User talk:IZAK/Archive 34

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

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

Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Batwoman

Hey, IZAK, as I find myself being sucked deeper into WP Judaism, I was reading back through the talk page and I noticed your comments about Batwoman and an author changing details in the backstory. You might be amused to know that comic book fans have a specific term for altering established details in a storyline or character- they call it "retconning," for the ironic term "retroactive continuity." Basically, it's for the common occurrence of when they rewrite someone's backstory: "You see, Superman isn't actually from Krypton- he is a robot from a parallel universe, and always has been..." Cheers, Kaisershatner 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IDF Chief Military Rabbis

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, IZAK. I see that in the Hebrew Wikipedia, only two have sizeable pages, the other two having mere stubs. I'm willing to create English Wikipedia pages for each and translate the Hebrew material as initial content, only after I complete some pressing assignments in RL. Please note that I do this as a Zionist Wikipedian who does some work on IDF pages, as I am otherwise disaffected from Halachic Judaism and the Rabbinate in particular, being an Israeli, a feminist and a product of the Reform movement in the USA.-- Deborahjay (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Deborah: Thank you for responding. I only contacted you to see if you could help with those articles. I think that if you could do what you say you could, that would be a great beginning. This should in no way conflict with your personal views which I fully respect and was not even questioning, so I am somewhat taken aback that you mention such personal views here. Wikipedia has room for all editors who work in good faith, regardless of our personal views. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AJOP and the Internet

FYI, someone is removing/editing the section detailing R' Menken's work with AJOP. Yossiea (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be me. Can you tell me what your sources are for claiming that AJOP was an early pioneer in Internet outreach? Also, what is your source that Rabbi Menken was hired by AJOP and not merely a presenter at their conventions? What is your source for saying that he was hired to establish a website for AJOP? Yossiea cited this article - http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/01/17/the-changing-face-of-kiruv/ . The article only states that he was involved in AJOP and is referring to his involvement in their conventions. Surely not every participant in their national convention would be considered an employee of AJOP! I have been in touch with Rabbi Menken and he plans to make the article more explicit. Please cite your sources for all of the above. Thanks.--Shivisi (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Yiddish-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Dear Izak: I was thiking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Wikipedia to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hanukkah_menorah_stamp_1999.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hanukkah_menorah_stamp_1999.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

More on categories

See Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Topic articles. -- tariqabjotu 15:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Tariqabjotu. I'll keep an eye out to see what anyone says. IZAK (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazonian Jews

I can kinda see what your trying to say with the "lost tribes" thing, but as far as I know, at least in the case of the Jews of the Amazon, they do not claim to be part of a "lost tribe". They are descendants of Moroccans who mixed with local women. There are synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, etc. still standing and paperwork attests to it, as well as their surnames, with Cohens and the like. What is offensive is that some Jews (mainly Ashkenazim, lets be honest here) are so quick to question the plausibility of Jewish people that don't look like their type of Jew.

In regards to the other point you raised, I would recommend you research a bit before you totally discount racism (or at the very least classism) as the primary factor in the hostile attitude of the Ashkenazi community. I'm not saying all Ashkenazim are like that, but rather it's specific to the attitude of the Ashkenazi in those relevant countries, since on the other hand, most of the rabbis and other Jews who have reached out to those Jews in question have also been Ashkenazim, but from outside those countries (mainly the US). Al-Andalus (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mashpia: Yiddish?

You've added Mashpia to the cat of Yiddish words. Isn't it a Hebrew word? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Yehoishophot Oliver: Yiddish is half Germanic and half Hebrew and lots of other words. I am being very careful. Yes, the origin of the word Mashpiah is from Hebrew, but it is widely used in Yiddish. Such as "er is mashpiah oif dem andern" or when Lubavitchers are speaking Yiddish then it automatically becomes a Yiddish word even if it's from Hebrew. Like "bracha" in "mach a brocha" is totally Yiddish even though "bracha/brocha" is a word of Hebrew origin and used in Hebrew. There are multitudes of words from Hebrew that get used in Yiddish like this and this has been the situation for about a thousand years since the advent of Yiddish. Thanks for asking and feel free to check with me. Good Shabbos ("Shabbos" is a Hebrew word too!) IZAK (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with YO that words that are not actually Yiddish should not be in Category:Yiddish words and phrases. The fact that Yiddish borrows much of its vocabulary from Hebrew and Aramaic does IMHO not mean that those words automatically become Yiddish words, much like raison d'être and Entente cordiale do not become English phrases because they are used by English speakers in otherwise English sentences. JFW | T@lk 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I will prove to you how absolutely wrong you are!!!! This is a weird discussion and you may not be that familiar with the variety and richness of legitimate Yiddish usage. Question: So is "Sholom Aleichem" only "Hebrew"? How about "Oy Vey" when both are from the Hebrew, "Oy mehaya lanu", from the Kinnos, and "vey" or "Vaai" is from the Hebrew "Vaai"? Or how about "Yiddish" script and print which uses only the Hebrew letters and hence an "alef" in Hebrew is an "alef" in Yiddish and a bes in Hebrew is a bes in Yiddish and a "gimmel" in Hebrew is a gimmel in Yiddish ALL THE WAY THRU the entire Hebrew/Yiddish alphabet (including vowels) because there is NO "Yiddish" alphabet as such since it uses only the Hebrew one with the exact same names for its letters, there's your conjoining at the heart of the alefbes. Anyhow, as I have pointed out I am being super-meticulous about this. Sure, not every single Hebrew or Aramaic word took root in Yiddish diction and literature, just as not every Germanic or Slavic word was absorbed into it, and in our days, not every English word has been aboserb into Yiddish, but once a word gains widespread usage within Yiddish, especially from Hebrew and Old German it is entirely Yiddish. Dr. Wolff, your examples from French to English are not the same because they are small rarities in English, whereas without its Hebrew words, the Yiddish language does not exist. You know, there was a class of Yiddishists in the Soviet Union that used to sit around thinking up ways to rid Yiddish of its Hebrew words and when they utilised Yiddish it sounded more like wannabe German, but they never succeeded in ripping Hebrew from Yiddish since they are inherently inseperable. But as I said, I would not automatically class every Hebrew word with Yiddish, it must take a good degree of expertise and familiarity with both languages to see just how much Hebrew is the basis of Yiddish and that there is no getting away from it. Thanks for your attentive ears, and please let me have your feedback. Finally, "mashpiah" is definitely a Yiddish word as I am looking in the Harkavy Yiddish-English Dictionary (22nd edition, 1898, Hebrew Publishing Company) right now as I am typing this here, and I am looking at the Yiddish section, and for the YIDDISH word (written in Yiddish, meaning Hebrew print, because there is no other way of writing or printing Yiddish, it clearly says that "משפיע" (mashpiah) means "to influence to instil" and to show you how flexible Yiddish is, when I look up "Influence" it says that it means "איינפלוס" (einflus) and "ווירקונג" (virkung) with einflus and virkung also being the Yiddish for "influence" and "effect" the same as the Hebrew "mashpiah" so that this illustrates the ambidexturous way Yiddish function, as confirmed by Harkavy (not that I needed him, but it's should serve as proof) that a Hebrew word is as much part of Yiddish a Germanic word that says the same thing. And no doubt in the Slavic lands they had equivalnt words that could have served on a third tier of words, but we are not going that far here (yet). All de best, alts gutz, Koil Tiv! IZAK (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Hebrew words in Yiddish where the above discussion so far is being reposted to open up this thread to more input for those who care about this. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Beyt Tikkun1

I notified all those who edited the article. My apologies for failing to notify the obscure project deletion subpage. Bstone (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Bston: Thanks, no need for apologies. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism is not "obscure" at all. Most active Judaic editors, and there are many of them, are aware of it. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, FYI, Bstone has stated that it is "Awaiting IZAK's response to my comments" concerning the Afd debate[1]. Thanks. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Hi, I disagree with him and I have nothing further to say. IZAK (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyt Tikkun2

Hi IZAK. I'm a supporter of both the Jewish Renewal movement and Michael Lerner. I spent a long time trying to find sources that would help establish the notability of Beyt Tikkun synagogue, and aside from an article about its founding, all I could find was an article that mentioned a Pesach seder there. I would love to keep the article, but I'm afraid it's only notable because of its connection with Michael Lerner. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello IZAK, FYI, this article has been expanded since yesterday. Malik and I have add new citations as well. Thanks. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Even though this is not my usual "cup of tea" yet I have supported the retention of the article and I will leave it up to other editors to insert that kind of material which I have no doubt exists. Thanks for keeping me posted. IZAK (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Free use of Israeli stamp images

Hi. I just uploaded some stamps and claimed free use, pursuant to Israeli law. See Category talk:Stamps of Israel. Did you already try this route with your stamps? Have you had complete success with the claims you've made? Pls reply to my Talk. Hope you are doing well, kol tuv. HG | Talk 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi HG: I have replied to this on your talk page as you requested. IZAK (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll see what happens. Unfortunately, even if it goes well, I don't have experiene designing templates. HG | Talk 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi HG: The best way to "design" templates, if you don't know how, is to copy one that exists already and that you like and then to paste it in a new page and change the information to what you propose. A template's page is bugun automatically when one types Template:Name of subject goes here. IZAK (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious Zionism footer

