Jump to content

User talk:IZAK: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Daniel575 (talk | contribs)
2,939 edits
RfM
Line 475: Line 475:


Please take a look there and the discussion page. Need some help here. --[[User:Daniel575|Daniel575]] 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look there and the discussion page. Need some help here. --[[User:Daniel575|Daniel575]] 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== RfM ==

{{RFM-Request|[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]]|Apartheid (disambiguation)}}-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 03:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:07, 6 July 2006

Note: If you post a message on this page, I will usually respond to it on this page.

Archives: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.
Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:
1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).
2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.
As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.
This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.
Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.
Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.
Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I posted this on another page you posted it on too. As for the congregation, while you might think it's important, if there is no other evidence for it and not many Google hits, it's tough to not delete it. Know what I mean? Otherwise, people might not delete things that really should be deleted because somebody says it's notable. --Awiseman 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty critical over at WP:AFD... User:PZFUN has nominated myriad entries into today (5/20)'s log. Many of these articles are extremely notable, such as USY or Young Judaea. This seems like a deliberate targeting of Judaism related articles, but I'm going to assume that this isn't the case. I know you're keeping an eye on what's going on, but the loss of these articles would be a big blow to the Wikipedia. Let me know how I can help. Wes! &#149; Tc 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page spamming

IZAK, I can see you feel strongly about the deletion of articles on Judaism-related topics. Nevertheless, it's not a good idea to bulk-message on a large number of user talk pages--particularly when your message is so lengthy.

You might consider approaching this a different way. A short notice on some central message board can reach a larger audience, without raising concerns about spamming. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism or the Village Pump, for instance.

In the meantime, please stop the bulk messaging. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 09:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ten: It's not spamming! I was merely contacting editors that I regularly communicate with. These are not strangers! I will follow up with your advice about the village pump and one or two more places. Thanks for the advice. IZAK 09:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Dr_Baruch_Goldstein_Israel.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, gidonb, hereby award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your continuous quality contributions to articles on Judaism. Mazzeltov!
16:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

PZFUN's crusade

Are we willing to prosecute PZFUN for his hardly-deniable attack on Jewish communal and religious topics? He is clearly marking for deletion organisations with memberships of thousands. His criteria for deletions is also often that the article is not well-written (as well as "utterly non-notable" which is not the case. jnothman talk 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. 'memberships of thousands' isn't notability enough, though the tens of thousands generally is. Just explain about which orgs are notable, make that clear in their articles, and add references... +sj + 16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since PZFUN has some jewish blood in there too I've been told, I'm pretty certain he's not a crusader ;-) . In fact, the articles he nominated are extremely ill-maintained. This is still an encyclopedia, so his actions were technically correct, as far as policy goes.
Even so, it's made several people rather unhappy, so Slimvirgin has applied Ignore All Rules and kept the articles for now, so as to keep the peace.
In the mean time, it would help everyone a lot if we saw some serious maintenance work being done on those articles! Kim Bruning 15:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I have a lot of Jewish family members, including my father. If you want to make this personal, so be it, but it is hardly bad-faith to list articles that currently meet none of the Wikipedia checkpoints, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Sources, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Just by merely saying "If you were Orthodox, you'd know him" does not make something notable. Such statements need to have third-party references (ie, they can't just be on their personal page) and must be verified, in otherwords, they must be proven to exist. When an article has no sources, it cannot be assumed by a secular institution that something is indeed encyclopaedic. As for groups, there is a certain level of Wikipedia:Notability requirements; in other words, just because something is there, doesn't mean it necesarily deserves an article. There is no article on my Street Association because I can't prove it exists since we've never published anything, nor would an informal organisation of 500-1000 people be encyclopaedic. Please read Wikipedia policy before accusing me of bad faith. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Definite bad faith. If it really was good faith, he should've at least found 36 cardinals, bishops, and imans to afd and hide behind. --Shuki 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there was Jewish blood in some of the crusaders too. But the aplication of "No references" to articles with references, just because they are among some without and you happen to be giving the same nomination rationale for 16 articles doesn't make your actions correct or justified, and makes it seem like an arbitrary crusade on the topic. jnothman talk 01:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, some of them had one (or maybe two) website that were personal or were videos of them speaking, or had no back up for any of the information sourced. Just because an article has one link attached to it that is called a reference or a source does not make it such. And I would like it if you laid of the crusade rhetoric, it's pointless and only makes the discussion hostile. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I used crusade last night when I was quite upset by my time being spent on countering poorly-submitted AFDs. I hope you can accept my apologies, but it's in the wiki and can't be taken out. I have given you two examples of Hasidic rebbe articles that you nominated where clear print references were properly cited at the bottom of the article. Maybe no citations were given fact-by-fact, but that's usually not done in printed encyclopedias either. jnothman talk 02:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of those articles is fact, it is all speculation and copyvios. And fine, those two articles were a mistake, if their texts do indeed exist. So the other 14, then? Fact-by-fact referencing IS done on Wikipedia. I am rather frustrated as well as I seem to be wasting my time by trying to have anything to do with Judaism on Wikipedia. The minute anyone who is not Jewish and well known for it attempts to edit or prune article, they are attack as an "anti-smite" on a "crusade. It is appaling that the lack of quality is not a concern, while the sheer numbers of articles are. Have you seen Wikipedia:CRUFT? Well, now this is JudaismCruft. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming anti-semitism. I think that's silly. What I am claiming is that you, without discretion, nominated a whole pile of things from one category, seemingly only to make a point. Otherwise you may have been more careful in trying to have the articles improved, as many were clearly of notable subjects, even if some lacked references: yes, even the Jewish community here has a sense of discretion as to who is a notable and who is unnotable as a religious figure, but the originators of large Hasidic dynasties clearly should fall into the "notable" category. So don't just nominate so many articles with the same AFD comment- at least change them for when "not notable" or "no references" are clearly false! It is hardly clear that you looked at the articles before nominating them. jnothman talk 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to the claim of "CRUFT", I reply that I not at all a fan of most of these personalities and I object to many aspects of their ways of life or interpretations of Judaism. But they are still mentioned often, and are prominent former leaders of large current communities. The heads of smaller and much shorter-term communities are found on Wikipedia, and could possibly be called cruft. These, on the other hand, are the founding heads of leader-centric groups that have existed for a couple of centuries. They are a topic of interest to me, but I am certainly no fan that wants my favourite superhero to have a page on Wikipedia. These persons are important and notable to Jews and non-Jews alike who are interested in Hasidism (not a minor strange fanclub). jnothman talk 02:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stub cat. People clear those out regularly. Kim Bruning 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!

