolicy, so I shouldn't have to go into detail in how to make editing constructive in articles that have a history of edit wars. I just ask that you remember what you read, and consider what I've said here. I really want to work with you to achieve NPOV. Will you work with me? inigmatus 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Inigmatus: Forget the Hillel and Shammai analogy here it's false. I prefer not to go down the road of analogies because then we will get to the point of Jesus cursing out the Sanhedrin and look where that got him. At any rate, I am not so much concerned about the content of the MJ articles, that's not by business or interest, but I am very concerned that you are creating an over-all "identity" for MJ on Wikipedia that is based on utilizing and copying Judaism articles, templates and content as if you have a right to do as you wish with the Jewish religion-articles based on your Messianist beliefs. Why do you do such things? I do not run over to Christianity and Islam articles and tamper with them. I respect them as a Wikipedian. But you feel no guilt in grabbing anything you can from Judaism articles and material on Wikipedia and then making it into MJ stuff and reposting it as if this was the "Torah" that God gave the MJs at "Sinai" - which He did not. Why can't you go out and find other more original ways of doing things. As the prophet Elijah said to the prophets of Ba'al: If Ba'al is God then serve him, and if the Lord is God then serve him -- how long will you waver between two ways? Again, I repeat, it is not the content of what you are writing that I object to, I leave that to others to tussle with you, but I object strongly to your cavalier attitude by not respecting the right of the Judaism articles to have a life of their own and not to be ripped off for your own ends as your need arises by creating "shadow-Judaism articles" twisted and spun to reflect the MJ POV. IZAK 07:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi JoshuaZ: I have replied. IZAK 04:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Heimstern Läufer 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Heimstein: Can you explain yourself please? IZAK 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Certainly: You said another editor was vandalizing because of a content dispute. This isn't acceptable. Content disputes and vandalism are two completely different things, and unfairly accusing other editors of vandalism when it is in fact a content dispute is incivil. Heimstern Läufer 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The dispute was not over content in that article, I don't care what the article says, it was about removing the {{NotJudaism}} in it as well as in a few other places, other than that article, arbitrarily which is vandalism. Anyhow, I don't see how that warrants your intervention, who's complaining? IZAK 05:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I imagine templates are public domain, so anyone is free to copy them. As the above comments suggest, permitting others to accuse one of being uncivil etc. could make matters worse, so I think care is needed. At this point I don't have off-the-cuff answers. Thinking carefully and avoiding being reactive may be helpful. Am open to hearing from others. --Shirahadasha 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The new notjudaism template

Any article where that template could be used should make it clear enough in the intro of the article that the topic isn't Judaism. The template is thus at best redundant. JoshuaZ 05:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I concurr. inigmatus 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates.

Are you aware of the Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates policy? I think your {{NotJudaism}} more than likely violates it. --tjstrf talk 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it likely does not violate that, as there is nothing in any of the existing disclaimers which it would mimic, and it is not a censorship issue. It is moot now in any event. -- Avi 06:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct, and any move against it needs to be discussed or put to a vote, but for now it stays. IZAK 06:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't move it, check the deletion log. It was User:Avraham. As for whether it violates disclaimer templates or not, my experience on WP:TFD is that any template which disclaims the content of the article is treated as a disclaimer. The template essentially read "Judaism disclaims any connection with this article", ergo a disclaimer template in spirit. --tjstrf talk 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ma'ariv