I created the footer: Template:Religious Zionism, but it still needs links, and am unsure of exactly which ones you wanted placed, and where. Prehaps you should choose the best ones for the template. Yahel Guhan 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I will look at it. Your efforts are very important! IZAK (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD Beyt Tikkun questions

Would enjoy to see your responses here. Bstone (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I disagree with you. I have nothing more to say. IZAK (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hanukkah menorah stamp 1999.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hanukkah menorah stamp 1999.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, Ww2censor (a philatelist) simply replaced the stamp with a crisper, brighter image. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletes of synagogues

Thanks for your note but I shall tag articles which are worthy of speedy deletion as appropriate. If the admins decide they are not appropriate for speedy deletion then I shall tag as normal AfD. As far as sorting, that is not part of the normal mechanism. Hopefully I can remember to list it there. Bstone (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment on this discussion, please don't do things like comparing users to Kristallnacht, like you did here. That could be considered a personal attack. Please Assume good faith with these AfD nominations. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Rjd: This entire process is a serious matter and it has serious consequences. There are no personal attacks here. Just statement of facts. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The no personal attacks policy is a serious matter too. Also, in reference to this comment, he isn't doing anything wrong so do not make threats. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would certainly support an explicit proposal to removal churches and other religious bodies from speedy as non-notable. I think they should, like schools, be exposed to view of the community because they are always controversial. DGG (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

some sources ?

Hi. According to [2], you wrote the 5th and the 6th paragraph of Religion in Israel#Christianity in Israel. Do you have some sources? I know the info is correct, but I think some references will help because in my opinion the link between Evangelicalism and Zionism based on eschatology may appear questionable for some readers. Thanks. adriatikus | talk 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Shlomo Goren and "The Brother and Sister Verdict"

Shalom, IZAK — I've added a further comment to your remark on the "Permission of the mamzer?" query on the Talk page for Rabbi Shlomo Goren. It indicates the need for some follow-up in terms of notable content apparently absent from the page. Would you kindly look there and at the Hebrew Wikipedia article on the evidently controversial and significant psak din (link provided)? I would appreciate your input. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Mordechai Peron

As we've previously discussed, I've created the page based on the Hebrew page and tagged it as an Israeli military history stub. The following remains to be done (and is beyond my present level of WP editing knowledge):

If you or other editors would take care of these, I'll follow suit with the remaining three new pages on IDF Chief Rabbis. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions on Wikipedia

IZAK, suggest spending some time hanging out in the CAT:SD area, which shows all the articles that have been nominated for speedy deletion and are awaiting deletion. The majority of them get deleted by an admin within a few hours without any discussion. There can be dozens, sometimes hundreds, of nominations at any one time. It used to be that most articles in this area were obvious vandalism, joke articles and the like. But these days, probably a majority are serious articles that aren't considered appropriate candidates for the encyclopedia. In the last year or two Wikipedia has been inundated with articles by companies attempting to use Wikipedia for cheap advertising. One consequence of that experience is that a lot of Wikipedians are very wary of articles on organizations and suspect them, unless they have a lot of content and a clear reason for being there, of being advertising ploys. Two of our criteria for speedy deletion for articles, A1, lack of sufficient context, and A7, failure to explain the subject's importance or significance, are routinely used to speedy-delete, without discussion, articles that contain more information than some of the synagogue articles you are protesting. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Shira: Thank you for contacting me. Frankly, with all due respect for your abilities and capabilities: I have been on Wikipedia for over five years, far longer than you, so I have as good a sense of, if not a better sense of what gives and what is good for Wikipedia! So I understand full well what you are saying. But you have not grasped where I am coming from in the present situation it seems, because my concern and focus is on BUILDING Wikipedia especially its Jewish content. In the process of building one needs "bricks" and "cement" at least. Some of the recent nominations to delete articles about synagogues run counter to the spirit and aim of building good articles. Many of these synagogue articles have been accumulated over years and they need to be looked at NOT as "nuisances" that need to be removed but as POSSIBLE building blocks, either on their own if at all possible, or as the parts of articles about the cities and communities they are in. Thus an article about a small synagogue in an isolated community may not seem that significant on its own, but it can and should be part of a larger article about [[History of the Jews in _ _ _ _]] see Category:Jewish American history by place as an example, or it could even be MERGED into an general non-Judaic article about the city or community it finds itself in under a sub-heading of "==Religion in _ _ _ _=="! These are all healthy possible options to have in mind and but not to be "trigger happy" by reaching for the "delete" options at every turn without considering the larger picture and the difficulty of gathering information for Judaic articles in the first place! These are some of my concerns as a Wikipedia writer/editor/contributor (who by the way also knows that at times some articles must indeed go, but it must be built on perspective and not just "fulfiling rules" that are a dime a dozen and don't help writing/editing/contributing in any real way.) As for what large company's and organizations are doing it mostly does not impact Wikipedia's Judaic content, except I would say with articles relating to Chabad that are flooding-in in greater numbers and need to be controlled and channelled. But this needs to be a careful busines and not a "shoot at sight" situation where an editor can look for all the rules around and shoot down stubs especially, something that is very unfair to all stubs. The mere fact that Wikipedia allows for stub articles to exist without any timeframe imposed on them, disproves the desire of the blanket deletionists. Not every article can reach full bloom with the slapping down of a template for "more information" and the like. Growth takes time. We are writers and editors first and being "deletionists and butchers" needs to be seen in context of growth and not just a process to fulfil rules that have nothing to do with writing and creating larger and better articles. IZAK (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: All responses to, and comments about, this discussion should be made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles in order to centralize this important debate. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Gute woch back at you! I'm replying here to your msg and I see no need to add to the Project thread. You deserve credit both for improving the articles and for your dedication to the encyclopedia. However, I do think you've been a bit intense about the whole AfD question (presumably because of your concerns about the motivation, or at least the spark of interest, which I empathize with but believe we shouldn't take into account). I mean, really, the whole AfD process is set up -- in part -- for people to improve articles that aren't notable and make them WP-worthy. Nothing wrong with using an AfD to motivate whomever might want to see the article flourish. I suppose my own AfD nominations sometimes work in that way and I would like to be treated with goodd faith in raising the question of deletion. (Hence, your improvements reinforce for me the benefit of AfDs on apparently non-notable shuls!) Plus, I don't take the deletion of a Wikipedia stub as such a big deal. The article can always be created later if/when somebody has the time to work on it. Any pious yidden in some shteibl won't mind if they aren't mentioned in wikipedia. Deleting a few lines of text and a link, that's not like destroying a shul (kh-v'sh!). Surely that's what I would say to anybody who might object to my proposing an AfD on, say, Jewish ethics on nanotechnology. (Oh, I'm tempted to create this as a stub to prove my point, but I'll resist the yetzer....) Be well and don't burn yourself out, l'hit, HG | Talk 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi HG: Thanks for caring. This is not about "shtieblach" believe me, they are too self-assured and thrive on their anonymity. The articles/stubs about synagogues in question targeted by User Bstone (talk · contribs) that are basically very old and established institutions. They are the historic "conner-stones" of their respective Jewish communities going back over a hundred years in many cases, as anyone looking at their website links can tell. So to eradicate them as "not notable" is pure rubbish. Yes, the articles may lack information and are just barely skeletons with a few lines sometimes. But that should not be an invitation to figurative "vultures" to circle them and finish them off. Rather, as I have shown from improving the two recent articles, what a responsible editor should do is not play games but go to Google and start researching for articles and links that will easily, with a little time and patience, yield information for each article so that very few will have to be deleted. But to just throw out stubs simply because they don't have enough information flies in the face of building an encyclopedia and of the whole concept of having stubs in the first place. I have never nominated an article for deletion as a "mechanism" to "trick" editors to save the article. That is geneivas da'as and not honest. Look, either something is notable or it's not, but not always does it have the WP:CITE and WP:V ready on the spot. So that takes work, and that's what we are here for, to work to improve Wikipedia. As for not burning out, it's good advice. But it's not good advice for a "Wikiholic"! ;-} IZAK (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, Izak, try to refrain from repeating your non-AGF concerns on-wiki. Anyway, I doubt that it's geneivat da'at to AfD a stub when the notability seems questionable. Even a stub should make a claim about topic significance. Besides, the nominator (or a bot) should notify the stub creator (or even in this case, as you've requested of Bstone, the WikiProject). I would raise the notability concern on article Talk before an AfD, too. (Such notifications are antithetical to geneivat daat.) Furthermore, I do think there's a general understanding that we have the five days partly to give folks a chance to improve the article and escape AfD. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 13:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
PS You're right that an editor should google before AfDing. But //Duluth "Adas Israel Congregation"// has no hits in Google News and nothing apparently notable in its first page of regular ghits. Even the current article, which describes the synagogue, has barely any notability claim. (Is "oldest surviving" in Duluth notable? Or the longevity?) So the AfD, or at least starting down that road, seem quite plausible. wikiholically yrs, HG | Talk 13:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi HG: I got all my information from Google. You are making the classic mistake of using the inverted commas first in your Google search. Try doing the search without them and you will find hundreds of hits and results for Adas Israel Congregation Duluth it's just that sorting it manually is harder, but it can be done and it yields good information. Also, to repeat, AFDs and prods should NOT be used as "scare tactics" to get people to improve articles "or else" -- that is a kind of a "law of the jungle" trap that as responsible and honest academic and intellectual editors we should not just avoid but also shun. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi IZAK! Suggest also taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed change to criterion A7, proposing a change to the CSD ("criteria for speedy deletion") to relax them a bit for possibly notable stubs and the like. It gives some of the same reasons you are giving. Currently, the criteria really does say say that every article has to explain why its subject is important or get speedy-deleted, it puts the burden on the editor creating the article to do this. And the admins are enforcing this and deleting thousands of articles that wouldn't have been deleted before. The proposal relaxes this burden a bit by sending questionable cases to AfD for a discussion rather than the speedy route. But so far, it looks like the majority of folks who've commented on the proposal disagree and want to keep things the way they currently are. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Shira for giving me useless advice. So are we now going to stand by and watch all the Judaism stubs be flushed down the toilet? What is the rationale? There are barely 13 million Jews in the world, with about half living in North America and for the minority of Jews in the USA who are in any way religiously-inclined, building and attendting synagogues and synagogue life and attendance is one of the pillar, ofetn the only one, of their practice of Judaism and Jewish identity. As you well know. So should we now allow the destruction of valuable synagogue and all Judaic stubs that will lead to better articles eventually be destroyed because Wikipedia has problems with bigger things? Are we also now headed to having the crazy phenomenon of "Jews with synagogues" on Wikipedia? How nuts will that be! Think about it, this is a perilous juncture. IZAK (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
IZAK, please read WP:ORG which gives the rationale for deleting articles on organizations. Yes, we have to abide by Wikipedia deletion policies. Also strongly suggest reading WP:CIVIL. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the specific criteria in WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations:

*Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

  • Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.

Currently synagogues are lumped under the category "Non-commercial organizations" and the language has been interpteted to mean that individual local congregations are not notable unless proven otherwise. You're welcome to argue for changing these criteria, you're welcome to propose special criteria for religious organizations, and you're welcome to try to fit individual articles into these criteria by finding sources to help demonstrate notability, but you have to live within these rules and the options that are available to you under them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Shira: See my response below. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Separate guidelines for religious bodies

See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Religious bodies (WP:RELIBODY)

Dear Shirahadasha: Thank you for bothering to take the time to get into this, but you obviously are not coming up with the correct solutions. Religious bodies/buildings/places/sanctuaries etc are different to secular "organizations". Thank you for citing the "chapter and verse" to me, I have now updated it to state:

Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, Temples, Holy sites, Religious places (places of worship), Religious buildings, Religious sanctuaries (sanctuaries) are not "organizations" in the above sense and because they are connected to Religion cannot be measured by the above guidelines and need to be assessed by expert editors familiar with each type of religious body concerned, commencing with the Wikiproject of each religion in question.

See WP:RELIBODY which should be straightforward and self-evident. Stay in touch. Your sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest taking a look at the discussion going on at WP:ORG#Should all religious bodies be exempt?. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

I just wanted to respond to a couple of your recent comments. First off, it does not matter how long you've been here. You have no more say on anything than anybody else does. Secondly, a quick look through your contributions show that you tend to stick with articles that would fall within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, which of course if fine, however, it could make you biased towards keeping any articles of these subjects, despite the apparent failure to meet some inclusion guidelines. Third, regarding your comment on my talk page, despite what you seem to think, admins do not need to have "real knowldege of Judaic subjects" to be effective administrators. To even think that is truly misguided. I evaluated these articles independantly, based on our inclusion guidelines. Being a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism does not assert, or give you, any right to ownership of any article.

Hopefully this will clear up any misunderstandings that you have. Also to note, I see that you have expanded those two articles, and that is great! I will definitely be looking at them, and if I believe they now meet our inclusion guidelines, I will change my opinion on their AfD's. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Rjd: Find someone else to lecture to and look up the meaning of the word chutzpah. I don't own anything and you don't own Wikipedia last I heard. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

EMail

IZAK, just a heads up. I sent you a message via wiki's private email/contact feature. Nsaum75 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hanukkah menorah stamp 1999.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hanukkah menorah stamp 1999.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs

No thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Synagogues et al

First off, thank you for alerting me to the need to improve the stubs. I have begun to add locations of the specific synagogues outside of Minnesota.

Now as to the questionable congregations; other editors have added immensely to the list, surely one of them is responsible for the addition of the problematic groups. I may try to weed them out but I'm probably (seemingly) not as qualified as others to identify said organizations. Grika Ⓣ 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Grika: Good to hear from you finally. I have worked on the list a little. Have you noted the others issues I mentioned on your talk page? Let's keep in touch. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation Check

Hi IZAK, As you offered your help with citations could you please check citation #1 which I added here today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_music#Contemporary_Jewish_religious_music. I linked to an article on Academic Psychiatry. Did I do it correctly? Thanks --Itsabouttime (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Itsabouttime: Looks ok to me. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AN - Project religion

Well done, Izak! As usual, your over-the-top intervention will result in exactly the opposite of what you want to achieve. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Johnbod: What's wrong with calling a spade a spade? Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent actions

It is a simple matter of etiquette to seek to inform individuals you request to see blocked that a discussion on that is taking place. You, in your rush to make unsupported accusations, completely and utterly failed to do so. This hardly reflects well on you. Also, your comments seem to indicate that you seem to have WP:OWN issues regarding some content, which is itself potentially yet another policy violation. And your own basically jumping in to what may have been an already resolved conversation doesn't show any particular good judgement on your part. In all honesty, sir, I think the person who has behaved most irresponsibly in this matter is you, not me. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think IZAK's contribution was unhelpfully extreme, but he merely added a new sub-section to an existing thread you were well aware of. It must have shown on your watchlist just as it did on mine. As usual JC, everybody is to blame but you. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, that statement is, as is becoming seemingly usual from you, a gross misrepresentation. I have taken responsibility for my actions, and started reviewing the tags and removing them, while at the same time assessing for other relevant projects, including Judaism, and adding relevant banners. If anything, the person who seems to be trying to avoid any blame is you, trying to force the blame for the actions of others, including IZAK, on me. This is sadly comprehensible, if completely inexcusable. IZAK, I note from your history that you have, shall we say, a tendency toward "pugnaciousness" yourself. Please realize that, should you continue in the sort of ill-informed, rash, actions as you have, it may well happen that you may again find yourself subject to the disciplinary action you rashly sought to have placed on me. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
How a misrepresentaion? Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi John Carter: You need to calm down yourself. I was merely frankly summing up what I saw happening and out of my worries about Judaism articles getting whacked by your proposals as I read the alarmist reactions of editors who have worked on Judaic and Biblical content which troubled me greatly. You make a big mistake about me here. I do not "own" the Judaism articles but I do worry about them and keep them on my watchlist, and I speak up when I see them being violated or trouble brewing on the horizon. You seem to think that your unilateral actions that would have impacted all the Judaism articles should never be challenged and if they are then you will simply counter-threaten. How nice. Also, scapegoating me will not solve the concerns others have expressed about your recent editorial actions. Anyhow, you should be taking steps to mend your ways based on your recent editorial fiascos and not run around warning people like me who try to stay focused on one area rather than try to subsume topics beyond their normal paramaters or over-reach themselves or both. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for user conduct