Hello! I took a lot of trouble with Slimvirgin to sort out the situation yesterday. Please do not go around telling things that are not true on many many articles for deletion.

Please discuss with either Slimvirgin or myself before you spread around more misunderstandings yet. I am not very pleased. Kim Bruning 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. Try be objective. jnothman talk 22:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing your answer at Slimvirgins page, the traditional internet response is to refuse to cooperate with you further on this matter, which I am now doing. Kim Bruning 23:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've gone too far with this. Kim Bruning 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom

Shalom IZAK. It's easy to think, when a number of people become upset over a turn of phrase that you have used, that either they're just being over-sensitive and missing the whole point, or they're being deliberately obtuse. But there is always the possibility of showing magnanimity by retracting words that others may find offensive. I ask you now if you would consider showing such magnanimity. This is an occasion on which, I assure you, a retraction would enhance the regard in which you are held without diminishing the strong and important message of what you are saying. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. HKT 00:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse the above. Best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddush Club notice

Hi, thanks for the notice. My edits to this article were limited to some basic Manual of Style formatting tweaks; I don't have the specialist knowledge required to make an informed vote on this article and the related AFD discussions. I will do some research into the matter and cast a vote if I can reach a decision on the debate. Thanks again for the notice. Regards. --Muchness 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yasher koach

I hereby award IZAK the Barnstar-Megaphone award for his diligence in motivating the Jewish community to contribute to Wikipedia. Yodamace1 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views of Hanukkah

According to the history, you wrote most of the article. Any idea of some sources? There really isn't content other than religious quotes, but the reviewers claimed "Original Research".

--William Allen Simpson 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) -- watching here[reply]

Email

Did you see my email? It's urgent. Pecher Talk 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're editing, so may I draw your attention once again to my comment above? Sorry for being intrusive. Pecher Talk 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pecher: I have sent you my reply via Email. Best wishes, IZAK 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PArtnership Minyan

As an FYI, I had put entries on the issue in both the article talk page and the editor's user talk page, although I may not have waited enough time. --Shirahadasha 22:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cain and Abel article

Hello IZAK, as I understand, Cain and Abel article is mainly yours. It possibly has a mistake. Jewish tradition suggests that Cain and Abel were born before the Fall of Man. I know this from rabbis but I have not a reference to support the fact. What's your mention about? If it's so, how should article be corrected in the best way? For wiki 19:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

I appreciate it. BTW, are you OK with this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Solomon is a redir to Biblical account of King Solomon? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for helping out in saving the article Spanish and Portuguese Jews (seems to be safe for now) and the category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews (heading the right way, I hope). -- Olve 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD reform

Hi, IZAK.