IZAK, I found this comment odd. All those following Abrahamic religions are praying to the same god. (→Netscott) 07:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nope, Christians pray to Jesus (either alone or as as part of the Trinity), Jews don't. Is that too radical for you? (Oh, and Moslems do not pray to Muhammed, they pray to Allah sorta like the Jewish God, but with lots more testosterone.)IZAK 07:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I pray to HaShem. Don't you follow a siddur yourself IZAK? What name is in your siddur to pray to? I use the Artscroll Sephard siddur. Shalom. inigmatus 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Jewish folks don't pray to Jesus but what's this talking about over here on the Yahweh article? (→Netscott) 07:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Netscott: Could you be more specific, I don't understand your problem, as I am not on that page right now. In any case, Jews never say the words "Yahweh" they use a substitute: Adonai. You may want to read over the Names of God in Judaism article since you are so into God right now. IZAK 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just this bit, "which is accepted by both Jews and Christians as being God's Hebrew name" tis all, why would that be, I wonder? Your "since you are so into God now" comment is a bit off and not very civil... (→Netscott) 08:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Netscott: "which is accepted by both Jews and Christians as being God's Hebrew name" is not much of a sentence (it would never stand up in a court of law because it's far too much of a generalization -- and do NOT believe everything (anything?) you read in Wikipedia ;-} -- by the way, did they ask all of Earth's three billion Christians who "Yahweh" is? Nope. In any case the statement does not say that everyone worships this same God, it just says that some people make that claim about God's name. For Christians this would just mean that "Yahweh" gets knocked down a few notches till he lands in Jesus' lap and the two, I mean three (including the Holy Ghost) become "one" -- none of which is believed or practiced in Judaism. Whatsa matter with you tonight, it's past 3 AM where I am and you want me not joke to keep us awake? IZAK 08:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Read these articles: God, Monotheism, (search "same god" on these first two) Conceptions of God, and Abrahamic conceptions of God these last two I think you will find enlightening. I'm off to sleep. (→Netscott) 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Netscott: I have stayed away from the entire subject of Abrahamic conceptions of God because it is totally erroneous. I have great problems with the term "Abrahamic" -- did someone go over to Abraham and ask his opinion? The only source for Abraham is from the Hebrew Bible's Book of Genesis, written in Hebrew, making it the preserve of Judaism, and how can one tie in other religions? Let Christians focus on Jesus and Muslims on Muhamed, and see if they say anything original without mooching off poor old Abraham. It is a "make nice, be nice, feel good" article that tries to blur the very real and serious differences between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's more of an ecumenical piece than a real critique. While Christianity and Islam have drawn much from Judaism historically, they are radically different and separate religions and their approach to what Judaism accepts as God is not the same thing. I don't have time for more theology right now, and thank goodness you are going to sleep, which will allow me to finish my tasks so that I can do the same, hopefully soon. G'night. IZAK 08:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Modern Orthodox students carry Israeli flag.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Modern Orthodox students carry Israeli flag.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, it has been a few years since I received that photo, and it's been fine till now. I don't have the time to run around looking for the citations. Thanks. IZAK 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Africa

You're quite welcome on the assist! My main area of expertise, with respect to African military history anyway, is with the German colonies and especially the campaigns against them in WWI. I was planning to examine them, but "starting at the top", saw that a little bit of wikilinking and minor editing would do a lot for the page. I've got too many other projects underway to do much more at present, but I may give that intro a look this weekend. There should be a way to reduce all those "diverse-ities" to something more manageable. Askari Mark | Talk 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you. IZAK 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Yigal_Amir_Mug_Shot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yigal_Amir_Mug_Shot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, it has been a few years since I received that photo, and it's been fine till now. I don't have the time to run around looking for the citations. Thanks. IZAK 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You're talking to a bot. It doesn't understand you, so it'll just delete the image. --Dweller 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you a bot too? IZAK 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Only during a schlepped out chazaras hashatz. --Dweller 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yikes a frum android is talking to me, now I have experienced everything, gevalt! IZAK 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Category:Operations of the South African Border War