IZAK, I have opened a request for user conduct about your recent conduct. It is located here. Sincerely Bstone (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the essay in question is not a proposed policy or guideline, and nowhere says anything remotely similar. It is, as it stated, a series of personal observations. Kindly learn to apply AGF a little more frequently to your actions. Thank you. And, in the future, try not to delete whole paragraphs that you happen to disagree with "by mistake". I doubt very seriously anyone would believe such "mistakes" which serve your own clear purposes really are such. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi John, you are being too harsh. When I reposted the page I saw that it had more of your comments, so that is why I notified you, as I only wanted to make the small corrections and not remove any major items. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reinsering comments move to a talk page is not acceptable, and could reasonably be considered vandalism, particularly when the only comment you bothered to restore was your own. Please cease such actions in the future. It is extremely difficult to AGF good faith regarding any such clearly possibly self-serving actions. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, you are over-reacting. You are acting as if you own the Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects page when any editor can edit. Where does it say that only you may edit that page? Kindly put that in a prominenet place on that page as I had no idea it was your own private preserve. If all it is, is a place for you to make your own comments, then why haven't you published it as User:John Carter/The Problem with Projects so that then everyone would clearly know it's your only and would not tamper with it in any way, and your would not have to raise your blood pressure worrying that it is being edited by others. Relax. IZAK (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi IZAK. I find you saying that others are overreacting laughable, considering that it was you who irrationally demanded that I be blocked, probably in violation of blocking policies, because of your raising your own blood pressure worrying that some of "your" content might be edited by others. And, If anything, it seems likely that it was your own, almost paranoic it seems, overreaction which prompted you to edit the article in the first place. I am well aware of your proprietary view of matters regarding Judaism. However, the only project that I personally see even remotely qualifying as one of the "ancillary" projects is the Tel Aviv project. In fact, the only projects really being addressed, at least by me, were the TV show projects and city projects, given that they are the ones that most frequently and quickly become inactive. Also, regretably, there is a very real chance that, possibly within a year or two, the various television projects will become so numerous that the remaining project banners won't have the capacity to continue to provide assessment for them all. At that point, whether we like it or not, we will face the question of what to do with subprojects we no longer have the ability to support. This beside the point that the individual assessments themselves cause sometimes extreme delays. When the assessment bot first started, the statistics pages were updated daily. Now, at best, it's every four days.
You would note that academic disciplines were specifically mentioned as qualifying, and that Jewish studies qualifies as one. You might even have noted that both the Scientology and Hinduism projects were specifically mentioned as having the "right to exist".
I would also like to take the opportunity to point out to you how your own, dare I say tunnel-vision?, approach to the issue of Judaism is probably, in its own way, impeding your ability to do what you seek. I rather doubt that you have noted the recent discussion started at Wikipedia:Organisation of Bible articles regarding how to organize content regarding primarily the various chapters of the Bible. Believe it or not, if you review the history, you will see that I actively encouraged the editor who started the discussion on the talk page of the Bible project to post on both the Judaism and Christianity project pages. However, that editor, seemingly with the same overly focused perspective you may have, decided that there was no reason to let either of the projects who most regularly contribute content regarding a certain book to be advised of the discussion regarding it. I sincerely doubt that this would be the only time your perhaps overly focused perspective may have caused you to be unable to contribute to discussion as quickly as you would like. If you were to pay attention to pages not so "focused" on Judaism, and possibly occasionally contribute there, you would be able to more quickly contribute to such discussions. However, in all honesty, given your history, I have very serious doubts that you are likely to change this overly focused perspective in the future.
You seem to have a fear that, somehow, other projects are going to "stake a claim", and perhaps even usurp, the Judaism project. I have no idea where such an idea would have come from, other than possibly arising out of a distrust of others and clear failure to AGF. On the purely logical front, a single religion banner, with accompanying assessment, would almost certainly bog down the server as badly as the Biography banner currently does. Assessments are at times delayed I'm told a full week or so because of the amount of tallying required for that one banner. This is not to say that, in time, there may be a need for possibly a separate "Abrahamic religion" banner which would provide individual assessments for the various relevant projects, if, as seems likely, individual projects are eventually created on the Baha'i, Druze, and maybe even Rastafarians, Unification Church, etc. However, I would hope that its use, if it is ever created, would be limited to articles which would otherwise include the banners for most of those projects separately, and be used exclusively for the purpose of reducing banner clutter. The same may, potentially, eventually, be true of the Taoic and Dharmic faiths as well, but only on the same basis.
You will note that in the RfCU recently filed regarding you that your "ownership" issues, however much you deny them, are cited as being among the the primary causes of your own disruptions and even that RfCU being filed. If you were to perhaps on occasion involve yourself in other matters, and other projects, you wouldn't be perceived by others as being as "devoted", shall we say, to Judaism, and would be seen as more of a "team player".
Just some ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I would say that I greatly appreciate the time you are taking with this here. I have to move on, but I will say a few things. You obvioulsy seem to have an interest and ability to look at things at a more global and strategic level and most people do not. That may be why they don't get what you are saying and trying to do most of the time. Another point, no-one can deal with all topics and it is ridiculous to say that an editor would prove themselves if they would edit in entirely different fields to build up "team spirit" and get a good name for themselves. This sounds more like a "prescription" from a doctor for good health rather than accepting the reality that Wikipedia's success is built on the fact that people edit and write what they can contribute to what they know and like best. That is very basic. Another point about Biblical articles. At one time I was more involved with them and I still would be if not for other areas of editing and writing that I do on Wikipedia. But the problem there is that the inevitable clash of how Judaism views the Bible and how Christianity deals with it, or how university academics deal with it, so it is a terrible minefield, and for now I have chosen to stay out of it. I have been giving a lot of thought these past few years as to how the classical Jewish and Rabbinic views could be represented in such articles, but I have not had the time to implement them. It can be done, and some editors have started, but I just cannot alot time for that now. Finally, as for the present RFC case, it is sour grapes by a user who is seeking revenge. It is not about editing and writing, the meat and potatoes of Wikipedia, it is about the fact that he wished to randomly nominate for deletion synagogue stubs and I warned him to stop and took him to task for it. I even improved three of the articles, which were voted "Keep" which made him even angrier. He can call me all sorts of names and imagine that I violated all he wants, but the real title about me he misses is that I am "a damn good writer and editor" if he were to be honest and objective rather than acting insulted. I am still trying to understand you. I see that you are a complex person with solid thinking. Just somewhat intellectually over-ambitious. I am not sure we will really be able to work on projects together but maybe we will have more chances to chat. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hummus

Shalom! I thought you might be interested in this: There seems to be some question of whether or not Hummus should be considered a Jewish or Israeli food. I know this isn't in your usual realm of editing, but I thought you might be interested in reading the commentary on the talk page. Currently there is a RfC on the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus#RfC

-- Nsaum75 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Nsaum: Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I have added my comments on the talk page there. I actually do enjoy writing and editing about Israeli and Jewish foods from time to time. Be'tei'avon! IZAK (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution added bias content to Hummus. Please be more careful when editing articles and try to maintain a WP:NPOV. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 172.165.111.192 (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi anon: Are you for real? How is saying that Hummus is Israeli and Jewish food "bias"? Please add to the talk page there instead of plastering these silly notices on my talk page and you do so as an anonymous editor yet which makes your actions highly questionable and subject to suspiciouns of bias as well. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Toledano Tradition page

IZAK, I'll wait until the AfD has been resolved and will consider where, if anywhere, to put the text then, but thanks for your effort to retain the text in some form. abafied (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please look at the Kabbalah talk page and weigh in. After years of needless debate on division of a long article- I divided the kabbalah article into Doctrines, History, Texts, and Debate- similar to the Hebrew and French wiki articles. I did not change any content. Just a division. The author of the Toledano tradition article is upset. I have a long note on the talk page. I have no view to represent other than the article was a useless mess and need to be overhauled. Can you weigh in?--Jayrav (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas

Hi, IZAK. The above article was one which we worked well together on. It's truly notable. You may want to check the history for today as it seems most of our hard work has been reverted. Interestingly a lot of the reverts have been done by a member of the congregation. Thought you might want to know. Bstone (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

great comment on mission statements; I'll be using it as a basis for help at other instances. Maybe you should find a suitable guideline page to put something of the sort. DGG (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DGG. IZAK (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks IZAK (talk), Bstone (talk) and DGG (talk) for all your hard work and concern about the TSNWA site. I really appreciate your comments and suggestions on how to write a NPOV article. Thanks also for giving me the benefit of the doubt and for throwing in a positive comment from time to time. I already feel completely out of my depth in this and like an idiot for accusing you of vandalism because of my ignorance. Your kindness in the face of my misunderstanding means a lot to me. I hope I can help you rewrite an appropriately spare article. Please take a look at what I have posted on the site and let me know how far off the mark I am... JudithRobinsonLevine (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ohr Avner logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Ohr Avner logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MosheDayan small.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:MosheDayan small.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar

I would appreciate if you would comment at Talk:Nisan, on Elsb3antisophist's edits. His only edits have been on the Hebrew months trying to put Arabic translations of some of the Gregorian months as if they are the same as the Hebrew calendar. Epson291 (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The user placed them back already (3rd time doing so) on the several different months (titles and info box), this time not logged in. How should I respond to this? Epson291 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
ex. Shevat, Av, Iyar, etc... Epson291 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Epson291: Take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and start a new discussion thread there. There are always editors who can help. I would also susggest you contact User:Shirahadasha and User:Avraham who know a lot about Judaism in depth, and they are serious admins as well and if there are any issues of vandalism they will know what to do. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac article name change

Thanks for your comments and contributions at Binding of Isaac. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust of Gaza????