Kudos on adding religion as a category in the proposal; I get the impression that it gets enough AfD listings to necessitate its own category. I am concerned that splitting religion up further would jeopardize the entire categorization proposal, as there's a lot of concern about splitting up into more specific categories (relative to the specificity of "History/Geography", for example). Very broad categorization (even if Religion is part of another category) would still be quite helpful for editors interested in AfDs about specific religions, as that categorization would drastically minimize the the amount of junk to sift through. It would thus encourage more participation in these AfDs. I think that it would be a good idea from the standpoint of achieving consensus to not include the specific sub-religion categories. What do you think? Kol tuv, HKTTalk 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi HKT: I think it would help to split the religion articles,in some way or to some degree, because Christianity, especially articles about it English, are very numerous and may tend to overwhelm articles from other religions and there VfDs as well. I think that the Christianity sections do get a large amount of AFD's listed. After all, Christianity is the world's largest religion with about two billion adherents and the bulk of the English Wikipedia's contributors are in the USA and the UK where Christianity is the dominant religion which makes for comprehensive articles and consequent VfDS which would tend to swamp the smaller amout of entries on other religions. Thus, for example, in looking for Judaism VFD's, one would have to sift through hundreds of Christian nominations before one could find the relatively few connected to Judaism. By the way, there is another problem: How to keep tabs of articles relating to Jews or Jewish history or Israel that are not part of the subject of Judaism as such? There is still some debate and thinking needed here. IZAK 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points you bring up. Maybe you should address them on the proposal page and see how they're taken? HKTTalk 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • HKT: For now it seems that the consensus of the discussion at this point, is to stick with very broad categories, so I don't want to rock the boat too much. There are plenty of other areas larger than the religion ones that are being classed together, so let's wait and see if anyone else wants to see smaller categories. IZAK 15:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son of the Chofetz Chaim?

Hi IZAK, take a look at this. I found this short biography of this Rov in the 1961 edition of the American Jewish Yearbook in the obituaries section (it's all online). I have a strong hunch that he was related in some way to the Chofetz Chaim. This is because:

  • His surname was "Poupko" - the same as the Chofetz Chaim
  • He was born in Radin

He also received positions in the Agudas HaRabbonim. If you know anything or can investigate his link with the Chofetz Chaim, I'd be grateful. Many thanks, Nesher 11:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found your question most intriguing, so I did some research in the volumnious Artscroll biography about the Chafetz Chaim. I did not find any evidence of a link between him and Rabbi Eliezer Poupko. For one thing, there is no mention of Yisrael Meir Kagan's name being Poupko, and for another, the Chafetz Chaim had two sons and two daughters by his first wife. The youngest of these sons was born in 1869. (Eliezer Poupko was born in 1886.) From his second marriage the Chafetz Chaim only had one daughter, who married Rabbi Menachem Mendel Zaks and from whom all the living descendants of the Chafetz Chaim sprang. Yoninah 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli apartheid

Hi IZAK. Could you please restore the article to its original state? The move is considered unilateral and many contributors would argue against that. If you believe that the article should use the (phrase) than please discuss it. Let me know about your thoughts. Thanks in advance. CHeers -- Szvest 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

  • Hi Faysall: The move was actually fine editing because the article itself begins with that EXACT self-description that it is a PHRASE, so it's 100% part of the article's definition of itself and its subsequent content -- a discussion about a phrase, nothing more and nothing less. Knowing that it's only a phrase helps keep perspective on its subject-matter and the discussion. Sincerely, IZAK 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whengoogling this phrase the google results are most direting to aparhide in "". The name of the article should include those as well. Zeq 05:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture on user page

I loooove the Jerusalem photo on your user page. Did you take it yourself? And lawks, is the temple's roof seriously that colour? Gorgeous. I think it'd make a good jigsaw, too. Lady BlahDeBlah 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem clouds.jpg

"justice"

Look at user:Zeq 85.65.56.28 09:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AZeq&diff=55860422&oldid=55150344

Reconsider

I urge you to reconsider your vote. Not because the phrase does not exist it does but the problem is how it is used in wikipedia. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV are clear but there is inability today in wikipedia to implemnet them. (this article is one example out of many). To describe the term/phrase does not mean giving free license to quote all the ridiculus allegations against israel and turn wikipedia into an internet discussion board (this is what this article is now).

If in an article about the iarnina president his holocause denial statements are only described " controversial statements" the article about "Israeli aprthide" could just say that this is a phrase used in the propeganda against israel right to exist and refer the reader to articls about the Palestinian territories, israel, Israeli arabs, palestinians etc....no reason to keep this article as it is now . Zeq 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Zeq: I agree with your sentiments, but we must deal with this subject, whether we like it or not. You could include all these points in the article itself but you have pushed too strong and now you have put yourself in a tough position (by being banned from it). The article can also be put into Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Ethnic slurs, which I will do in fact, but we cannot run away from it. I think you are over-reacting. I share your devotion to Israel, but we cannot function like the Taliban if we want to be respected. Best wishes, IZAK 05:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disgree. This article include content from a source (global exchnage) which clearly does not conform with WP:RS - such content need to be removed. Zeq 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so you could discuss all those valid points and put them into the article, that is how Wikipedia articles are built. This is not the first controversial article about the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian struggle and it will not be the last, believe me I have fought some tough battles myself, so go ahead and find good sources that are good critiques of this name and include them in the article, but you have still not convinced me why this article should be destroyed. Even many Israeli leftsists use this label, another reason it cannot be ignored. IZAK 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq: By the way, even though I wish that the false book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion did not exist and was never invented, but it must have an article about it on Wikipedia because of its notability and notoriety. We cannot wish these things away and we cannot expect to impose mind control to get positive views accepted. I have faith in the power of truth and that a lie will not stand up to scrutiny. IZAK 05:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not the same thing. In nay case, listen to what I say: I would support having this article if it could describe the phrase and it's use correctly. Instead the article has become an intenet news group debating "is israel an aparhide state or nor" ? It is not an issue of what i "pushed too far". It is an issue of WP:RS, WP:NOT . that is all. Zeq 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zeq: If "that is all" then you have a very good case and argument but who is to blame that you do not know how to deal with so-called "ANGLO-SAXON" (meaning English language) speakers and writers and editors who go by manners and decorum that most Israelis have never heard about? That is why they love to quote Wikipedia:Civility! (I know it's easy to preach...) Imagine that you are part of a team of editors and not part of a mission to annihilate people you disagree with. That is why I say, calm down and learn to speak in a way that will help you provide good information for articles instead of getting into useless fights and then being banned. I am hoping that you will get there quickly because your energy and knowledge are important and are needed. IZAK 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzniut

IZAK, my last edit was strictly editorial -- I had noticed that text about dress was in the hair covering section and vice versa, and moved text to its proper location. I linkified Berakhot and tidied up a bit. Most of the matters you complain of, including the reference to "Ultra-Orthodox", were not added by me. As to kol Isha, perhaps it might be useful to add the Seridei Eish responsum on Zemirot. --Shirahadasha 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK

Hi IZAK, I'm slightly befuddled as to why you haven't responded to my last two messages:

Your expertise and assistance in any of these matters would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Nesher 12:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Head's Up

Izak I had no idea there was an admin with a similar name as mine! That's alright tho, as I am more comfortable with being called Rivka than anything else. I am certainly not very experienced at all (I should probably take a few journalism classes) so I doubt, once my and her content is compared, that there will be any mistake as to who is writing what, lol. Woe for her, if my writing is mistaken for hers, lol. Thanks again, Rivka 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho

I saw your name on the Talk page, and hoped that you could evaluate the last few edits. I twice reverted a poorly written claim inserted in the wrong section, and which was already noted in the correct section. Cheers, TewfikTalk 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome message

Shalom Aleichem IZAK, thanks for your welcome message. I was just wondering: this seems to be a standard message posted to new users on the part of putative "mentors". Is this so? If so, how are the "mentors" assigned/how do they choose the newbie they post to? --Batamtig 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Batamtig: From time to time, when I see new users posting to articles, usually falling into either Category:Jews and Judaism or Category:Israel and Zionism that are on "my watchlist" I check to see if they have been welcomed. The influx of new users to Wikipedia is far too great for any group to welcome all of them, let alone "mentor" them. Sometimes I find that new users have not been welcomed for months and even for over a year! Any Wikipedians may welcome any new users they wish, whenever they wish, if they so desire. There is nothing stopping two or three established users from welcoming new users. There are no rules about this beyond "be nice and don't bite the newbies"... which I hope comes across when I take the trouble to go over to a newbie's never-before-used talk page and post the {{welcome}} (Template:Welcome). Why are you so curious about this and how can I be of help to you? Take care, IZAK 08:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly appreciate the welcome. I was curious since I found it kind of "spooky" that your WP contributions were so similar to my interests. Almost as if someone was spying on my browsing! (Obviously I don't mean that seriously). No help needed right now. I'll let you know if I do. Be Well, Batamtig 10:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Batamtig: Please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism based on your interests. No-one can "spy" on your browsing! But, for the record, whenever you edit anything on Wikipedia any other Wikipedian can view your typed edits if they so desire by going to your user page and clicking on its "User contributions" button in the "toolbox" on the left side of the page. This helps ensure that people take responsibility for what they write and also ensures that there is a record of everything if any future questions or discussions arise. Feel free to call on me here if you need help (or go to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism as people there can help out too.) Take care, IZAK 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish articles

I note that you are the gatekeeper for all Jewish related articles. Do I or anyone else have to seek your approval in order to make a change to or introduce a new Jewish article, or category? Wallie 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Wallie: You're joking, right? This is Wikipedia where anyone can edit any article. No permission is required of anyone as long as one abides by the rules of Wikipedia. There are many editors who are involved with Judaism-related articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for example. Feel free to ask. Just out of curiosity, what Jewish articles or categories did you want to introduce? Maybe I can help out? Take care, IZAK 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the greetings IZAK! Albert Cheng 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm a little surprised that you even pay attention to the Kaifeng Jews web page on Wikipedia. They are an obscure group. Thanks again for getting in touch with me. Albert Cheng 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian view of Nazarite

Hi IZAK! Noticed that the section on Nazarites has an extensive Christian section, at least some of which seems like original research, the speculative parts should be at least sourced, seems out of place (Judaism as precursor to Christianiity). Perhaps there should be two articles. Good luck with the bird tzitzit (those wing fringes you're so fond of ;) --Shirahadasha 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome!

So, if I goof up on wiki-editing, can I ask you for help?

Oops

Oh. Speaking of goofing up, it appears that I somehow missed signing that last post. Let me try again.

