User talk:IZAK

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

Archived talk:: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31: 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37;

---

Thank you

Thank you very much for the award, IZAK. It means a great deal and I will truly treasure it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Dear SlimVirgin: What a job you undertook, you deserve the award 100% IZAK 09:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, IZAK, I hope it's OK that I'm adding this thank-you to someone else's thank-you section. I just wanted to say, er, thank you, for adding a welcome message to my talk page. As a newbie, that was a pleasant surprise. It was also helpful to get that added insight to some of the behind-the-scenes effort. --Rich Janis 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dropping in and saying hi

I like the photo on your user page. lol. Very nice. Just to smile at you for being nice to everybody, I noticed. Regeane Silverwolf 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Regeane Silverwolf 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 page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

• Dear Regeane Silverwolf: Thank you so much for the smile, it is greatly appreciated! IZAK 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Say, "Smile"!

Trampton 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Trampton 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Trampton, thank you, IZAK 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism

I saw your nomination to merge this article into Jewish views of marriage as well. I disagreed with you in this case on both points. About the merger, and about your objections to wording. The first is a strictly technical matter, but the second surprised me a little. After all, the article is well sourced and all the things you call pejorative are factually correct and neutrally worded, if you think about it, because no value is being given to the statements. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Debresser. Thanks for contacting me. I stand by my nomination, as explained over there. There was no reason to create an extra article in obvious violation of WP:CONTENTFORK when all the material (with pejoratives edited out) could fit perfectly well into Jewish views of marriage that is just for that kind of topic. Feel free to vote the way you wish. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Need someone with knowledge of Hebrew idioms to help

I saw a suspect removal of content on Pot calling the kettle black, specifically, removing one of two idioms in Hebrew that are supposed to be equivalent. I was wondering if you would please:

1. Confirm if the initial removal was justified (and restore it if it's a valid phrase)
2. Verify the remaining quote (online translators are nearly useless for linguistic idioms)
3. Provide a transliteration for both (since Hebrew isn't readable by most English speakers; I can read it with the vowels, but I can't read the shorthand with consonants only without making a lot of mistakes)

I'm assuming you're a fluent speaker of Hebrew, but I acknowledge I could be totally off on that; even if you are fluent, that doesn't mean you're familiar with modern idioms, so if you know anyone better suited to confirming it please pass along my request. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. Transliterated and cited to Talmudic source. I am unsure of the provenance of the removed phrase. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I kind of wanted the removed phrase to be real. It has a certain charm to it. :-) Oh well, thanks for helping out on the rest of the request. The translation of the Hebrew for the remaining phrase is odd though; without filling in words it doesn't seem to mean what I assume it to mean, which would be "All who disqualify [another] due to fault do so based on their own fault." Am I correct that the "another" is an assumed word there? I might add it in if so; otherwise it looks like a proverb that simply says "If you screw up, it's your own fault," which isn't in the spirit of the English idiom. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct; I have placed a more literal translation with helping brackets. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Google searches seem to bring up only the old wiki page: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9D+%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%97%D7%A7+%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A6%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%95%D7%90+%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%97%22&hl=en&filter=0&cts=1260226818920 -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Eve Frank and Felix Frankfurter

Nowhere in the article did I say that Felix Frankfurter was decended from Eve Frank. I said that he parents were decended from FOLLOWERS, and they had a picture of her.Ericl (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Jewish Barnstar, and for the flattering mention in the Wikipedia Signpost. Happy Chanukah, Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are more than welcome, you are most worthy! IZAK (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you, that was very thoughtful of you! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• You deserve only good things! IZAK (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

יישר כחך

Thank you for the very kind words! א פרייליכן און א ליכטיגע חנוכה!! -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome! Happy Chanuka! IZAK (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Chabad, POVFORKs, and alot of discussion

Dear IZAK, I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your contributions and for very legitimately bringing to peoples attention an editorial bias that is not in line with WP policy. Having articles that present a multi-faceted Jewish issue as if it is a chabad-perspectived monolith does harm.

I would just share a thought that we all catch more flies with honey than vinegar and a calm tone will help us all work together.