Hi IZAK, I see you're very actively involved in Judaism/Israel related articles. I'm kinda new here but the article Holocaust of Gaza seems to be inappropriate. I'm not sure if it violates POV or verifiability or whatever, but let me know what you think. (It would be highly informative in general to let me know the policies regarding such issues.) Thanks Keyed In (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Keyed In. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You are indeed correct that this article violates many Wikipedia principles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust of Gaza. Each article needs to be judged on its own merits, so there are no sweeping rules beyond Wikipedia's own main "golden rule" of WP:NPOV that is worth reading and learning as all Wikipedians must abide by it. Feel free to ask me anything specific. You may also wish to contact editors via Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics for Israel-realted questions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism where you will always find some helpful and knowledgeable editors. Enjoy being on Wikipedia! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I was thinking about nominating it, but I wanted to check first. Thanks for all the info. Regards, Keyed In (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada RfC

Hi, can you respond to this RfC for me, please? Thanks. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yiddish books in Wikipedia

Tayerer fraynd; test:special:BookSources tsu דער חיות־פֿאָלװאַרק is a pruv; zayt moykhl un gebt a kuk tsu di bikher fun test:category:Shared/books un test:category:Shared/books/to do. kh-bin oft bay #kavehoyz als « gangleri » . m:wikt:yi:project:IRC iz oykhet a veg tsu « #kavehoyz  » . Blaybt gezunt
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. → de:user tak:°#IsbnCheckAndFormat

Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas...

Dear IZAK, I am finally back and able to participate in the discussion, but only for the next 2 weeks. I would love it if you would take a look at the Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas talk page and comment. I am so sorry for all the confusion. I am a total novice to Wikipedia, but I am a quick learner. This combined with my inability to communicate from my previous location has been very frustrating. I want to improve the site if possible because it is a total shambles right now. I have worked on a rewrite but have not gotten any constructive criticism about it. Thanks for all the work you have put into this already. I am happy to help in any way I can. I think I now understand NPOV and COI and I have learned a LOT about the Wikipedia culture but I am still way underwater. I'm sure I am not even using the talk page correctly and I'm probably not using your talk page correctly, so please forgive me.

JudithRobinsonLevine (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks IZAK (talk), Bstone (talk) and DGG (talk) for all your hard work and concern about the TSNWA site. I really appreciate your comments and suggestions on how to write a NPOV article. Thanks also for giving me the benefit of the doubt and for throwing in a positive comment from time to time. I already feel completely out of my depth in this and like an idiot for accusing you of vandalism because of my ignorance. Your kindness in the face of my misunderstanding means a lot to me. I hope I can help you rewrite an appropriately spare article. Please take a look at what I have posted on the site and let me know how far off the mark I am... . JudithRobinsonLevine (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear IZAK (talk), Bstone (talk) and DGG (talk)... I don't know what the protocol is here... if I leave the warnings in place, am I allowed to edit the Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas site? I don't want to do anything wrong and I only have a very limited amount of time before returning to a location from where I know I can't edit. I know you are all busy too and it could be a while before you get a chance to look at the framework, comments and the proposed revisions... JudithRobinsonLevine (talk)
  • Hi Judith, sure you may edit the article, just adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:CITE and you can't go wrong. In fact, I think that the "warning" is heavy-handed and that you are shoing good faith per WP:AGF in your edits. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, IZAK! So did you mean I can edit away the warning, too? I don't want to make anyone angry, I just want to improve the article enough so I can get a citation for Jonathan Sarna... can that just be a notation? how would I link to an email? JudithRobinsonLevine (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, IZAK, me again. Oh dear, I have that email from Jonathan Sarna now, and I don't know how to make a citation with it. Now for the bad news: I inadvertently erased the warnings and I don't know if I'm allowed to put them back or if I even need to worry about it at this point... and, just for fun, I created a NOVICE ON BOARD sign, but I don't even know enough to know where to post it! any suggestions? or am I the only one who would be amused by it? JudithRobinsonLevine (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, apparently Bstone (talk) does not agree that I have demonstrated good faith or that the warnings were heavy handed. He has reinstated the warnings with no constructive criticism and no reply to my plea for advice. He didn't like the mission statement... even though dozens of Wikipedia sites have mission statements... I removed it. He didn't like the list of past presidents... I removed it. I don't find it very productive to slap warnings on a site with no attempt to edit. I thought we were all supposed to improve the site.JudithRobinsonLevine (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Judith: Don't take it personally and don't get frustrated, but in recent months User Bstone (talk · contribs) has been consistently opposed to articles about most synagogues and has tried to get a number of articles about them deleted. I have been opposing him on this because he has not been giving the editors interested in those articles enough fair time to develop them into better articles, and it has led to some nasty words between us. To give you some context, see what has transpired at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation and how I saved it at Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka, Minnesota); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation and the improved Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth, Minnesota); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Kol Emes and how it was saved at Congregation Kol Emes (Richmond, Virginia); and that is how I then got to Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas trying to improve Bstone's edits on it. See also the bitter discussions that started all this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun and how it is at Beyt Tikkun. There have been a few other cases, but these are the main ones to date in this senseless fight that Bstone is waging. There were long and acrimonious discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles and after not getting his way he then even started this against me: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2. So, as I say, don't take it personally because you are walking into the middle of an unresolved dispute between Bstone who is basically pursuing a deletionist agenda with synagogue articles, as opposed to most of the Judaic editors who wish to be more inclusionist of synagogues as long as they can show that they have unique aspects backed up by WP:RS. Therefore be patient because writing articles on Wikipedia is a long-term and frustrating effort at times. I would advise you to seek out more help from editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I already asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Framework for clarification in synagogue editorial dispute but if you join it will hopefully receive fresh attention. You can also consider starting a friendly low-scale form of mediation and present your case following the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Please be patient and retain your calm and of course avoid personal attacks per WP:NPA. Feel free to stay in touch. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi, IZAK. This is distressing indeed. I wish he'd take a look at some of the "Christian" sites... Actually, yesterday, I made some progress with Bstone. He even complimented me on my rewrite... but then Guy Chapman erased it all and started calling me names... again... I think I give up. My children are not 12 years old anymore and I am not about to deal with other people's 12 year olds. I did look at some of your saves and I am mightily impressed, as much by your deeds as by how you manage to keep your temper. I send you many good wishes on your projects and good works and again, I very much appreciate your positive attitude and kindness to newcomers. JudithRobinsonLevine (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi again Judith: Thanks for caring. Please do not give up as that is quite often the response of new users. Writing good articles and editing on Wikipedia is a process. Try to contribute to other articles as well. Try to remember that Wikipedia is here to be enjoyed and don't let others dampen your spirits or enthusiasm. IZAK (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah

Since, up to this point, you have made no comments about the current, and ongoing, discussion concerning the Kabbalah article, it might be helpful to hear your views as someone not involved. It is my main wish to have a good article. If it seems that I am in the wrong on the issues I am quite willing to back off, or even remove myself from editing the article altogether. I do think your informed views would be a help at this point. However, if you are unwilling to weigh in on the article talk page, I would still be interested in your views if you would e-mail me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Malcolm: Thank you for contacting me. Pardon my lack of comment but I have been very busy in real life lately so that it has left me with less time to get seriously involved and I prefer not saying things that are half-baked due to time constraints. Perhaps I will give it a look soon. Do not panic and keep cool. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not panic, but rather, since I take Rebbe Nachman's advice to "never give up" rather seriously (with occasional lapses); I think it important to exert care that I have not chosen the wrong thing to not to give up on. In other words I want to make sure I have not lost my sense of perspective while arguing over a few points. Sorry about adding more work to what you already have on your desk. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: REQUEST x 3, again.

Dear IZAK. No.[3] Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone, thanks for responding. I did see that already, but to be obstinate and say "No" to listing the articles for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism is VERY harsh and unreasonable and very counter-productive. Please reconsider for the future in the spirit of co-operation. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear IZAK, no. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Bstone, so if you won't list it there yourself, would you mind letting me or another editor know when you nominate Judaic articles for deletion? I for one do not mind doing the work of listing them etc even though you think those articles, and editors who have an interest in them by implication, do not deserve such honorable treatment. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
IZAK, I already did and please assume good faith. Bstone (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone, I know what you wrote at WP:JUDAISM and I am not disputing that, but that was a discussion page and has nothing to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. And why do you doubt my good faith when I am begging you to please take a little extra time and list the deletions at the formal Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism which is watched by many editors who do not praticipate in in WP:JUDAISM talk pages. I am even offering to do the work for you if you would let me know of your intent to nominate Judaic articles for deletion because I believe in its importance and that as many editors as can be reached should be given a fair chance to be notified. Thanks for giving this matter your attention. IZAK (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear IZAK, no. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio)

A tag has been placed on Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bstone (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio)

I have nominated Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bstone (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Notability of Subconscious (band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Subconscious (band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Subconscious (band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Subconscious (band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Subconscious (band)

I have nominated Subconscious (band), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bstone (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to assure you one thing.