Jmhudlow 14:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radbaz

Shavua` tov, Izak... When you get a chance, I could use some help at David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra... most specifically with ascertaining when he actually lived, as well as any other pertinent information. The JE article and a minority of websites indicate that he lived 1479-1589 (110 years) (relevant google search), while a greater number of websites quote a more believable 1479-1573 (94 years) (relevant google search). Thanks for your time, Tomertalk 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Kugel(disambiguation)

Hi Izak,

I'm having a bit of a problem with a user who insists on adding irrelevant material to the Kugel (disambiguation) page. Most of the material is German language compound words, and German surnames containing "kugel", and I don't see the relevance to the English language page. I've tried to reason with the user, first on his talk page, then on the articles, but I don't seem to be getting anything coherent from him. He just says that he's "listed the article for translation". Any suggestions what to do? Regards, -Batamtig 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Batamtig: Yes he does have a tendency to get involved in that type of word research stuff from my past interactions with him, especially with Jewish naming conventions of all sorts. He is very scholarly and reasonable and you can and should keep up a dialogue with him. I suggest also that you place a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism about the situation. I have also left my comments on the kugel disambig talk page. Be well, IZAK 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Batamtig: I am sorry to hear it, and I am not surprised because he is very determined when he works on his projects to do with names and naming... The next step is to request a neutral mediator. The first thing to try is the less formal Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal which should get his attention. If that does not help then please read Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (all this over "kugel"? :-} ) IZAK 07:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read our brief discussion of this user over at User talk:Batamtig? Batamtig is concerned this user might physically harm himself. Thanks. Ideogram 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rav Hutner

Hi IZAK, thanks for backing up that claim in Rav Hutner's article. Also, I'm slightly concerned with your new cats, as you don't seem to ever bring the matter to open debate before you perform these controversial actions. As you warned me, I would advise you to STOP making new cats without prior discussion, for example the Roshei Yeshiva cats just today. Rav Hutner now has 4 jewish/rabbi cats - all of your invention. What a duplication and impractical arrangement.

PS: In my humble opinion, you came down way too hard on Czalex. Your language was exclusionist and smacked of emotional overtones laced with evident anger. Oversensational emboldment is wholly unecessary. Please be more careful in future not to cause even the slightest semblance of a Chillul Hashem.

PS:PS: please don't take this as a personal attack and come out with both guns blazing. Many thanks, Nesher 13:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nesher: Oh don't worry, I don't panic from any attacks, only anti-Semites concern me and many of those I have confronted have all been banned over the years and not because of me, I just have a good "nose" for them via the words and meanings they convey. Regarding categories: I am not "inventing" anything, it is all accurate and true, sorry that you don't see it that way. Not all Haredi rabbis are rosh yeshivas so we need both categories ultimately. Regarding Czalex, no problem, and actually I thought I was being very nice and clear with him. You know we have had this problem on a recurring basis for years with Eastern European editors who do not respect the manner in which Jews and Judaism name/d things in Eastern Europe for HUNDREDS of years and continue to do so, and instead they come up with Cyrillic alphabet words as the only versions of names and places in Jewish-related topics yet! Imagine the opposite, if Judaism editors go into their articles about Eastern European topics and stick in and change all kinds of information not to their liking according to Hebrew or Yiddish spelling/s, or according to Jewish history, since millions of Jews dwelled in those lands for hundreds of years (actually thousands of years in some cases.) That never happens you see because Jewish editors are ever-so-polite as they tippy-toe to make the world "happy" yet it's always Polish, or Ukrainian, or Russian or now Belorasian editors that feel they have the right to tamper with the articles related to Jews in conncetion with Eastern Europe, usually of Hasidim or rabbonim or something of that nature. If they are not informed quickly and clearly then they will simply cause a ton of damage -- unwittingly we assume and pray -- and that usually takes a long, long time to undo. I appreciate your feedback, it always help me keep perspective when no-one is around as I "whistle while I work" at Wikipedia... And now I must really sign off to get some sleep eventually... IZAK 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Good Old "Hareidi" Issue