No mistake; please read the category guidelines to see where each type of category fits in. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Kirill: I looked, you are still mistaken, none of them have "Battles and operations" IZAK 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Replied on CFD again, to keep this conversation in one place. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed! IZAK 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On a somewhat related topic, I notice that you added a number of "Battles of X" categories here. I'm not familiar enough with the war to answer this myself, but did all of those countries participate in all of the operations, or did each operation have a variable set of participants? If the participants aren't consistent across all the operations, the categories should be placed on a per-article basis, rather than on the overall category (see the provisos here). Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Kirill: Yes, in the South African Border War (in fact I don't know why it's called as such because this was not just a war concerning South Africa' interests. It was an East-West struggle, with the USA backing South Africa and UNITA in Namibia and Angola, and the Soviet Union and Cuba backing Namibia's SWAPO and the Angolan armed groups, especially the communist MPLA.) Each article mentions that the combatants were South Africa, vs SWAPO (for Namibia) and Angolan groups with either Cuban military backing or active involvement in all the engagements. Most of the articles are stubs so with more information it will become clearer. Also note, that the South Africa Border War was an integral part of the struggle for independence of modern Namibia and Angola. 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Noahide Laws cleanup

Hi, I was hoping we could collaborate on cleaning splitting and writing up more articles related to 7mBn. I've tagged Noahide laws for a cleanup. I'm not rushing in, I've read them all up, I'm waiting for the readiness of a few others so we can take this on together, and have it featured on the main page sometime. Its possible, there are quite a few of us and will potentialy be a subject of interest. Again, I'm one for words and think the parent article should be Seven Laws of Noach, as in 'Sheva Mitzvas Bnei Noach'. Anything that is should be another 'ism'. Chavatshimshon 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Chavat: Do not change that title, it is the accepted English name for it (why is it that you have this great urge to change the titles of long-establishe Wikipedia articles?) Not everything has to be a direct translation or transliteration from Hebrew. Many Judaic and Hebraic topics do and should retain their English titles. Please contact the following to help you: User:Noahlaws; User:Jon513; User:Dauster; User:HKT; User:PinchasC; User:Shirahadasha; User:Shuki; User:TShilo12, they all have knowledge of Jewish Law and experience as Wikipedians and may be interested in working on this with you. Sincerely, IZAK 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok ok, please say so on talk page, I would like this article featured so I would appreciate if we could get together there on the talk page and start some polishing. ok? We can all appose and propose new points, just like you apposed my point about the title. I'm having it translated in a good few languages too. In the meantime i'll let the other guys know. Chavatshimshon 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

Hi, please make sure to explain a fair use rationale for File:Modern Orthodox students carry Israeli flag.jpg ASAP. It will be deleted on 6 December. --217.132.130.193 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Hi, it has been a few years since I received that photo, and it's been fine till now. I don't have the time to run around looking for the citations. Thanks. IZAK 07:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Izak

I've been on a wikivacation for the past four months. I'll add an email address right now. Shalom uv'racha Guy Montag 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Guy: Thanks. Welcome back! IZAK 10:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Aleykhem sholom

… and thank you for the advice. Will try to get it right in future. Redaktor 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure, and be well. IZAK 10:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Islamic and Jewish interfaith topics

Would Temple Mount fit that for you? "Shared sacred site" or whatnot? gren グレン 14:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I doubt it. Need to think about it. IZAK 10:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nathan of Gaza

May I ask why you unbolded the Hebrew name? I think it's helpful to have the Hebrew name in bold, and it looks better. Do you have a different view? Dfass 15:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I have responded with the following on your talk page:
Hi: Over the years a number of editors involved with articles that have Hebrew in the titles essentially agreed not to bold the Hebrew names but only the the English titles. Please ask User:Jfdwolff for his input as he was the one to insist on this. Thanks. IZAK 07:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I will ask him about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfass (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Sabbateans

Looks great! You did a nice job on that. Very interesting read. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks Miri, your words mean a lot to me. IZAK 07:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Book of Ezekiel, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Birthright Israel

