User talk:Shirahadasha/Archive Jun 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My (Selket's) RfA[edit]

Partnership Minyan[edit]

Given the circumstances, I'm not sure I'm someone who would be very good to make judgements on this. Would you mind if I asked an uninvolved user to take a look at this in more detail? I have in mind someone who will fairly neutral. JoshuaZ 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled...[edit]

Hi I change this from list-type format to article-type format as you suggested.

Any other suggestions welcome.

Regards.

JLMarais 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wolowelsky[edit]

I looked at the Tradition article and failed to see where it says that Dr. Wolowelsky is a rabbi. He certainly does not call himself that, nor does any published documentation that I have seen. --DLandTALK 19:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you reverted yourself while I was typing. --DLandTALK 19:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Biggspowd[edit]

Hi Shirahadasha. I was reviewing Category:Requests for unblock and came across the unblock request of User:Biggspowd. I see that you blocked him for a month because of his addition and re-addition of a db-repost tag to an episode of the Monkees: [1] [2]. While it's clear that he was in error in claiming that the article met CSD G4, I don't think he was malicious in posting this: the article (a different one on the same episode, which was a copyvio) was deleted in November: [3]. I'm tempted to believe that this fellow was just mistaken.

I took a look at the circumstances of his 1 week block in April, and, he certainly made some spurious edits (such as this edit on Talk:Don Imus: [4]) and personal attacks against users, so I see where you're coming from in blocking him for the db insertion. But I really do think this was an error on this guy's part, and was not malicious. I'd appreciate it if you would re-consider the block. Thanks -- Samir 01:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. Take care -- Samir 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews page and associated images[edit]

Would you please have a look at the edit war that is now going on at Ashkenazi Jews concerning what image collage to use. Issues of the licensing of images that are used in th collage have come up. The user that is contending that his collage should be used has reversed edits, for example, that question the licensing of his collage, and in turn added the same tag to other images as a retaliatory measure. This user has also violated the 3RR/day rule. --Metzenberg 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

If i could give you one of those stars administrators give to administrators i would give it to you! You stoped the vandalizem there and took the situation under control! And thank you for teaching me to use the signature thing, i think thanks to you i got it. M.V.E.i. 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

More than three reverts on Ashkenazi Jews[edit]

User M.V.E.i. made more than three reverts on May 7, 2007, editing under the IP address 62.90.101.55. User M.V.E.i. was informed about the three revert rule by Humus_sapiens in a previous exchange on May 4, 2007. The following is a list of the four reverts on May 7, 2007:

I'd like to ask that the other collage be used during the period of the edit dispute, that the page be reverted to [this version] by User:Humus Sapiens while the page is locked pending resolution of the dispute, since this user has clearly violated 3RR. --Metzenberg 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont you ever get tired? You started an Edit War, thats vandalism! Why should your image be there and not mine?! i know people who like mine, you know who like yours. I offered a compromise a few times and you ignored it. We BOTH violated the rule because of this Edit War, thats why Shirahadasha took the situation under control. M.V.E.i. 20:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark[edit]