Izak, Thanks for your lengthy recent correspondence regarding the current system for categorizing Rabbis. I appreciate your energy and time. Based on what you've said, I understand that the category "Orthodox Rabbis" has grown over time, to the extent that it now warrants exacting sub-categories for the multitude of Rabbinic figures. Ipso facto, we should perhaps table a forum under which to develop such sub-categories which are agreeable to all. For example, if one wished to be exacting, one may break up "Roshei Yeshiva" into Litvishe ones and others, such as Hungarian ones. One may end up with American Litvishe Roshei Yeshiva! You mentioned that in the past, there was quite some discussion regarding the usage of "Ultra-Orthodox". As things have since progressed and there is now a group of writers who specifically spend time on Rabbinic biographies, I propose we all get together and hash it out, rather than each of us zealously charging in a different direction. Should things continue to grow so that in a few years the need again arises to review the categories then so be it. But for the meantime, let's all work this out rather than resorting to wiki-dictatorship. Let me know what you think. Telzer 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Telzer: I am not amused by your flippant tone as in "The Good Old "Hareidi" Issue"... There is no need to create new forums to discuss things, we already have the best one that works well for everyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism which I hope you have joined by now. I reject the implication in your words that the categories are somehow "out of control" and therefore meaningless in your eyes. At this time, the noted rabbonim who have gained articles for themsleves have mostly been either Hasidic rebbes, scholarly Talmudic rabbis, and noted rosh yeshivas. As you well know, in the Hasidic world the leading rabbis in those communities are the rebbes themselves and that is why Category:Hasidic rebbes is there. In the non-Hasidic Haredi world the rosh yeshivas reign supreme hence the Category:Rosh yeshivas, and for any other noted rabbonim or poskim there is Category:Haredi rabbis. The debate about the usage of "Ultra-Orthodox" is closed but a number of members on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism are still around from then, and they will recall the discussions. Feel free to raise any issues and concerns that you think may require broader discussion of importance to Judaic issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where it will be noticed and will be discussed. Please continue to let me have your views and I will feel equally as free to let you have mine. Sincerely, IZAK 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghirlandajo

has seen fit to start making threatsover a user dispute at Oleg. I have done my best to be reasonable but his trollism and pattern of vandalism (see also Oleg of Novgorod is driving me to distraction (to the minimal extent it's possible to be upset by virtual interactions with people I've never met). Your counsel and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for deletion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16#.5B.5B:Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad.5D.5D --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to subst the welcome template

Hi! I just want to remind you to subst the Welcome template when welcoming users. {{subst:welcome}}. (List of templates that must be substed). Take care. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Harry_Oppenheimer_small_photo_1993.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Harry_Oppenheimer_small_photo_1993.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture

That's a beautiful picture of Jerusalem you have there. Makes me want to be Jewish :-). Ideogram 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tools section

Thank you for this. I found it very useful. Ideogram 07:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations of politicians in Israel's history

Hi Izak, there was a question by Leifern about the rationale for this article (then still Jewish leaders). Subsequently I have concentrated all the material in the article, changed the title and added an intro. I also added "see you" notices from the relevant articles. Thought you may want to take a look. Best regards, gidonb 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd and Vfm

Hi IZAK, please see

Many thanks, Nesher 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, thanks for passing along the heads-up on this. - Jmabel | Talk 16:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=59974875

Cfd

Hi IZAK, please see:

Many thanks, Nesher 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD URJ Camp George

An article that you are interested in, URJ Camp George, has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/URJ Camp George. Your comments there would be welcome. TruthbringerToronto 18:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear IZAK! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FEDERATION CJA

Hi IZAK,

I noticed your recent changes to this article. Surprisingly the name, "FEDERATION CJA" is actually upper cased. See this link http://www.federationcja.org/index.php/who/overview/?langID=1 as an example. "FEDERATION CJA" is capitalized everywhere (I am not sure why they do this). I just wanted to make sure you agree before I change it back. --YUL89YYZ 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi YUL: It may be the way they do it, but it is not the way Wikipedia does it. "CJA" is an abbreviation like "CIA" and is fine, but the word "Federation" is taken from normal English and for that Wikipedia has rules when used as the header of an article, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Institutions; Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Lead section for more details. Can you find any other place where Wikipedia would allow for the upper-case letters of a title where that word is borrowed from the English language? Of course, in the course of the article's introduction it can state that the organization itself prefers to title itself as "FEDERATION CJA". Best wishes, IZAK 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chofetz Chaim picture

Please direct all concerns over choice of picture to Crzrussian. He was the one who kindly made it for us. My personal opinion is that the Chofetz Chaim is fine; his boundless Ahavah for all shades of Jews is sadly not recognised. He doesn't have to agree with those with whom he graces their pages - rather he epitomises an Orthodox rabbi of any shade. Many thanks, Nesher 12:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IZAK, I must say I rather like the large-design ORBCW on Telzer's uploaded images page. What do you think of it, especially in light of the valid concerns raised by yourself and Telzer? With thanks, Nesher 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Created by the same guy behind the Bnei Baruch and Michael Laitman articles. Baruch Ashlag and Yehuda Ashlag. I am seriously doubting the notability of these persons. Any thoughts? --Daniel575 13:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Daniel: Rabbis Baruch Ashlag and Yehuda Ashlag were pious and humble men whose teachings and writings have been abused by others, as far as I know, they are Orthodox rabbis who were respected. However, the articles about them should not be used as false "springboards" by latter-day "Kabbalistic" wannabes who are either out to make a buck or would be regarded as ignoramuses by people familiar with the subject. Any material pertaining to the Bnei Baruch and Michael Laitman articles (both now up for deletion) should be removed from those articles, or, placed in the correct context that shows how the Ashlag rabbis' and their teaching are being abused by others. Best wishes, IZAK 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up

Hi there IZAK. I just wanted to express my appreciation to you for your information concerning a user who has been a little vitriolic in our debate in Talk:Judaism. I had been attempting to assume good faith, however in future interactions with that editor I will definitely take the information into consideration . Again, thanx. Shykee 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)shykee[reply]