Much love, Joe407 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you brought Tefillin campaign to our attention. I looked at all the "campaign" article spin-offs and notice that they read exactly the same way, more like a press release than an encyclopedic entry. Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign and Noahide campaign follow the exact same format and have as their only references sichot by the Rebbe. I'm a bit intimidated to lodge an AfD, though, as Yehoishophot Oliver zinged me with his allegation of "POV pushing" on my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah. I think you express yourself much more eloquently and accurately; you could almost copy and paste your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I started the AFD process on those two, I am sure Izak can put his two cents in much better. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, keep me posted

Thank you everyone for keeping me posted. Please let me know when further issues like this come to anyone's attention. IZAK (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jewish seminary

Go rant at whoever pushed Beis Yaakov into Jewish seminary. I had to remove links to Beis Yaakov from a lot of articles where they didn't belong. A fine example of POV pushing. And no connection with Chabad. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_seminary. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't "rant" -- I edit. I will see when I can. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I will be glad to be of service as best I can. IZAK (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it now. What's the big deal? It's a regular disambiguation page, see Jewish seminary. IZAK (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause an edit conflict in Jewish seminary. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_seminary for explanations to my edit. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Listcruft is not a policy

Re: Violates Wikipedia:Listcruft

Could you explain your reasoning above considering that WP:Listcruft is not a policy (and will never be)?

Hi, I have just clarified it [1]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you please nominate List of Muslim astronomers for deletion because you said that the list of jewish engineers was deleted and so we should delete the lists of former Jews and so on. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I can' get global about this. I am not familiar with the subject of Muslim astronomers, so I cannot even really comment on that. IZAK (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt: See User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews where I have detailed my reasons for opposing lists and categories of Jews on Wikipedia. I cannot by extension apply the same reasoning to Muslims or any other group. Each ethnicity, nationality and religion and its representative editors must decide what works best for them and what guidelines they should follow within the parameters of Wikipedia's policies. Thanks for contacting me. IZAK (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

One could make a similiar page detailing why we should delete lists and categories relating to Muslims. It looks strange that you would be asking for people to delete lists/categories for Jews but have no comments about pages relating to Muslims or Hindus or people from other religion and say that you leave other people to decide about that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt: You cannot equate what applies to a small group of people like the 13 million Jews of the world, with almost two billion Muslims and over a billion Hindus. There are different factors at work. Muslims and Hindus do not have to face the historical realities of antisemitism and genocide that Jews have suffered recenetly such as in the Holocaust when almost a third of the world's Jews were killed in Europe by Nazis wielding LISTS OF JEWS. Therefore lists and categories of living Jews works in the favor of Jew Watch and other Jew-haters and may lead to deaths at the hands of antisemites. I am not sure that two billion Muslims and a over a billion Hindus have the same issues. While some rules of Wikipedia can be generalized, nobody said you should toss your brains and common sense out the window and come up with false conclusions and false absurd claims that Wikipedia is a generic society, when it is not. As I said, I don't know the way the Muslim editors function just like I don't know how the medical or scientific editors function and my expertsise and interests are not in those areas. I try not to be a smart alek and stick my nose into subjects I know absolutely nothing about and I advise you to do the same. Gotta go now. Take care! IZAK (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 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) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I have finally posted you on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User :Hayesgenius

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. His user page has been blanked (again!), and much of his editing history have been oversighted. He's also been notified of the dangers of what he is doing. I hope it makes an impression. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint and discussion concerning your POV editing, violations of WP policy, and diff's

A complaint concerning your POV editing, and violations of WP policy has been posted at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:IZAK.27s_POV_editing.2C_violations_of_WP_policy_and_diffs. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Elazar Shach page

Lately there's been a lot of edit wars and discussion regarding the Rabbi Elazar Shach page (so much that the page was locked for a month). Have anything to contribute to the discussions on the talk page? Yonoson3 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Yonoson: Thanks for contacting me. Maybe it has to do with the heated discussions now ongoing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. And yes, the Rabbi Elazar Shach article is always a hot topic because he was one of the biggest critics of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and of Chabad messianism, he is therefore a target of pro-Chabd edtors as well. For the time being I will stay away from that topic. IZAK (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Zsero has been involved in some of the recent Lubavitch related discussions there on the Rabbi Elazar Shach talk page. I see that Zsero is also one of the guys involved in the arbitration case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad_movement/Evidence) - Does that mean that for now Zsero shouldn't have any say on the Lubavitch related discussions on the Rabbi Elazar Shach page? If yes, can we knock him off?