On the truth issue, I'm afraid it's a problem of undue weight. There are those who think that the literalist view should be given equal weight with the scientific precisely because they believe, on no objective evidence to speak of, that there was really a worldwide flood and the ark really was built as Genesis describes. The weight given in the article must side with what the objective evidence shows. This cannot but devolve into a debate where the literalist side insists that it really happened and that such a viewpoint must be given equal weight, with everyone else explaining why this cannot true can that equal weight is not merited. If you have some solution to this where such a discussion cannot arise, we'd be all ears. Boilerplate text on the correct use of an article talk page won't accomplish that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Had the content of this article adhered purely to the religious viewpoint, there wouldn't be a problem, and little to discuss on the talk page. But a literalist interpretation cannot be purely religious since it makes certain claims that ought to be independently verifiable. So when someone says the worldwide flood recorded in Genesis really happened as a historical event, and that a single man and his family actually built a large ship to preserve humankind and breeding specimens of all the world's animals, he steps outside the religious worldview and into the areas where geology and other earth sciences, archaeology, engineering, biology, and physics have something to contribute. These disciplines, both singly and together, tell us that it simply did not happen. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong. Where a religion makes historical claims, they can be evaluated like any other. In that sense religion is in no way privileged, nor should it be. In many cases there's nothing at all that can by said to either refute or confirm them, such as the biography of Gautama Buddha or the events of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. In the case of Noah's Ark however, we are very much in a position to say that not only is there no evidence for it, but the evidence we have positively precludes it. There has been no worldwide flood while humans have been on the earth, and probably not before then either. Period. To give credence to any other viewpoint is to give undue weight to a POV that cannot be sustained where it is not believed for religious reasons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we can say that some religious people believe this. In fact, we ought to if we're to do a decent job covering the range of religious belief on Noah's Ark. But they're demonstrably, objectively wrong. There are sufficient citations for that in the article. It would be easy to find more. And I did give you a policy. Twice. You haven't said why you think it doesn't apply.
This isn't a case of choosing among equally valid POVs where we're dealing with opinions based on belief or subjective evidence. It's choosing between one that's true in a neutral sense of the word: investigating by the scientific method, impartially evaluating the evidence, then presenting the geological facts thus deduced, rather than consulting a rather garbled text and insisting it must be true. We might as well say the earth was created 7,000 years ago in History of Earth.
We're really talking about a theoretical issue here. Unless someone has managed to categorize it as a 24th century BC event again without my noticing, the article as it stands is adequate even if the "Ark under scrutiny" section could use a bit of strengthening. This has more to do with what Codex Sinaiticus wanted the article to look like, and how no one would let him. I assume he's still banned since I haven't seen him around lately. With no one pushing that POV as hard, there's not much to argue about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

If i could give you one of those stars administrators give to administrators i would give it to you! You stoped the vandalizem there and took the situation under control! And thank you for teaching me to use the signature thing, i think thanks to you i got it. M.V.E.i. 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

More than three reverts on Ashkenazi Jews[edit]

User M.V.E.i. made more than three reverts on May 7, 2007, editing under the IP address 62.90.101.55. User M.V.E.i. was informed about the three revert rule by Humus_sapiens in a previous exchange on May 4, 2007. The following is a list of the four reverts on May 7, 2007:

I'd like to ask that the other collage be used during the period of the edit dispute, that the page be reverted to [this version] by User:Humus Sapiens while the page is locked pending resolution of the dispute, since this user has clearly violated 3RR. --Metzenberg 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont you ever get tired? You started an Edit War, thats vandalism! Why should your image be there and not mine?! i know people who like mine, you know who like yours. I offered a compromise a few times and you ignored it. We BOTH violated the rule because of this Edit War, thats why Shirahadasha took the situation under control. M.V.E.i. 20:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Al Gordon: response[edit]

Okay, G4 doesn't apply, and A7 doesn't apply either. That leaves us with AFD, which is what I will do. Thanks for the clarification. Placeholder account 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage. Much appreciated. Mark (Talk) 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

BT Ip address[edit]

BS"D BTDCS IP address is user talk:76.160.172.226, its a shared IP address --Shuli 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You too, have a good shabbos. --Shuli 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamei[edit]

Thanks for that correction to Miriam. I had tried to look for the right word to use, but there was no link to tamei or tumah from either unclean or tzaraath. May I suggest you add links/explanation on those pages too? - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, that is much clearer now. You might also be interested in the cross-cultural article Ritual purification. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Shirahadasha, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Please feel free to drop me a line any time if I can help you in any way. Pastordavid 15:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ortho critique of Cons conversions[edit]