Take a look here

User:Daniel575/Pages about victims of Palestinian terror attacks on Wikipedia Thanks. --Daniel575 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition article on women's aliyyot

Would you be interested in summarizing the key issues raised in Gidon Rothstein, "Women’s Aliyyot in Contemporary Synagogues." Tradition 39:2, Summer 2005, for the page on Partnership Minyan and wherever else you think proper? Rabbi Rothstein's criticism would be a clearer and more scholarly source than the Forward article for critical perspectives from an Orthodox viewpoint. Shabbat Shalom, --Shirahadasha 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Bet.gif

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bet.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 12:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wimpel and Wimple

The new article, Wimpel, doesn't look tongue-in-cheek at all. It is a time-honored German custom which was still being practiced in the 20th century in shuls like the Breuer's shul in Washington Heights, New York. The description of the wimple as a woman's head-covering also looks all right, though I would have to do more research to confirm that that is really what it's for. Seems incongruent to compare Jewish women's headcoverings with nuns' habits. Yoninah 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen wimpels before. They are very annoying to rap the torah with during Gelila. I do not know about it being a cloth used to rap a baby during the brit and there few sources in the article confirming that. I'll look into it. Jon513 14:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As one born in the kehilla hakedowsha (that's the heights for the rest of y'all) I know that wimpels are often the swaddling cloths at a bris, that are then used to wrap the sefer Torah. Personally, I don't think I have one, but forgive me for not paying attention at the time :D -- Avi 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maftir

I've added a comment to Talk:Maftir in response to something you did to that article. You may wish to have a look. Cheers.—msh210℠ 19:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added virtually the same comment to Talk:List of Jewish prayers and blessings, Talk:Cantillation, Talk:Haftarah, Talk:Tikkun (book), Talk:Sefer Torah, Talk:Humash, Talk:Torah study, and Talk:B'nai Mitzvah. None of these should have {{Torah portion}} in it.—msh210℠ 19:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thank you

Thank you!

Y'yasher Kochacah, Reb Yitzchak, for your support in my RfA. I appreciate your trust and support, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hello again! Usually I rely on you to find out about ongoing important AfDs, but this time I thought I'd reverse roles. If you have time, your expertise will be helpful on this page. [1] Regards. 172 | Talk 05:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD "Jewish communists"

Hi, it seems the AfD of list of Jewish communists is gonna be done with soon. I'll post my reply here because it'll get quite long. If we want, we can always copy it back to that page, or a summary of it.

Let me first say: of course, there should not be any room for racists like Jew Watch. No question about that! Also, I agree with most on your personal argumentation page. It all makes a lot of sence. However, I do not think that a page about 'Jewish communists' is necessarily deviding people. Let me explain what my thoughts were when voting 'keep' of this particular 'Jewish communists' page. In case I end up wrong here, you might help me find the hole in my argument. I would appreciate that.

No other group has been haunted by repression and persecution for so long as Jews have been. As a consequence, Jews were scattered around the planet. Little and isolated communities became an easy target for any bigoted ruler who wanted to diverge attention - whether in Spain, Poland, Ethiopia, Russia, Argentine, anywhere. So anti-Semitism was never a local phenomenon. Its victims were found everywhere. It is therefore hard for them to organize (and hard for us to localize) a massive resistance movement against it. Resistance was not local or massive like the ANC in South-Africa was where the majority of people are black. It was not massive or strong as the other national liberation movements in former colonies, or the civil rights movement in North-America. These mass movements were organized, survived and won because they were locally strong in numbers. For resistance against anti-Semitism there has never been such a massive equivalent for obvious reasons. It is hard to write an article about the nonexistent "Greek Jews against Anti-Semitism" or the nonexistent "The Russian Jewish Party of Self-Emancipation" or the nonexistent "South-American Workers against Discrimination of Jews". Being scattered and devided in small communities, Jews had to rely on other organizations in order to form a force against anti-Semitism and oppression in general. In Russia they needed to rely on the non-Jewish Russian Social Democratic Party (Communists), in Germany on the non-Jewish SPD (same), even the Polish Bund (the strongest Jewish organization of all) existed by grace of other Polish organizations of international solidarity. While in the case of "Russian communists" we could refer to the large and long lasting RSDP (about 100 years in one country), in the case of "German communists" to both the still existent SPD (more than 120 years in one country) and long lasting KPD/PSD (about 80 years in one country), the "Dutch communists" (90 years in one country)... the analoguous thing is impossible for the Jewish communists: they were never in one country, never had a party of any substance or duration. Because of the historic grown situation, it is therefore not unnatural for wikipedians to write an article titled "Jewish communists". The fact is that there were Jewish communists. The fact is also that it is impossible to refer to a particular organization. We have nothing but the title "Jewish communists" here. But type in American Communists and you'll get somewhere.