Hey, could you do me a favour and check out the content dispute going on at the Birthright page and Talk:Birthright Israel? It has to do with some alleged criticisms. A new user added some amazingly biased edits completely in violation of WP:NPOV and refuses to accept my compromise section. Thanks for your help. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

commreq

Here, if you're interested. Tomertalk 07:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. IZAK 10:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Shalom, IZAK. Sorry to be bothering you with this but it's driving me nuts. Can you please take a look at the following article Sean Harnett. Ikeep tagging it for deletion and he keeps detagging it. It's pretty clearly self-promotion. Todah! Avraham 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Avraham: Hang in there. That article is a pure vanity page and not notable for this encyclopedia. As I am not an admin I suggest you bring it to the attention of those who are and can do more about it. IZAK 10:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, but I don't know who IS an admin... Is there a Wikipedia list of "online admins to contact in case of problems" or something like that? Anyway, I really need to shlof, but I know that if I leave this sitting around, they'll just detag it again. Any thoughts? Todah Avraham 10:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Avraham: See: Wikipedia:List of administrators and the first lines say:

If you need to contact an administrator about

  • deletions
  • undeletions
  • page protection
  • reporting vandalism
  • ... or any other sysop activities

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention

If you wish to discuss something with an administrator directly please visit one or several of the userpages below...

Hope this helps you. IZAK 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I picked a random admin, asked him to look at it and am going to get. Gitte nacht Avraham 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, no problem. Layla Tov, or whatever time it is that you sleep, (I need some too.) IZAK 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Aryeh Friedman

I don't get it... he seems notable to me. --Dweller 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • How is he notable? You take a Jew (is he even a Jew?) noone has heard of and famous for nothing and get him to speak against Israel and that makes him "notable" -- I don't get that. IZAK 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, let's try to keep the discussion on the deletion page, ok? IZAK 13:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Project/Portal Mainpages

Hi I've been working on a new design for the Judaism and Israel projects and portal's main pages. Please have a look. I could do with some help with the coding. I think its similarity to the main page will make these pages look more clear cut and will bring the participants together on sollected articles and issues more often. The featured article section will be much like the main page but hold its place for a week, yes yes i know there is a portal but like I, hardly anyone participates. I'm just making an effort to make a page we'll be up to date on relavent issues, much like a message board. Thanks FrummerThanThou 01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm, there is not usually much traffic on these pages and by setting up the way you are saying it maye just be a dead end. It will not increase participations based on the what's been going on in groups like:

I would leave things alone for now, especially the Portals. What do others think? IZAK 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome template

You can use this template to welcome new memeber you think may be Jewish, just copy and paste {{Bruchim}} into their talk page, feel free to discuss and improve. FrummerThanThou 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't like this idea at ALL! I think it's dangerous because it could easily offend new users who don't want such an "in your face" Jewish greeting with a Huge Star of Daid glaring at it. Get rid of it. I would put it up for edeltion. IZAK 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And you when you saw my new username thought I was being conceited. I've noticed some alarming signs of paranoia in you. Read the article. Sorry. FrummerThanThou 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi there Frummer, please abide by Wikipedia:No personal attacks and let's stick to discussing the issues and not anyone's mental state. Ok? IZAK 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bedrick / Yeshivish

Lemai nafka mina? This was declared before (after) I took up Bedrick. What does this have to do with me or Bedrick? - crz crztalk 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Just wondering about the procedures here. Nothing too deep. IZAK 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • First of, nothing is proven. And then, even if he is a sock of a banned user - that has nothing to do with Bedrick. Do you like my work? It's 95% mine, anyway... - crz crztalk 02:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I haven't looked at it in depth, but at a glance it passes Wikification muster so that is already a good thing. IZAK 02:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Close Shave

Well hello! I was thinking of going on wikibreak, got a mad week, but not. Medieval also wont be right, I think the conclusion about scissors goes back even to some rishonim though I can only remember the rosh talking about it. About halacha cat, I knew its not a cat, wondered why not, put it in and left if for you and elyak to see to. Also its not a merge for peyot at the mo. What's your say here?

Anyways, deletions... I've never been touted by WP:POINT ramifications. I saw you said "Well put" to DGG's comment and imidiatly thought you'de lost the plot. I think that discussion has lost its objectivity so won't be discussing further.