I am calm. Zeq (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

btw, have you looked at the facts: [4] -s ee diffs and at that point you can decide if he invloved or not. Zeq (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, but I still think you need to practice some caution in this regard. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you ve specific ? what caution ? I was poliote I addressed El C himslef first. The response was a personal attcak on me and lack of response to the actual issue. I kept addressing the issue and the response is always on me, my past etc.. instead of addressing the issue. similar when I raised it to another admin. response is PA.
I can appriciate admins helping ne another but this has gone too far. there is no reason that a specific admin will be the one making decsion on an arbCom that require uninvolvment. "uninvolved" is a very clear and strong word. It did not say "Neutral" it did not say "lightly involved" or "rarely involved" it said categorically "uninvolved". How can anyone claim Al C is categorically "uninvolved" when the record is clear that he is  ? what does all that has to do with me, or caution. I was just raising the issue so that 200 other admins could be called upon if needed . Surly anyone of them is good enough in taking decision when needed. I would appriciate your help in hgetting this issue resolved and clarified. Tnx. Zeq (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Zeq. Thank you for the detailed response. Noone should be attacking anyone for any reason. Your politeness is important and appreciated. I am not familiar with all that many admins as I have avoided becoming one myself. My philosophy is to work on editing and improving articles rather than getting into edit wars in articles which is just a huge waste of time. If I find that there is conflict in an article I do not jump into the fray but rather I try to see if there are other areas that can gain that are not as heated. May I suggest that you try my way instead of battling El_C. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yavneh Day School

Saw what you did with the Yavneh page I created. Thanks for doing such a great job saving the page from deletion. Keep up the good work. Cheers! AJseagull1 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi AJseagull1: Thank you for your kind words that are greatly appreciated, I assure you. IZAK (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#IZAK_not_assuming_good_faith

A discussion regarding you has been opened in the above link. Bstone (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have responded over there with the following comments. I hope we can come to some meeting of the minds soon. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC):

Hi. No "battleground" of any kind was created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band) and the hyperbole used here is ridiculous. Nothing that I stated or did goes against assuming good faith. The only thing that I have been consistently requesting of Bstone that I wish he would get instead of resisting, and he does not like it, see User talk:Bstone/Archives/03/2008#REQUEST x 3, again. and User talk:IZAK#Re: REQUEST x 3, again., is that when nominating articles for deletion that he please notify the appropriate deletion notice boards which would be a common courtesy that can only help Wikipedia and all Wikipedians. Anyone is free to read the discussions cited by Bstone above at [5] and see for themselves. Bstone is requested to kindly not read every request that is made of him as some sort of "violation" of AGF rules. His request to "administrators review his behavior and intervene appropriately" is totally out of proportion and is hard to fathom at this time. Administrators are requested to please see to it that he work to assume the same WP:AGF that he expects of others. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your patience and politeness are an inspiration. Thanks for your efforts. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi SheffieldSteel: Thanks for your kind award, it is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

An arbitration case has been opened and you have been listen as a participant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#IZAK_2 Bstone (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Bstone: Thank you for letting me know. I have stated my initial response over there. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

El C

I made two proposals for coopreation with El C. None was answered. Zeq (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • He Daniel: Thank you for letting me know. I have now done so. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --John Bot III (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User page a mess?

Was it vandalised, or are you creative? ;o) Are you able to install pp-protect?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi mrg3105: I am not sure what you are referring to. Please explain your question and what you intend. Personally, I am not that technologically proficient as I concentrate almost exclusively on writing and editing. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, your Signpost is somehow formatted over itself, and one of the user boxes is on top of that. I'm not that proficient either, but if you allow me, I can have a try at fixing it up.
I am currently editing (sporadically) an article called prophecy (and also prophet). This article has a history of being edited by IPs, and all and sundry with material which is usually at best questionable. I would like to at least prevent IPs editing it as I have more then enough on my "plate" for now to take care of IPs also. I placed a pp-protect template on it, and it kind of worked, in fact too well because of a misunderstanding that stopped a registered user editing (lack of understanding).
Would you mind installing pp-protect? I asked another admin, but was told it doesn't get vandalised often enough to warrant one!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
So, you created the article for Aryeh Kaplan. As it happens I used one of his books for referencing for the first time in Wikipedia on the same day I contacted you.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again mrg3105: I prefer to leave my user page as it is for now. If I decide to move things around I will see if you can help. Thanks for your concern. I am not familiar with "pp-protect" what is it and what is it's purpose? IZAK (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, if you don't know about it, then its probably just as well. pp-protect is intended to restrict editing to registered editors only. I'll be happy to help if you need it with you user page. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A question about Wikipedia editing

Hi IZAK - Thought based on the number of edits you have done, you might know the answer to this one. Do you know if it is Kosher to take information from a wikipedia entry in one language on a subject, translate it, and put on a wikipedia entry on the same subject in another language? Thanks -AJseagull1 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi AJseagull1: I would say that it is 100% kosher because as far as I know all the Wikipedias in any language are governed by the same WP:GFDL guidelines, principles and laws. Indeed the only job is to do accurate and correct translations and to try to translate and move over the citations and references as well all the text in articles that one may wish to translate. Let me ask you, why did you think that there may be a problem? Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks IZAK, I just wasn't sure. I started to do it for a page that had a long entry in another language, but just a stub in English. But, then I stopped because it was something I've never done before, and I wanted to make sure it was OK before I proceeded. I think I was concerned because there are a lot of entries where the entry in one common language is significantly longer than the entry in another, and I thought that if it was allowed more people would be doing it, and there wouldn't be so much variation in the amount of information between the entries in common languages on the same subjects. Cheers, AJseagull1 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Mediation Case

FYI. Bstone (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Bstone: Your request was turned down. See my response [6] Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bstone and IZAK.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The rejection has been reversed as Ryan Postlethwaite has indicated that he would like to mediate this case notwithstanding the conduct issues involved. Could you indicate on the page whether you are willing to agree to this mediation process? I agree that mediation can't continue alongside other dispute resolution processes - such as the RfC. WjBscribe 15:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an update - I have closed the RfC with Bstone's agreement. WjBscribe 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi WJBscribe: Thank you for your efforts, I greatly appreciate all you have done. This is again out of line because based on discussions at User talk:AGK#Rejected Mediation Case Bstone agreed [8] to go to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and NOT to backtrack to the already closed RfM case at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bstone and IZAK. The closing of the RfC case does NOT entitle Bstone or User:Ryan Postlethwaite to get a "personal exemption" to reopen a RfM case that had been CLEARLY rejected [9] by User:Anthøny for the Mediation Committee, who emphatically stated that:

Reject, the issues itemised above are not suitable for Mediation with the Mediation Committee, in that the issues are ones of user conduct issues, and allegations of violations of Wikipedia policy on behalf of an individual editor. You may wish to pursue mediums of dispute resolution that are suitable for issues of user conduct, such as user conduct requests for comment, submission of reports for administrator attention, or, ultimately, requests for arbitration. For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By now, User:Bstone has violated so many of Wikipedia's policies that he should not be allowed to play this game. He should be blocked or stopped for his violations as posted previously at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bstone vs IZAK:

On 23 Feb 08, User Bstone (talk · contribs) opened a RfC against me, User IZAK (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 based on his dislike of comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 20#Deletion of synagogue articles on Feb 15, after he (Bstone) had nominated a number of synagogue articles/stubs for deletion, but which were saved after User:IZAK improved them enough. Neither the improvement of the articles he had nominated for deletion nor waiting for the motions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2, where the vast majority of editors including a number of admins support me, that he had started and had not been brought to closure (it's still open), on 1 April Bstone proceeded to complain at ANI but was rejected there as well. Still not satisfied he then went on to launch a RfA on 2 April which was rejected by the ArbCom. Ignoring my request on 10 April [10] that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 be brought to closure first, on 14 April Bstone stone applied for a RfM which was also rejected and being unable to accept that either, he proceeds to question [11] the admin involved. As of April 15, he has stated he intends to head to the MedCab [12] not taking "no" or "stop" for an answer. At this time, seeing that Bstone (1) refuses to accept the decisions of the ArbCom and (2) the rejection of the Mediation Committee (3) has no regard for discussions and advice at ANI and (4) ignores the motions and function of RfA, (failed actions 1 to 4 all initiated by Bstone himself) and (5) he refuses to respond to my requests to talk to me directly in a meaningful way [13] [14] [15], one can only conclude that User:Bstone is violating WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER and WP:HARASS, aka WP:STALK and a number of other policies that he cites against others, such as WP:AGF and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and that he should be warned to stop his pattern of unrelenting calculated attacks against IZAK and/or blocked for his violations of these policies, for his unbecoming stubborn and rude conduct, and for his unwillingness to accept the decisions of the ArbCom, ANI, the rejection by the Mediation Committee of his trumped up cases against IZAK, and for his ignoring of the still open RfC. Thank you for your help in this regard. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