Your arguments about the "Jewish this and that" categories are good. Generally, I do not like them either because they tend to devide people. They might pull up a wall between "Jewish" and "non-Jewish". However, in the case of anti-Semitism there is something else in play. = What is so interesting about the American Veterans Against the War in Iraq? Any other massive peace movement or anti-war organization can protest against injustice and lies as much as they want but only the Veterans were there where it happened. They have a special perspective no other organization has. = What is so interesting about RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan)? Because they are the only ones who had to wear vails, stay in home, were abused, fought back against the Taliban, fight back against the US occupation. They too have a special perspective no one else has. No Christian charity organization, no Medcines sans Frontiers, no US army, no Afghan war lord, no Muslim solidarity organizaion, none of them have the perspective of the victims. = The same with Jews fighting back. We can quote any communist on his strategy against anti-Semitism. Fine. There is no need for further knowledge whether this communist is Russian or American or Japanese. However, no other communists but Jewish communists were victims of anti-Semitism. No other communists but Jewish communists have an inside perspective into it. Because of such interesting facts, they deserve a page on their own. A quick way into knowing what they thought and how they tried to organize opposition. It is different from, for example, the List of Jewish inventors or List of Jewish historians. Their "Jewish-ness" doesn't add anything. Their inventions are not about Jewish and not about anti-semitism. Their being historian is not about Jewish and not about anti-semitism. Organizing the fight and using strategies and tactics against anti-semitism, however, is different when starting from a position of being the immediate victim under direct attack or being a sympathiser with the oppressed living who can always turn around and walk safely away. It's just like asking what is the use for non-Jews to be zionist? Being a zionist European Jew means taking a different action than when being a zionist European Christian. In that way it deserves some attention on its own.

Adios, ActiveSelective 15:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Telshe yeshiva by moving the text only.

To quote MarkGallagher:

Like so many things today, it all comes down to legal reasons. We retain copyright on all our contributions to Wikipedia, but by making edits we agree to license our words under the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that, while we still own copyright, we agree to let other editors, and Wikipedia, read and edit our content, provided they obey certain restrictions. Now, one of those restrictions is that every edit we make must be credited to its author — so if you write an article on the mating habits of gibbons, say, and I modify it, then we both need to be credited as authors of the "mating habits of gibbons" article. Wikipedia's "History" function (which I assume you're very familiar with) is our way of making sure everybody gets credited for their work.

Now, when we want to rename an article, we can use the MediaWiki "move" function, which will automagically rename the article, and transfer the page history, with all its notes of who wrote what part of the article, to the new name. This is Very Useful. When you copy and paste the existing text of an article into a new one, however, the page history gets lost, so nobody knows who wrote the article anymore. And if nobody knows who wrote the article, then we aren't allowed (for legal reasons) to display it on Wikipedia.

Hopefully you can understand. Kevin_b_er 07:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an admin, Bookofjude fixed the page for you. Kevin_b_er 07:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Once-upon-a-time on Wikipedia if there was no content on a Talk page, there was no problem in "cutting and pasting" using a "REDIRECT" page to a new (or old) page. Seems that things have tightened up. I appreciate your help, and I have now Wikified the page. Thanks again. IZAK 08:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbinical College of Telshe

Can you leave the article alone? As an alumnus of the Rabbinical College of Telshe, who has documented the history of the Institution for the insititue itself and for government purposes, I find myself qualified to work on the article. The name of the institute is the Rabbinical College of Telshe. Not Telshe yeshiva, not Telshe, not Telz. It may be colloquially referred to by all these terms, but as this is an encyclopedia, entries are to be made under their names, not under pseudonyms. Someone more qualified than you comes along, spends hours on an article and you butcher it. Doubtlessly, I'm going to receive a long winded self righteous emotional response as always from you, perhaps on someone else's page too. I wonder how you would feel if you wrote something that you were qualified to write on and someone who was not qualified butchered it. Telzer 08:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telshe Yeshiva Chicago

The registered name of this institute is Telshe Yeshiva. Why must you continue to flaunt your ignorance and change important facts in articles like THE LEGAL NAME OF THE INSTITUTE? You know, people don't mind when others enhance their articles; they do, however, when others alter facts and replace them with incuracies.Telzer 08:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi IZAK, I am indeed emailable. Please click the "E-mail this user" function on my user page to contact me - Nesher 09:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edits to the Ashkenazi Jews article.

I felt that simply listing "other Jewish ethnic groups" was rather limited. I would also like to point out that that didn't have any sort of citation and that Ashkenazi Jews' relation to Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews is just as disputed as whether or not they are of German/Slavic/Khazar origin.

My contributions were not "unsubstantiated and unverified" nor were they in any way "original research". After they were initially deleted, I re-posted them with clear citations. I did not feel that that was necessary when I changed it to "related by language" because the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are at least linguistically related to Germans and Slavs is a well-known and pretty much undisputed fact.

You'll be happy to know that I do not intend on making any more edits to the article, as it is clear that they will simply be reversed as soon as I post them. Good day.

Kartchin (Hasidic dynasty)

Please take a look there and the discussion page. Need some help here. --Daniel575 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IZAK&oldid=62302357"