User talk:Shirulashem

Energy Savings Income Fund

It's not vandalism, see the talk page.

i understand where you're coming from, but even if you're correct that this fund is a fraud, you can't just come out and add a line asserting that in the article. how about adding a section in the article called "controversies" and then put in properly cited instances? i think that might be a better approach. Shirulashem (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add citations evidencing that the organization had been charged with fraud, though I should've admittedly been using the sandbox. I will add that subsection, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Thought-Fox (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My posts are not spam

Hello, first let me say I appreciate the reason you removed my edit, but if you read the rest of the article you will realise that the whole thing is not to be taken seriously. can you honeslty believe anything in the famous people section is truthful? it's a small article that no one besides the villagers will look at, myself being one of them. please put my edit back in place or leave the article be. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.96.51 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are no place for untruthful information. I have deleted that section.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My Revert

Did you look at the name/what I reverted/or what it redirected to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.41.165 (talk • contribs)

If I may step in to comment that Do not want should indeed redirect to the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article. Whether the Do not want redirect itself should exist should be discussed. --RazorICE 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what if directs there for. However, it would be better if it was a disambiguation page...

Understood, but as RazorICE said, that's something you need to put on the discussion page before just changing it ... especially since it looks like there's been somewhat of a discussion on this topic in the previous edit summaries to the page. Shirulashem (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I didnt look at the talk page of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith to see anything, sorry ._.;

Please do not redirect prison fellowship to prison fellowship international.

Please do not redirect prison fellowship to prison fellowship international. These are two distinct organizations although with very close ties and the same founder. We need to keep two separate wiki articles for the two organizations. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfmwiki (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

ok. i will make a disambig page. Shirulashem (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

i renamed Prison Fellowship to Prison Fellowship (USA) and made the old Prison Fellowship a disambig page. Please take a look and let me know if you think it's accurate. Shirulashem (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is not accurate. I hope this is an acceptable way to answer on this venue. Prison Fellowship is just that. We are not known as Prison Fellowship (USA). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfmwiki (talk • contribs) 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} HELP REQUEST: Please take a look at the above section regarding Prison Fellowship. There was a dispute going on where editors blanked the content for Prison Fellowship (originally an article that described the American organization known as Prison Fellowship) and made it a redirect to Prison Fellowship International, but other editors contested it saying that they were different organizations. To rectify, I renamed Prison Fellowship to Prison Fellowship (USA) and made Prison Fellowship a disambig page that links to Prison Fellowship International and Prison Fellowship (USA). Now, an editor thinks I was incorrect. Please let me know if I did the right thing. Thanks! Shirulashem (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a good use of {{helpme}}; the tag should be used for how to do things or where to find things, not for settling content disputes. For a content dispute, your best courses of action are to work it out on the talk pages of the affected articles, ask for a third opinion, or open a request for comment. [ roux ] [x] 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for the correction. I've requested a 3O. Shirulashem (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Prison Fellowship has been changed back with a HN on it. Shirulashem (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Golan Heights Mediation

Since there was no way that consensus was going to be reached, I have asked for mediation over the naming of the section. Here is the mediation entry: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-10-20_Syria --Terrillja (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the factual errors: you put that a Mahzor is the daily prayer book. It's not ... the Siddur is. The Mahzor is the prayer book used only on holidays

Some of the factual errors: you put that a Mahzor is the daily prayer book. It's not ... the Siddur is. The Mahzor is the prayer book used only on holidays

I don't understand.

There appears to be a clear bias in these writings, if you don't agree that the book is a daily prayer book, then delete the word daily, because it is a prayer book and not the entire line.

As for the statement: In modern day Israel, the office of Chief Rabbi is very influential, it's fact. In the days of the Temple, the High Priest was teh authority, yet you reverted my text.

A clear bias once again.

You didn't like that I stated : After the physical destruction of the Herod's Temple, the murdering of the Levites by militant Jews within the Holy Temple

and replaced it with the original which "After the physical destruction of the temple"

It wasn't just the temple that was destroyed: Jews killed rival Jews and you aren't allowing the public to see that?

You call that bias?Youknowbest (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See what you think

Hi

I'm new at the Wiki editing so bear with me.

What concerns me in a big way is that there appears to be a clear biasin the Jewish topics of this site.

There is no doubt in my mind that the reason is majority rule, but for a balanced source of info, one should be bold enough to accept the other point of view.

Looking at the many areas I have edited, I am blown away how one sided they are.

Example:

The Sadducees were murdered by the Pharisees who destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and wrote their point of view into Jewish law, called the Talmud. It wasn’t acceptable then nor is it now, but they did it anyway.

The Pharisees became the Rabbinical Jews we now have with their agenda and belief in the Messiah and their Halacha laws. Most Jews today don't follow these Jewish laws and live a similar life to the Sadducees, just without the Temple.

This site neither acknowledges the fact that the Sadducees were murdered and that another side to many Jews exists.

I will continue to monitor how my writings stand but will discontinue if I see a pattern of abuse.

