User talk:Shirahadasha/Archive May 2007

Mary - Miriam

Hey there, you just reverted my edit saying "the www.behindthename.com entry for "Mary" is not a reliable source for "Miriam"." What makes you think so? Do you think it's not a reliable site in general? Because Miriam is actually the original form of Mary see here. Minikui 14:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when doing the edit. (Going to read your comment now) Minikui 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree about the part with the references, I'm going to pay attention to that from now on. But for rest, I didn't remove the other possible meanings/origins, so both "sides" are still presented. I still think the possible egyptian origin is important and should be mentioned. Of course if the page I linked isn't considered a valid source, it's something different. What do you think about that? Minikui 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I tried to edit the article again now and added a link to the page, I hope that's ok for now, until it's decided whether that page can be a reliable source or not. To my mind, it's the most reliable homepage about name's etymologie, it has been around for quite a long time and they actually list the references they used. The meaning is also explained in detail (like explaining exactly what the original word is), while most other pages (and a lot of books as well) simply list the meaning and nothing else. The site also won the Britannica Award for example.

I don't know if there's a special place for sources to be discussed or if it's usually done on the discussion page of the article? But I realized that most articles about first names on wiki don't cite any sources whatsoever. Well anyway, thank you for your help and the nice welcoming :) Minikui 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: your comments on AfD for List of people who have...

Hi there Shirahadasha, I read with interest your comments on the AfD for List of people who went to heaven alive. You may have noted my comments on the article...

Keep, as problematic but salvageable. Although not a fan of lists, the nominators first two points, I think, are not valid. #1...Most, if not all, biblical person's existence and actions are attested to only through that document, all other sources derive from that and they are abundant. #2...Vandalism to an article is not a reason for deletion of that article and standards for inclusion could be addressed through a more qualifying title for the article. #3 Raises the best point but could be addressed through renaming...in Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology..., or some such way. I hope the creator of the article can tighten it up during the nomination process. killing sparrows 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My second point was not vandalism, but rather a lack of clear criteria for what consitutes "going to heaven alive". Given the vague inclusion criteria, the addition of Cheech Marin technically was not vandalism. -- Black Falcon 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I'll add the comment that I can see the value of this list where someone reads about Enoch or Mary or Mohamed ascending to heaven and then from this list, (as a 'see also') is able to compare and contrast the phenomenom in other traditions. FWIW --killing sparrows 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I also made this comment on the talk page where the article is being worked on...

... I would rather see this article address the topic as all three faiths combined for the reasons in my comment on the Afd, that it brings an inquirer to a commonality of concept, rather than a quirk of creed (Wow, how's that for alliteration!); knowledge that unites rather than divides. I don't think that is POV, I don't intend it that way, and I have no objection to any other faith/mythology being added to the mix. I also think that an article that speaks to a concept in broad, cross-cultural terms has a better chance of surviving another Afd. killing sparrows 21:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading your comment, I went to Heaven (while still alive! -joke), and looked at the way different views of an afterlife are dealt with and there are some things there I really do not like, especially the lead paragraph, which is very Christian weighted. I am going to suggest some changes there although I will not be drawn into any kind of debate re the value of one faith over another. To me, even the term 'heaven' slants towards christianity. I think something like 'afterlife,' with redirects from heaven, etc to be much more NPOV.

My comment re: addressing the issue from commonality is somewhat at odds with your very valid point, so much so that I wonder if the only way to address the issue is from each faith's unique perspective. After reading the 'heaven' article I wonder if the same approach should be taken there! I do think though, that there is a value in seeing concepts that are similar addressed together as it points to our commonalities rather than our differences. If there is a way to do this that retains NPOV and is not OR, great, if not, split them off, but perhaps list similar thought in a 'see also' section.

I am not going to jump in and push either point of view, but I am going to work with the article, (discussion is ongoing on the talk page regarding renaming and restructuring) and see if there is a way to develop an article that is encyclopedic and useful. Even if this particular article is a minor issue, if it leads to a better perspective on current or future articles on the very difficult topic of religion, it will have some value.

You seem to have a take on things here that is thoughtful but not contentious, so I wonder if you would like to assist with this or just look in and comment occasionally as this article develops. I, for one, would value your input.

I will have your talk page on my watch list so I would rather read your answer there, if that works for you. Thanks! killing sparrows 03:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to advocate:

Are you going to advocate: this case? I'd be glad to help out if you like, with this or any other case... You mentioned you are a new advocate -- I'm pretty experienced and would help you out in any way you need, if you want to dive in and take this case, or if you want to work on another one, I'm offering help with one or two cases. I've done some advocacy, and generally been pretty successful, and I'm real experienced and familiar with policies, (I actually wrote a great deal of the original "how to advocate" and "what is advocacy" documents we use) so if you'd like some help on any cases, feel free to message me on my talk page. User:Pedant 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA deletion

The Association of Members' Advocates is being threatened with deletion. Please consider visiting and adding your voice to the MFD discussion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Happy Passover

Hag Sameach! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Don't Wig Out!

I edited some redundancy on your user page; you can change it back if you want. (I'm a wikignome). Lighthead 16:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your help.

Personally, since just about every negative part of Campbells article has been removed, and the editors are either complicit, or don't bother to replace the articles after they are removed, I don't see the point of continuing, unless you know a way to fix it so that the editors will stop removing material.

It's not just mine thats been removed but almost every negative article.