Another thing, plz shy off comments like "commence more serious action against you" and all that. We're all here for the same reason and respect each other. So put the kettle on and relax. I'm pretty much here to stay, I am a sock you know, mostly for the Judaism side of things. We should focus more on cooperation.

Which is why I hope to give Project Judaism a facelift. So we can be doing more of that. frummer 08:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

sure thing, I will work on the sources. Shaving also had something on shaving in relig so I added there too. By the way from now on, if you're ok with it, we can keep the conversation together on each other's talk pages. frummer 08:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Frummer: In spite of your toned down voice here, I must tell you that I am in profound shock regarding your recent behavior and it will take a lot of convincing me on your part that you are someone I can count on not doing wild and crazy things that create chaos which automatically then fall into the ugly pit of WP:POINT. How long you want to stay on Wikipedia is your business, but one or two more provocations from you, like in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 14#Template:Bruchim and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha will result in serious action against you by admins (and I am not an admin) who have already taken note of your poor behavior and they will not tolerate any more meshugasin from you they will block you. I am also very puzzled by your statement above that "I am a sock you know" as that now makes me wonder are you in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? Look at this:

Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason," and " ... multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny." [1]

So I would say right off the bat, that if your are functioning as a sockpuppet on Wikipedia you are doing the things the wrong way and it will only lead into further trouble. I am still watching and waiting. IZAK 09:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in on the new Shaving article. I think it should be moved to Shaving in Judaism though - the current title is fairly cumbersome. I guess in that case there would have to be a requisite nod to the other denominations. --DLandTALK 09:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Not at all DLand, I agree, go ahead and make the move, as I felt it was too narrow a title in the first place. IZAK 09:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Izak, I've not breached any of the rules layed out in sockpuppet, except perhaps I should put the sock puppet user box somewhere on my page for good faith. My thinking is so as to keep most my Judaism edits out of my other's account's eye, elsewhere I pretty much involved with the welcoming commitee, adoption and welcomebot. About these "provocations", come on, give me a break, they where mere light attempts to take your heavy hand to task. I think i did it well and your reactions where over reactions, please confide that otherwise we have a problem. But back to the point, cooperation, let's focus on that, the shaving article is suitibly renamed and even sourced, that's good. new judaism noticebrd coming soon, keep an eye on my sandbox. frummer 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • To disrupt Wikipedia, and be called on it by a variety of editors, and then claim that all you were "really" doing was playing games with me, is totally disingenuous and an outright lie, insulting to the intelligence of any Wikipedian (or any rational person for that matter) and is a highly offensive, irresponsible and a dangerous thing to do. I suggest that you reconsider your strategy and change your ways sometime soon before you create even more chaos and face the inevitbale consequences. IZAK 10:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Google search results

I've been standing by for a while on this one. Noahide Laws, even though it is a very informative and well written article at present would be warrented to move to Seven Laws of Noah based on the stats below. Also by doing so, I could split up the details in sep articles, there is still allot more details and I dont wont to make the current one to long.

noahide law: Results 1 - 10 of about 73,500 seven laws of noah: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,070,000 frummer 09:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NeshAir

I vaguely remember reading about this or something similar previously so it may make sense to do a search using the Hebrew name and see what that turns up. This case does not look as deliberately disruptive as his other behavior. JoshuaZ 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Joshua: This is a totally new concoction. I have read all the Haredi newspapers and magazines in English this week (about the Haredi boycott of El Al over Shabbat violations) and not one mentions anything about "NeshAir"! Go ahead and see what you can find. IZAK 13:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just did a search on the Google French news for NeshAir and came up with nothing. I'm sure if it was significant (and true) it would have been mentioned in the French press, since the article claims that NeshAir's first flights will be from Paris to Tel Aviv! IZAK 14:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Am doing a search on the Hebrew Google for Israel news for נשר - so far nothing about a new airline... IZAK 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/007398.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IZAK/Archive_23&oldid=1141799034"