and

...Bstone is now into his third month of a vendetta to undermine and derail me on Wikipedia, and in the process he has violated many policies such as WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND (and more) by ignoring rulings of the ArbCom, the Mediation Committee, advice at ANI and leaving a RfC that he started in limbo because it has not gone his way, and each time he has approached admins asking them to explain and justify their actions wasting everyone's time in the process, and he needs to be blocked or warned to stop his wasted and wasteful elongated WP:EDITWAR as he attempts to nominate articles about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] (with the last one cited here Bstone even went to Deletion Review to get an article re-deleted after it was kept but he was turned down, and naturally he cannot stand being rejected so he proceeds to the next battleground, and the next, and the next...) but I saved most of those articles. So that is what it is -- a huge drawn out edit war with Bstone resorting to all these outside appeals like RfCs, RfAs, RfMs and appeals at ANI and now he plans to waste the MedCab's time [23] when he disagrees with my opposing comments at AfDs, since in recent times he has nominated quite a few articles/stubs about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion, something that I opposed him on very strongly and which caused him to rage at me until now albeit in a "civil" way ("civil" rage is still rage) and he has also troubled many editors associated with WP:JUDAISM and not just me. Thanks for caring, but cutting the discussion short will not solve anything. I have called for Bstone to talk to me directly in a meaningful way on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM but he refuses to do so, and on the contrary he maintains his own "watchlist" of me listing my past "transgressions" at User:Bstone/rfcuizak (is that legal?) as he pays no attention to his own multiple violations of Wikipedia's policies as they pile up. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, at the present time it is almost Passover eve and then followed by the Passover holidays and there is little time to get into a deeper level of mediation right now which could ONLY LEGITIMATELY be pursued at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal in any case. Thanks for all your understanding. IZAK (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IZAK, you can wait until after Pesach, but I would suggest giving mediation a try. It may not help, but it doesn't seem to me it would hurt. I'm not sure that Arbcom dismissed the case so much as dropped it for now to see if the two of you could work things out. Ryan and the mediation committee are bending the rules a bit to give you an experienced, neutral mediator if you want one. Maybe he can't do anything for the two of you, but maybe he can. If you and Bstone end up having to go back to Arbcom, you'll both be in a better position if you tried the alternatives that were offered. Chag kasher v'sameach, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shira: I am not opposed to mediation in principle and I would be happy to start at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal but I cannot see the justice of an "on again, off again, on again" case at RfM at this time when the older, very thorough and comprehensive RfC was simply shut down, and it had a lot of work and views put into it and it was just trashed, without any consultation with the many editors and admins (including you, and I had agreed to your proposal at the RfC yet, so does it mean what we discuseed is null and void and we have to wait for a someone in Egypt to start from scratch? Don't you see how this wastes time and just gives Bstone more room to find yet another "innocent" admin so that he can pile on with his view of the world) and those who had worked hard to come up with a working solution for both Bstone and myself get left out in the cold by calculation it seems because Bstone has consistently refused to discuss this at WP:JUDAISM and he even attacked your capabilities in this regard [24]. At this point it has become something of a flying circus with Bstone running from pillar to post, opening a RfC case, "forgetting" about it, and then presto in one instant, after almost two months, it's shut, he went to the ArbCom and they refused to take on the case, they never gave anyone an official "mandate to mediate" on their behalf least of all an excuse to somehow claim that the ArbCom case is pending, which it is not, they can speak for themselves if need be, then Bstone opened a RfM that was rejected and after he went to this admin and that it was re-opened again, which makes no sense, when in any case Bstone had already agreed to go to MedCab which is the basic thing he should have done from the get-go. He cites some minor comments he placed on some users' talk pages as "examples" of seeking serious discussion with me when nothing could further from the truth, and if you look at his talk page history you will see that I have left him many messages over time and he has barely responded to them, even before he came up with the "complaints" against me, as he has always only avoided any meaningful talks with me anywhere as he prefers to react via stringent acts not just against me (and "civil" harshsness is still harshness) and then this RfC or that RfM or running to the ArbCom or to ANI to see if anyone will pay atention to his complaints but so far he has come up with nothing. By the way, it was after he had complained at ANI, and was turned down, one editor even thought he was making an April Fool's joke, that he then started the ArbCom case. He is clearly violating WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and much more. IZAK (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. If the case ever goes back to ArbCom, or any other case related in any way is presented to them, it would definitely look better for all sides if they indicated a willingness to agree on at least the possibility of mediation earlier. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi John: Let's take it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and not jump the gun. IZAK (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We can easily ask for the case to be delayed until after the sdarim and Yom Tov. However, IZAK, you opened the ANI case. This is perhaps the most logical and appropriate avenue to follow, I believe. In essence, you opened the door when you filed the ANI complaint against me, so why do you now complain about a holiday issue? Once Yom Tov begins I will be putting up a vacation message on my user and talk page. Ryan is also on vacation in Egypt to the point is pretty mute until he gets back. Let's just cool off a little bit, enjoy the chag with our families and enter into mediation when it's not Yontiv and Ryan gets back. Chag kasher v'sameach. Bstone (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone: I am not "complaining" I am stating a fact that this is a busy time as Passover quickly approaches. Sorry I can't eat Matza and type at the same time on the holiday. I cannot predict when I will have free time and when not at this stage. It is hysterical that after you went from forum to forum attacking me, and each time you were rejected, and when I finally say that as a result you are acting beyond reason and should be blocked for your disruptions, that you then turn around and say about me "you opened the ANI case" and it is not a "case" it was a request for admins to look at your conduct as you ignore each and every rebuttal of your request and stop your nonsense once and for all -- but it seems people enjoy this theater so it will go as long as they don't stop you it seems -- even as you ignore the fact that you tentatively agreed to finally go to MedCab which is the FIRST place you should have long ago begun your long winding road of attacks against me. And now, yet again, you plead to this and that admin (because "Ryan" will not solve your problems and "Ryan" is not a substitute for direct meaningful discussions with me), and you jump the gun yet again to a once closed RfM which is a step above what you agreed to and should be doing first, and that is, let us take it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and see what that yields, and that way we can start off on a level playing field, rather than you filing the RfM case (after it was dismissed yet, that should be appealed for its questionable legality) and repeat all your old gripes that were deleted at the RfC with your own agreement, and yet you leave a loaded statement at the RfM saying "I feel that IZAK and I have many personal and professional issues which very much require formal mediation in order to work them out. A full list of these can be brought forth at the appropriate stage when the case is accepted" (italics and emphasis mine) which presumably means you will then go ahead and "list" your collected complaints and attacks against me that you have compiled at User:Bstone/rfcuizak, and which is not what I wish to discuss with you directly relating to your blunt series of deletionist moves against Jewish synagogues and schools and you avoid meanigful discussions at all costs. Therefore, my position at this time is very simple, that since YOU are now retracing your steps, that you not jump the gun yet again, but that you proceed to open a case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, where I will be more than glad to talk about anything with you amd where more than one admin, rather than the one who is now in Egypt (of all places, as on Passover that is rather a taboo land) and who has NO proven track record of ever editing in areas relating to Jews and Judaism. So let others give their views at a MeCab case, as they did at the RfC you filed but which you have conveniently "forgotten" unlike what I do or say which you seem to always "remember" -- rather odd don't you think? And indeed, Passover is almost upon us...So I gotta go, as time allows... IZAK (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of an article

I am bringing to your attention, that a series of edits/vandalism were attempted today by Hellomartin2008 and 75.223.91.168. I reverted most of them; but please take care of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kartshin which was vandalized; and also Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today and Kartcheen (Hasidic dynasty) which was again created after having been deleted on January 16, 2006. I'm not an anministrator, so I can't delete it; please take care of it. Thank you. Issac (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the vandalism started once again; and I don't want to play cat and mouse with them/him; so I'll leave it to you; Thanks again. Issac (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Issac: Thanks for watching out for this. As you know, it is presently Passover eve and most Jews will be busy preparing for Passover as well as partaking of its holiday services and observances for about the next two weeks. Quite often, unfortunately, some editors with axes to grind take advantage of these busy times to the detriment of Wikipedia and Judaic articles. All activity against Judaic articles must be stopped until after the holidays when more Judaic editors can give their views and other editors and admins should be made aware of this. Let others know. Thanks again, and wishing you a Happy Pesach. IZAK (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From Hans Adler

Sorry, but this seems to be part of a dispute between the two of you in which I am not interested. I was (and I suppose I still am) part of an unrelated dispute about a matter that I agree with this user is very important. With a morally charged problem like threats of violence it is very natural that people who think a rule can help will think all those who oppose them just don't take it seriously. I tend to become a bit cross when I feel that my arguments might be discarded because my motivation is questioned in this way. But even though I occasionally can't control myself, I think I basically understand and respect the position of the other side, and I am certainly not interested in an escalation of that matter.