Thanks Youknowbest (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please respect my point of reference and adjust the commentary in good faith.

Please respect my point of reference and adjust the commentary in good faith.

Please change a word if incorrect, but the idea should remain.

Example:

Is it just important to know that the buildings of the Jews were destroyed?

Or, is it as, or even more important to know that lives were lost in the most brutal of ways?

Is it also important to note that once the lives of the priests were lost and their buildings destroyed that the victorious opposition rose to the occasion to write their own laws into history?

Or should we sterilize the entire history of the event and say: "The Buildings were Destroyed"?

This is fact not fiction and even though it may appear to be politically incorrect to remember that Jews killed Jews, for their own political purpose, it still remains a vital part of world history and should be described as such when and where possible.

Youknowbest (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of a bias towards Rabbinical teachings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish ... who are not Jewish by halacha, that is, not Jewish according to Jewish religious law.

Being Jewish by halacha is one thing, but halacha isn't Jewish law according to those Jews that don't believe in the Talmud and Rambam, the sages and the rest of Rabbinical writings, but ONLY believe in the 5 Books of Moses, as commanded by God.

CLEARLY GOD COMMANDED THIS PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF MOSES: Deut 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halacha Halacha is the collective body of Jewish religious law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions

.. There are many more than 613 commandments in the 5 Books of Moses ..

A few examples of commandments NOT mentioned in RAMBAM'S 613 choice commandments:

In Leviticus 22:2 God gives Moses a warning for the future Kohen: "Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they hallow unto Me, and that they profane not My holy name: I am the LORD." THIS IS A WARNING THAT THE KOHEN DOESN'T BUILD ANOTHER GOLDEN CALF BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WANT HIM TO DO IT..... REMEMBER THAT THE HOLY THINGS OF GOD WERE GIVEN TO THE LEVITES NOT TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FOR THEIR PROTECTION AND INHERITANCE......

Deuteronomy 12:19: "Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon thy land."..........

Exodus 40:15 God promised: "An everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." .........

Numbers 8:19 God promised: "I have given the Levites - They are given to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tent of meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel" .............

Numbers 18,1 "The LORD said unto Aaron: Thou and thy sons and thy fathers house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary; and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood."........

Numbers 18:5 God commanded Aaron: "Ye shall keep the charge of the holy things, and the charge of the altar that there be wrath no more upon the children of Israel.".........

Numbers 18:20 God promised: "Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any portion among them; I am thy portion and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.".........

Deuteronomy 10:9 God promised Aaron: "Wherefore Levi hath no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance."..........

Deuteronomy 18:1 God promised: "The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His inheritance and they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance.".........

Deuteronomy 31:25: "Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.".......

AS YOU KNOW, MOST JEWS ARE NOT LEVITES, ONLY 1 TRIBE IN 12, SO THEY ARE THE MINORITY. CLEARLY THE MAJORITY OF JEWS WERE NOT FAVOURED BY GOD IN HIS INHERITANCE. WOULDN'T YOU THINK THAT WOULD MAKE THEM JEALOUS AND DON'T WE HAVE PROOF OF THAT IN THE 5 BOOKS OF MOSES?

BUT GOD DID PROMISE ALL THE OTHER, 11 TRIBES, THE LAND OF ISRAEL. ARE THEY STILL JEALOUS OF THAT?

Youknowbest (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Hi; thanks so much for the barnstar, it really wasn't that hard, he's quite an entertaining person to "come up against"! Chag sameach! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 06:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki going wacky

Thanks for pointing out the very rude nature of those weilding power and authority over us miserable insignificant contributors.

But I take personal exception, on a serious note, attacks, threats, provocation without merit, on myself and the many hours contributing to this site.

Again, I have a note on my user page for those to see what realy matters and without them, the benefactors, this prject is doomed to fail.

I would strongly suggest that someone out of the circle of rude admin contributors look into this, because I surely will, as I despise people pouring good money into bad.

I have no mallice to anyone here. I am new. Yet I have been treated poorly, (stated politely).

An appology for those who have fueled this fire is in order and well overdue. Lets see if I get it.Youknowbest (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh...

What's up with this? — neuro^(talk) 00:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle not at its best. Oops. Shirulashem (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not want listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Do not want. Since you had some involvement with the Do not want redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mjf3719 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit

No, the recent edit I made to Panama did not remove content. I removed the protection icon to reflect that the page is no longer semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.247.86 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Waverley School (Birmingham)

A tag has been placed on Waverley School (Birmingham) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{ZOMG BBQ} 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Quit reverting legitimate edits and calling it 'unconstructive'

Quit reverting legit edits and calling them 'vandalism,' Shirulashem. My edit, this edit [[1]] is NOT "unconstructive" (AKA VANDALISM) and posting rubbish on my user page lecturing me for doing nothing wrong is disrespectful. I would say you have 'vandalized' my talk page... Dont be rude and victimize anons because you dont think they wont stand up to a crusader with an account aiming for some kind of vandalism barnstar. There is something immoral about doing such things...that type of behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia, everyones constructive edits carry equal weight. You told be to summarize my edit for adding a link (I dont see why one is needed for such a MINOR edit: [[2]]), but I find it ironic you won't tell me why you believe my edit was 'unconstructive' and flat out deleted my legitimate contribution in an effort improve the article? How hypocritical. I would like you to explain to me right here exactly how adding a simple link is considered vandalism. I will tell you right now, I believe it was constructive because it added a link to "stern," which is isnt defined in the article and would be convenient for users seeking knowledge about a related subject about the Chinese Junk (ship). Hope you are satisfied, I'm placing the harmless link back now.