Yonoson3 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility

This is a general warning to all users involved in recent COIN and ANI discussions. Please stop talking about other users mental status, mental health or their person. As the WP:CIVILITY policy says, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and WP:NPA which states: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people". I am drawing a line under what has been said to this point so you all right now have a clean slate, but I intend to start blocking users on both sides of the dispute who continue engaging in violations of the behavioural policies so please accept this as a final warning. Thanks, Sarah 05:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Sarah, you are right, as you know I have been the primary target of these attacks. I have been trying to draw attention to the fact that a number of admins have also asked all parties involved to step back and allow the admins to review the case, but unfortunately, User Debresser (talk · contribs) and User Shlomke (talk · contribs) went ahead and escalated the situation by creating even more red herring attacks against me as distractions and smokescreens at the ANI and COI boards. I agree with you fully and I certainly hope it allows everyone to remain calm, rational and focused. Thank you for your input. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to the arbitration request

I see you keep tweaking it. Please note that the instructions say " This busy page is not the place to work up drafts.". The Arbs are voting now on whether to accept, and if it is accepted there will be an evidence page for you to add evidence, so I'm asking you (as an ArbCom clerk) to finish what you want to say and wait until it is accepted or rejected. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, I was listing others who may be involved in this case --now inactive-- and fixing the spellings and links. I am done for now. There will be much more to say once this gets going. What I posted is only meant in the spirit of who to include and who this involves. Thanks again for letting me know. Keep me posted please. IZAK (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yonasan David

The article Yonasan David has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Yonasan David – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Abductive. I have now added 10 reliable references and sources to that article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello IZAK! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 8 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 775 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Yosef Mendelevitch - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Avrohom Yehoshua Soloveitchik - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Haym Soloveitchik - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Elisheva Carlebach Jofen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Shlomo Carlebach (rabbi) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Yonasan David - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Richard Gordon (AJC) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Added refs to Yonasan David. Will work on the others. Some of these articles go back quite a few years! IZAK (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Added refs to Yosef Mendelevitch. IZAK (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi IZAK, just a quick note, you don't need to leave the word "Template" in when you copy the workshop templates. See here. Just to let you know in case you were considering raising any additional proposals. Cheers, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
    • Ok. Not knowing the rules of what to leave in and leave out, I was cautious. Feel free to correct my errors. Thanks for the input. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
      • It would help you if you reworked your edits a bit. You need to organise your links better (eg sometimes they start a statement, other times they are within a statement) and be sure that your statements are supported with evidence, eg diffs. Let the diffs speak for themselves. Remember the Arbitrators will be looking at everything everyone writes, so you should avoid anything that looks inflammatory. If you try to be precise and specific without any emotional language your edits will be easier to review. On behalf of the Arbitration Committe, Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Will see what I can do. Thanks for the feedback, IZAK (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid you haven't done enough, it is just too difficult for the Arbs to read through your evidence, that huge chunk of blue is just unreadable, all of 1.2 should be removed, and I'm a bit worried about your bringing in other editors in that last section. If you don't remove 1.2 I will have to, and you really aren't doing your case justice if the Arbs can't read it, and believe me they are finding it hard. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
            • I assure you I take your guidance seriously. 1.2 is now removed. The case is presented through the other posts. Please let me have your ongoing feedback. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re some other discussions

We don't normally edit archives, but I took the liberty of fixing a link in a comment of yours here; I hope that's OK with you.