Hi. Saw your addition, thanks. This sounds plausible/true, though I'm wondering if you have a source for this? And to what extent might there be a mahloqet within the more modern/liberal side of Orthodoxy? (Then the text should be qualified.) Also, isn't this a le-chatkhila (spelling?) (a priori) opinion, but be-de'eved (a posteriori) many Orthodox rabbis would not nullify a marriage to a Conservative Jew? HG | Talk 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You might also want to distinguish levels of action (actionability?). For instance, rejecting somebody for a school, or any aliyah or counting for minyan, is (possibly) different than declaring a conversion void and the person/offspring non-Jewish. Also, I didn't mean to imply that you need to import more text, if you prefer to make a generalized valid statement and reference a longer main article or section. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AGF[edit]

There can be no assumtions when he wrote what he did on my talk page. I was not the one to start, and while that is not a rationale for continuing, the basis for the re-revision was that the initial revision had, objectively, been made out of spite. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Let me know if I can help reduce tensions. Good move to protect the page. Perhaps we need a way to clear the air, mention our grievances and annoyances, without taking it out on the article edits. HG | Talk 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti Judaism[edit]

I did not delete any category; I added a category to the artices. I did this so the collection of articles would not disappear. I do not think the anti-Judaism category should be deleted, but every other anti-religion category has been deleted in the last few days so I expect this one will go also. I was trying to be helpful. Why all the excitement? Hmains 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid my reasons would not not count for much in view of how the Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Christian, and Anti-Protestantism categories were decided by the closer. My and all other keep arguments were rejected. Sorry, I wish I could help, but I just did what I could do. Hmains 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your candor and support in my quest to posit some truth and validity to this issue. While I'm graduating this week from dental school, I'm very busy finishing things up, but I am looking into sources such as the 19 Letters. I'll check out Shafran as well. Kol tuv. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ortho vs Judaism template[edit]

It would be helpful if you could list all the articles whose templates have been changed. I agree that the changes are not merited, though I can't at the moment think of a simple way to explain this to Y.O. HG | Talk 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NCSY[edit]

Hi Shira. I have not been active for a while. But my watchpage has filled up with an over 6 reverse edit war on the NCSY page. Can you handle this? And is there a guideline page for an outsider to manage an edit war. --Jayrav 23:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Further note- It seems that this is similar to the edit war that occured on the Shlomo Carlebach page over having a criticism section. If I remember correctly, someone set a up a nice explantion and warning on that talk page. --Jayrav 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Orthodox Judaism[edit]

Template:Orthodox Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 08:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Conservative Judaism[edit]

I apologize for my recent behavior on Talk:Conservative Judaism. I'm going to take a few days off from that page to cool off. Shabbat shalom. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit War Page[edit]

Shira, I would not write a page on handling edit wars myself, especiialy since I am not an admin and I am not always sure of the proper manners and etiquette But more importantly, is because an "Edit War" page would be a major tool for Wiki. It should be a group project with representatives from many sections of wiki. The final version would have templates, tools, and clean flowcharts of what to do. We should start a collaboration group for those wanting to work on it. We should post anouncements around wiki to join and make it a project for June 2007.--Jayrav 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your announcement. Let us see if we get takers. It seems like a valuable project.--Jayrav 20:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba[edit]

Sathya Sai Baba claims to be an incarnation of God, Vishnu, Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva and many other Saints and Hindu deities. Following Vassyana's way of reasoning I cannot edit any of them. I think that is ludicrous. Andries 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Catanich[edit]

S/he sure kept me busy today! Thanks for a well-placed block! --Butseriouslyfolks 06:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the following Wiki Policy

Conduct


Wikipedia encourages an atmosphere of friendliness and openness. Of course, in practice there are sometimes disagreements and even an occasional heated argument, but members of the community are expected to behave in a generally civil manner.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that you should always assume good faith on the part of other editors. Don't assume that someone is acting out of spite or malice. If someone does something that upsets you, leave a polite message on the relevant article's talk page or on the user's talk page, and ask why. You may find that you've avoided a misunderstanding and saved yourself some embarrassment.