Miked789 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)miked789 [reply]

Levite Tithe

It was deleted in the end after all. I find it a bit strange, when the nominator has admitted a mistake and changed from proposing deletion to merger. But as User:FDuffy has been working on the other article, I assume that all the material has already been merged there in any case.

But I can't help feeling slightly annoyed at the outcome. Levite Tithe should still be undeleted and made into a redirect, as "vote-stacking" – by which I assume is meant an intentional and organised attempt to skew a vote – is not the issue. The problem is people simply voting based on a mistaken impression and not checking for themselves. And I thought these debates weren't supposed to be votes in the first place. Pharamond 05:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took a look at the review page, and I'm not going to bother with that process. If User:FDuffy takes it there, I will probably support undeletion of the article for its history. In either case, I think the pages should be/remain merged in some way and one redirected to the other. Other than that, I don't want to get more involved in this issue. Pharamond 07:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zohar

I'm interested in doing some editing on the Zohar page (see discussion there). If you have any suggestions it would be apppreciatedWolf2191 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha (2) - feel free to take a long as you want to answer the questions and transclude it on the main RfA page when you are ready. JoshuaZ 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Heh

Can't believe you're a "he"! --Dweller 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"יבּנה המקדש עיר ציוֹן תּמלא, ושם נשיר שיר חדש וּברננה נעלה" - Now that we all know you're a dude, you've gotta change your handle to "Shirhadash" hehehe... Congratulations. -- Y not? 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator, and with overwhelming support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!! Well done :) - Alison^☺ 11:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, now maybe you can run over and help with the ever present backlog on CSD...JoshuaZ 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I would have voted for you if I'd been around. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the three questions

Thanks for the heads-up. I am intentionally not answering the questions, as they are optional. I'm happy with people commenting "neutral" if they don't know me well enough to support or oppose. If people are opposing simply for not answering optional questions, I hope the bureaucrat takes that into account. Whether I pass or fail should be determined based on people who are familiar enough with my editing to make to make an informed decision; RfA needs to change, and I would rather fail and start a discussion if that's what it comes down to. --ragesoss 05:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Have fun with the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me at downunder too. Thank you for your message.--VS ^talk 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Congrats! Use the tools wisely - I'm sure you will. And continue to enlighten WP:JEW with your sagacious input. JFW | T@lk 09:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome. I was glad to support you. :) Acalamari 16:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, are you able to expand Supercommentary with anything real? I certainly can't, but I'm also lacking on Judaic topics, so perhaps you can help. Thanks. The Behnam 21:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent help needed at Noah's Ark

I am requesting your help with a dispute that is not getting anywhere, in particular because the other party will not even acknowledge the validity of the dispute and most of the edit warring is over the NPOV tag. I thought you might be able to help because I saw on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion talkpage that you gave a brilliant argument against categorizing Yoruba Religion as "mythology" because of its pejorative connotations, a decision I added my full support to. Please read the synopsis of my very similar problem I have written at the bottom of that talkpage. This team of editors is pushing a POV that "all religion is just mythology", and are so convinced they are right they will not even concede me or anyone else the right to dispute them, and it will end up in ArbCom if someone else cannot persuade them of reason.

While typing this, I see that one of them has just delisted Noah's Ark from the WP:RELIGION project, claiming it is not supported as a religion-connected topic. Please help! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your Rfa

You're very welcome. I'm confident you will be a good admin. Grace Note 11:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congrats from me as well. I'm sure you'll do fine with the tools. —Alde Baer 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Noah's Ark

I just made a reply on the NA Talk page. I also notice that CS has asked you to help him out on the ongoing endless pov wars over there. Please note that I'm not a player in that particular game - Codex's problems are with others, not me. (Well, Codex does has problems with me from time to time, but not in this instance).PiCo 09:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I decided to withdraw my self-nomination - I agree with your concerns and I definitely should have more experience before I attempt another RfA. Thanks, and best of luck to you! --Ali 23:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark Talk

Thanks for chiming in. Of course, having made the changes, I agree with you. Just a friendly note, you typed "But what we believe ourselves about the matter is relevant" but probably meant the opposite in the context. ImprobabilityDrive 01:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Congratulations!

Chag Sameakh (Yom ha-Atzmaut) and congratulations on your adminship, which I noticed in the news. Had I known I would have gladly voted for you, sorry... Anyways, good luck and I'm sure you will do a great job. Dovi 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Admin help

Hi Shira: There is a mix-up going on, see User talk:Hmains#Duplicate category?. The guy is screwing things up. IZAK 08:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish angelic hierarchy

Would you find it acceptable if the Jewish article were divided into two parts, the first part being a Maimonides section and the second a Kabbalah section? That way we can be sure that the differences aren't misattributed. Harvestdancer 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

In this edit you suggested that my opposition to a certain candidate for administrator is inappropriate in light of the large backlog of unsourced articles. Try as I might, I don't see the relevance. Please explain to me how whether or not this (or any other) candidate is promoted will have any effect at all on article sourcing; I just can't see it. Thanks, Kelly Martin (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Shirahadasha, thanks for participating in my successful RfA, and for your thoughtful note at the beginning. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 08:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Concerned about User:Wassermann

Hi Shvua Tov: Please see my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Wasserman. Thank you, IZAK 13:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

Thanks for your question on my RfA, and the prompt to answer it! I didn't have an explanation, though it was certainly not intentional. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]