Please don't read anything into this response that I did not intend. I believe I had no previous interaction with either of you, and I have no idea what your conflict is about. It's just obvious that it exists. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Hans, thanks for caring. I too have my agreements and disagreements with him. IZAK (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Ryan

IZAK, Ryan and I had some interaction over four months ago about a proposal which hasn't gotten much attention in a long time. That proposal and Ryan and my previous (almost ancient) interaction has absolutely nothing to do with our personal and professional editing issues. I am really wondering why you are putting forth such effort in this area and not indicating if you either accept or reject mediation. Perhaps you may grace us with your opinion soon? Bstone (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone: Please don't make four months sound like "ancient times" (you started your multiple attacks against me about three months ago) and the interactions between you and Ryan at Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee were very serious where you got to know each other quite well. You knew that you knew him at the ArbCom and that you trusted him and that is why you wait for him now, no matter how long he tarry in Egypt on his vacation! You could easily have asked for a truly neutral mediator who has had no interaction with either of us. In any case why don't you ask Ryan when he will get back from Egypt so he can at least apologize and recuse himself from offering mediation with someone he knew (I had never heard of him before). I assure you, I will not leave any "stone" unturned in responding to you and your self-appointed role as enforcer and creator of Wikipedia policies and fighting other editors and even admins when things don't go your way. IZAK (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
IZAK, there is nothing I can say to the above which will help or alleviate your fears and concerns. I do not believe Ryan needs to recuse himself or offer than apology to anyone. Good moed. Bstone (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bstone: Obviously you don't because it is what you want, but it is a violation of the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV that not just in articles but when anyone will take upon themselves to mediate it must be in a truly neutral fashion between two different users who BOTH have full faith in the mediator's neutrality AND that he has a familiarity with the issues that started and fuel the dispute, namely your multiple nominations of Jewish synagogues and some schools articles/stubs for deletion, and judging by a review of his editorial history he has no expertise in those fields and one would hope a mediator would know something about what he is about to mediate and not jump in blindly. In any case while you have already listed up front all the points you will attack me with that you have specified at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 (which you chose to "forget" when it didn't go your way) and at User:Bstone/rfcuizak so that noone in their right mind can come to the table to negotiate with a party who is holding the gun of User:Bstone/rfcuizak allegations to their head as has been pointed out to you a few times by other neutral admins. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop editorial critiques on my talk page

IZAK, as the title says, please stop posting editorial critiques on my talk page. They are unwelcome and unproductive. They are also one of my major issues with you- clear violations of WP:OWN. I pray you will respect this. Bstone (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of eruvin as a second nomination

Please stop posting on my talk page. Bstone (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You and Bstone

You two are turning wikipedia into your own personal battleground and it really needs to stop. Constant stalking isn't helping things. IZAK, are you going to accept the formal mediation? If so, please make it clear and until that happens, you two should probably have less interactions, because nearly all of them are negative. What you are doing now is going down a bad road. I am not commenting on the dispute itself, and am not going to, however, I leave this note as I see what is going on. Why don't you all get back to writing the encyclopedia and ignore each other for a while? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rjd: Thank you for contacting me. I am very confused. I have agreed to:

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Proposed intermediate verdict 2.
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Proposed intermediate verdict 3.
  3. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Proposed intermediate verdict 3.1 (with guidance for both myself and Bstone).

Bstone's actions against me have already in the past:

  1. Been rejected at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#IZAK not assuming good faith.
  2. He agreed to apply [25] to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.
  3. Been rejected [26] [27] by the Mediation Committee.
  4. Was rejected [28] by the ArbCom.

I have tried many times to engage him in direct meaningful discussions anywhere, be it on his or my talk pages or on the talk pages of WP:JUDAISM where he took umbrage against my forceful complaints against his serial nomination of Judaic articles about synagogues for deletion, and I would remain happy to engage him in direct discussions and a meangful dialogue at any time. However, at this point it appears very evident that he does not seek dialogue or a true meeting of the minds, but that he seeks any means to enact punitive measures because I disagree and oppose him, such as he has already outlined many times at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Evidence of disputed behavior, User:Bstone/rfcuizak and at other places. He has then agreed to accept mediation from a user with whom he has had prior positive contact [29], eroding further confidence in truly neutral mediation. In the process of his actions against me he has violated WP:POINT and WP:HARASS and more. Therefore, even though I agree that mediation is a wonderful thing, in this case, Bstone needs to be encouraged not to leap-frog and short-circuit Wikipedia when he faces strong opposition from an editor with whom he disagrees or who disagrees with him (and he has done so with others in the past as well) but he must be told that Wikipedia expects editors to seriously discuss differences directly with each other first. And as is the norm, the input of WikiProject editors should be sought out, in this case of WP:JUDAISM. Only then should the WP:MEDCAB be sought out. If that does not work out then try other measures, but do not reach for the "shotgun" the minute things don't go your way. I do agree that it is time that we got on with the business of writing and editing BUT the problem with Bstone is that unlike the average user, when he faces a problem he takes it right away to admins talk pages or to ANI which is very frustrating when you want to solve the problem on a user-to-user level without dragging admins and policy-enforcers into what should be lower-level discussions that in the normal run of things get settled without intervention from higher-ups, which hopefully is a lesson Bstone can still learn from all this. One more point, who is "stalking" who here? Kindly note that while Bstone point blank refuses to place a notification on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism when he nominates Judaicly important articles for deletion, there is therefore no other way to see if and when he has done so again unless one takes a look at his current editing history on his "User contributions" to see if he has done so yet again and that is not called "stalking" because it is a privilege given to any Wikipedian to keep track of articles that are important to them by all the means Wikipedia provides, otherwise the "User contributions" feature of all Users would not be an "open book" for all to see and to draw conclusions accordingly (as Bstone has quite evidently done with mine). Thanks again for caring. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as Bstones prior interactions with Ryan, they were very minor, and only semi-collaborative. Ryan is a standup guy and a good mediator, and any prior interactions (even though these were clearly minor) with anybody he is mediating will not effect the process itself. That, I'm rather sure of. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rjd: Your response is only to a very minor part of what I have written to you, and to others similarly, in much greater detail. At the present time, my attitude to Bstone is to follow the line of your advice (also tendered by others) to both of us: to "... get back to writing the encyclopedia and ignore each other for a while" which is the simplest solution. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Having read what you said above, it is certainly possible that, at this point, Bstone does not wish to engage with you directly. That may well be unfortunate. However, if that is the case, and the two of you continue to engage indirectly, then I would think that the requested mediation would be the way to go. Under those circumstances, it might be the only way to engage in any sort of reasonably direct communication. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi John: Right now there is nothing happening so the need for mediation is moot. There is no "communication" taking place now and none on the horizon. From my end, the only time there will be any comment from me is if Bstone nominates more Judaic articles/stubs for deletion, and I have already received some offers from neutral Judaic editors who would be willing to pass on anything of any real import of concern from me to Bstone, if I thought it was really required. That is about it. Nothing grandiose on the go here after Bstone has resorted to so much fireworks against me and gotten rejected in each and every instance. So hopefully the calm will continue and we will be able to act like mature adults who can function in a world where not everyone has to agree with us and not everyone who disagrees with us very strongly has to be targeted for negative sanctions. Let others deal with Bstone, and as my editing record shows my concerns range over a wide field of Jews and Judaism topics, which by the way, Bstone thinks is some sort of "violation" of "WP:OWN" on my part when such "accusations" could be thrown at any editors who edit in their fields of expertise and about which they care about most, but that is a lesson all Wikipedians must learn to balance in themselves and accept in others as long as all editing is done in a WP:NPOV fashion, and thus far Bstone has mercifully not accused me of violating WP:NPOV! Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bstone

I must request that you stop your interaction with Bstone. It now appears you are following him and his edits around which ammounts to harassment. Please do not edit areas where Bstone is already involved. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I went from the top of the contribs, clicking on histories, but could not find Bstone. Then I gave up. Then petted a cat. Then gave up, again! El_C 13:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
His recent edits have been to Wikipedia:Threats of violence, which Bstone has been trying to kick start. He's put a fact tag on part of the proposal that bstone was inolved with creating. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. El_C 13:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan Postlethwaite: I have no interest in inter-acting with Bstone! However, I am truly surprised, that Bstone is now seriously violating WP:OWN if he assumes that I, or anyone for that matter, cannot edit anywhere they please. You also mis-state the situation. I did not merely "put a fact tag on part of the proposal that Bstone was involved with creating" as you put it, but I provided detailed comprehensive reasons at Wikipedia talk:Threats of violence#Wikipedians and "real world" threats that others are responding to maturely and reasonably without hiding behind the need to have others speak for them, while all Bstone seems to be able to do is inspire others like yourself to threaten me for wanting to contribute in a constructive manner to an important discussion. Finally, by clearly making yourself into his spokesman here and now you only confirm my earlier assertion, while you were away in Egypt, that you are not an impartial party and that by all measures of fairness and logic you are totally disqualified to act as a "mediator" in any situation where Bstone is involved. Why you have to speak for him is a great mystery because I have no trouble speaking for myself and it would behoove Bstone to reply to me directly on the talk page if he so desires. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting to Wikipedia:Threats of violence. Your purposefully going against Bstones viewpoint on the matter to bait him and it is quite frankly not acceptable. If you make another post there, you will be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IZAK/Archive_34&oldid=1143056762"