Since I was a beginner, guidance would have been appreciated. I though there was a Wiki policy against jumping on a beginner? Do you know which on I mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.185.90 (talkcontribs) 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian[edit]

Actually, I didn't remove the paragraph on "criticism", I just restored it to the bottom of the article, and removed some of the POV. You might have missed that. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Barak Kaiba[edit]

Hi Shira: I came across this "user" page at User:Barak Kaiba and I cannot make heads or tails of it. Barak Kaiba (talk · contribs)'s don't go beyond writing up this piece of of self-glorification. In User:Barak Kaiba#Early Life he says: "Barak Kaiba was (personally identifying information deleted)." So I think this is just a violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE, WP:HOAX and the former WP:VANITY. It's just some kid trying to get around Wikipedia's (by now labyrinthine) rules (that just keep on growing) and the page needs needs some admin attention to be deleted. Thanks for your care. IZAK 07:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reuvein Margolies[edit]

Wrote an article on this important orthodox researcher. Do look in and see if it looks in order. if you have the time. ThanksWolf2191 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Re: CJ. I don't think that the article reflects these two entirely different philosphy within CJ (The first which I basically symphatize with and which is what (I think) Z. Frankel had in mind). Can you make changes or do we lack sources? ThanksWolf2191 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark[edit]

Regarding your comment on Talk:Noah's Ark:

99.6% of the scientists in the US would say not only is it not true, but Adam never existed, and dinosaurs died out 64.5 million years ago. Typical right-wing press pandering to the Christian right. The Right Wing press gave us Bush, now this waste of good money. I'm still nauseous.

The first sentence is relevant to the article content, but the rest is not and is particularly problematic given the controversial nature of Wikipedia articles on religious-related topics. I'd urge you to re-read the civility and Talk page guidelines and to avoid using article talk pages to present your own political/religious viewpoint or denigrate others, and particularly to avoid this type of language. Whether the museum involved is sufficiently notable, verified, and relevant to deserve mention in the article is something that requires an objective evaluation, based on evidence and the merits as opposed to whether it is consistent with ones own position or even whether it makes one "nauseous". Best, --Shirahadasha 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to have some information that talk pages require lots of references, proof sources, and even notability. As long as it's on topic, and frankly, I didn't post about dinosaurs, I can say Noah's Ark is myth invented by Republicans, and it wouldn't matter. Second, let's talk about civility. I did not make a personal attack, taunt, lie (boy I didn't lie), use profanity (although unless it's pointed at someone in particular, the use of profanity would be hard to consider uncivil), call for a ban or block, or in fact, anything that would be uncivil. The right-wing press does pander to the Christian Right (and unless I'm wrong, you and I should both find that more than frightening), they did give us George W. Bush, and it does make me nauseous (I'd give you a reference, but I'm not notable, so probably wouldn't show up anywhere). So, I'd grant that some portion of this project's editors will not exactly like what I write, but I've never been one to push for popularity vote. Moreover, I don't like what other's write a lot, and I rarely accuse them of uncivil remarks (although several of the editors on this article are).
Look, I've put up with anti-Semitic attacks on me, attacks by Creationist editors who try to silence me, and vandalism on my user and discussion pages. I may be sarcastic, but I hardly ask for too much help. To accuse me of being uncivil, I think is a bit harsh, but it is your opinion. If this were a court of law, I'd say I'm innocent on the facts and on the law. But, I appreciate your honesty in the matter, and I'll not mention nauseous again (despite being very much so). Anyways, don't hold too much against me on these points. In general, I'll try to not be so sarcastic (OK, I do sometimes). Orangemarlin 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasidic Mediation Cabal case needs serious help[edit]

Hi Shira: You may perhaps be able to help solve the logjam at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) between Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs). An additional question being raised is if Wikipedia should define a "Hasidic dynasty," see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)#Response to mediator: from Klezmer. Any attention and help you may wish to render would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia has gained many diverse articles about Hasidic Judaism that can be found nowhere else on the web, and this case may help to resolve and establish some important precedants and guidelines. But right now, the matter is stalled and needs outside help before it heads for more serious mediation. Thank you, IZAK 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)