I'd like to clarify that my advice to Debresser at ANI was not intended as expressing either approval or disapproval of your editing. I'd also like to suggest being more considerate when talking about other editors, avoiding for example saying things like "hysteria" [2]. Remember to AGF. I'm also putting a comment on Debresser's talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Got it! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

תודה

I certainly will. I've been on the road the past week with sporadic internet, but have been trying to keep up with everything. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Have a safe trip! IZAK (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vilna Gaon

You said "Chabad hates the Vilna Gaon because he excommunicated them". First of all you must have mistaken Chabad for an individual, because a religious movement can not hate or experience emotions. In addition, did you know the Vilna Gaon was excommunicated himself in response? This was in accordance with the halacha about inappropriate excommunications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) [3]

• Nothing you quote me saying here is new or original. Yes, I do know about the counter-cherem. I'd love having more discussions with you, but given the present circumstances, I think we should confine or communications to the ArbCom case. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered that as well, but frankly, I have no intention of letting this disagreement get between two Jews. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which two Jews? IZAK (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You and me. :) Debresser (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. IZAK (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Arbcom section

About [4], I think the clerk's recommendation was indeed to remove the whole section including the other parties' comments. Doug was actually saying he might be removing the whole thing himself. If the proposal is withdrawn, I don't really see why your comment on it should continue to be important – it's basically just as off-topic as the proposal was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Fut: Thanks for your feedback. The devil is in the details. I thought you wanted it restored. Let Doug or yourself feel free to do the right thing if that's what should be done. IZAK (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad movement evidence

Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Doug. I have now created a "Summary" [5] section along the lines of Fritzpoll's request. However the rest must also be preserved because of the fact that there is wide-ranging evidence from me against the four Chabad editors that deals with them as individuals that a shorter Summary would not do complete justice to. This is very important and hopefully the ArbCom will see the wisdom of keeping both the longer and summarized evidence, as per WP:NOTPAPER. Thanks for your guidance, IZAK (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno what to say...

other than "huh?" enjoy Tomer^talk 06:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh well. IZAK (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I was primarily talking about "Those who chose the rainbow colored tzitzit are known as "frescavenas" because this act was recognized as such be the macedocians who called them this around this new era." And again, I say "huh?" :-p Tomer^talk 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I think the entire section is ridiculous. It's just a marketing gimmick to sell religious items to people who are not that observant of those rituals. IZAK (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case - stop posting for a moment

Re: Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case - stop posting for a moment. It looks like spam I want to work it out. Reply here ASAP.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, will do. I was trying to notify all the parties involved in this case. How is that "spam" -- how else to do it by keeping it in the open? In any case only about 3 or 4 more users to notify that would/should like to know/be informed. Obviously any motion to close benefits one side only, the Chabad editors who will walk away with not even a slap on the wrist. Thanks again. IZAK (talk)
  • I came across Help_talk:Contents#Motion_to_dismiss_or_keep_the_Chabad_editors_case which is not in the right place, do you agree? Then I saw you last 10 edits were the same message on other pages and I feared that they also were not appropriate. If you are done then I think there is no problem, but if you are going to post the message another 50 times I think it may not be good. I am not sure if you are meant to post to all interested parties, but it would help if you wrote "this has been posted to all interested parties" in the talk page message.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Hi Commander: Nowhere near fifty. Not more than about 3 or 4 more or another 8 if you count the 4 active Chabad editors. The motion needs to be fair and balanced because just as when a case opens or a case is started all users involved need to be informed, similarly if there is any serious thought to closing a case all parties should be informed and allowed to have some decent input. So can I finish? and of course I will inform the relevant talk page at Evidence that parties were informed. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Sure you may as well finish, as long as everyone is notified to keep it fair :-) But why was Help_talk:Contents notified? That confuses me :P Next time maybe an ArbCom clerk can notify everyone if needed, it would seem more balanced that way.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Hi again: I now placed the notice on Evidence talk page [6] page as you requested. As for how it got to Help_talk:Contents I got there from clicking on the talk page of User JzG (talk · contribs) that redirects there. I assumed it's his talk page. He had given evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Evidence presented by JzG. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I am now looking at it again. Evidence by "JzG" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Evidence presented by JzG is signed by "Guy" but that redirects to User talk:JzG while "JzG's" talk page goes to User:JzG/help that then redirects to Help:Contents. So that's how I got there. Maybe ai bumped into this and I give you credit for spotting this problem. What going on here? IZAK (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)