Use reason before you revert 'unconstructive edits' and be respectful to EVERYONE, including anons. Please treat people with respect and dont treat them differenly than you would like to be treated yourself. Thank you.

I reverted ONE edit that you made, and now that I see your explanation, I understand why you made the edit. Like the message I left on your talkpage said, had you included an edit summary, I probably wouldn't have reverted it. That's why the edit summary is there. I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way by posting this message on your talk page: "Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Junk (ship) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shirulashem (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)" I'm not quite sure how that message is "rude", "disrespectful", "immoral", "unacceptable" or "wrong", as you contend, but I guess we all have our own perspective. Shirulashem (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I overreacted. Sorry, I was frustrated because you assumed bad faith in my edit as opposed to using the Wikipedian principle of assuming good faith. Instead you violated the principle and assumed bad faith and wrongfully accused me of something I did not do. Slapping me on the wrist by posting warnings on my Talk page about my "unconstructive edits" after assuming bad faith when you had no evidence that there was actually bad faith. That's rude and disprespectful in my mind.

As the "assume good faith article says: "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith..."

Before you accuse someone of bad faith (which I found offensive), you should have clear evidence to show that it is actually in bad faith before taking action. I think assuming bad faith is unacceptable, and it is wrong in my opinion (and Wikipedia's as the guidelines say)

Also, it is clear you dont look at the edits before reverting them and labeling them 'unconstrictive' vandalism, which is a problem. Not every edit warrants an explanation. Not all unexplained edit is vandalism and should be deleted. MINOR edits are often summed simply using "m." in the summary box--which does not summarize the edit and does not mean the edit was in bad faith. I suppose you would have deleted my edit if I did that as well. It should also be known that vandals can disguise their bad faith edits using a misleading summary...so using a summary DOES NOT indicate whether an edit is in good faith or bad faith.

Just please dont assume bad faith, it is insulting to the people who dedicate their time to make Wikipedia better. Look at the edits you are reverting and follow Wikipedia guidlines and policies.

Thank you.

RfA

Hi Shirulashem! שלום שירו לשם! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

CSD decline

Only administrators can delete pages but anyone (except the creator) may decline a speedy if it doesn't meet the criteria or you intend to correct the deficiency. See Template:Db. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject New Jersey Newsletter (October 2008)

The WikiProject New Jersey Newsletter
Volume I - Issue 3 29 October 2008
Project News	Article Alerts
A new bot is patrolling Wikipedia workflows to let WPNJ members know when any of our articles may be in need of attention. Any article tagged with the WPNJ banner that has been added to one of the major workflows (AfD, FAC, GAN, etc.) will be added to a new project page. The bot runs daily, so add the new Article Alerts page to your watchlist, or just check the main project page to see the updates. See the Article Alerts project page for details on how the bot works and which processes it covers.	The following articles may be in need of attention: Featured Article/List candidates: List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with Princeton University Good Article nominees: none at this time
Cross-Project Collaboration Request	New WPNJ members
WPNJ received the following request for assistance with New Jersey Devils articles: "The WikiProject Ice Hockey is currently looking for editors to help update team articles about the 2008-09 NHL season. If you are interested in the NHL, please consider helping us keep these article current. To sign up, go to this page and add your name beside the team or teams you wish to particpate in." See the WPNJ talk page for more information.	Please welcome the following new members to WikiProject New Jersey: Rhvanwinkle (talk) 9 October 2008
New Jersey on the Main Page	Help Wanted
No, not the state - the battleship! On October 15, USS New Jersey (BB-62) was the Featured Article on the Wikipedia main page. Featured articles receive heavier traffic when they are on the main page. Improving WPNJ articles to featured status can help drive more editors to our project.	Recruit new members Article Assessments Ask a question, make an offer
Editor's Notes
Seems like a pretty light month in terms of activity at WPNJ. Personally, your editor was doing a lot of travelling and went on a wiki-free vacation for nine days. Time to dive back in and create some new NJ articles. - Jim Miller See me | Touch me
You are receiving this newsletter as a member of WikiProject New Jersey. To stop receiving these messages, remove your name here.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

BRITNEY SPEARS

GO TO WWW.BRITNEY.COM LATEST BLOG MY INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRACK LISTING WAS RIGHT!!!! :@ SO FUCK YOU