IZAK ( talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jewish_religious_censoring_by_user regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser ( talk • contribs) [1] [2]
IZAK, please don't post any new edits to the ANI in a closed topic. You might have wanted to get in the last word, but it's closed, and we need to respect that. Ishdarian| lol wut 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
IZAK, I just some of your edits today, particularly this one. That thread was archived and I already spoke to you almost a week ago about not getting the last word. Consider this a warning. Now, please, put down the stick and let the horse be. Ishdarian| lol wut 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
שלום אליכם, גמר טוב!
Weapon is not retired, he is back under a new name, and the closures occurred prior to the account's being compromised. -- Avi ( talk) 07:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Great Synagogue of Rome.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)? Thanks. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa ( talk • contribs) [3]
For the record, this was my full post to at User talk:Malik Shabazz#User:JacobFrank etc sockpuppet at work as well as to User talk:Avraham#User:JacobFrank etc sockpuppet at work in their capacities as admins:
Hi IZAK. I don't think there's anything suspicious going on with the JacobFrank. My understanding is that AFriedman ( talk · contribs), who has since been renamed La comadreja ( talk · contribs), started the JacobFrank account as a prank. (In her first edit, she declares bacon to be kosher.) I gave JacobFrank a vandalism warning when she repeatedly posted a "joke" I thought was in bad taste to WT:JUDAISM. Since User talk:JacobFrank redirects to User talk:La comadreja, I don't think you can say she's hiding her identity. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Therefore you need to clarify how a user with at least four user names, i.e. "Users": ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 ( talk · contribs); JacobFrank ( talk · contribs); La comadreja ( talk · contribs); AFriedman ( talk · contribs) is functioning with a fifth blocked user name ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs) acting as a redirect in the middle of them as explained above, as when you go to Special:Contributions/JacobFrank and at the bottom click on User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 it ONLY redirects to User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 by way of the blocked sock puppet User:ChildofMidnight. Which means that something is very wrong here since how can User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010/ User:JacobFrank/ User:La comadreja/ User:AFriedman be tolerated if a blocked sockpuppet User:ChildofMidnight (i.e. the fifth user name) is smack dab in the middle of this set of the four other user names used by one user? By the way, for any user to have or have had four (or five) user names in so short a time is also very problematic so that unused user names should be blanked and red-linked. Please look into it. Thanks again, IZAK ( talk) 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The plot thickens: By clicking on (presumably) current user La comadreja ( talk · contribs) there is more troubling supposed self-disclosure, namely:
The upshot of all this is that there are more questions than answers about this user who has used multiple names, has admitted to serious problems in the past, and continues to function both at WP and at Wikiversity referring to Jacob Frank and that sits with another group of her/his former/present user IDs that are connected to a blocked user accused of puppeteering. IZAK ( talk) 02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again Malik, but things just don't don't add up in this case of multiple user IDs. Just look at some time lines:
Thanks again, IZAK ( talk) 03:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Malik, I don't get it, on some pages, going back to January 2010 you warn a user about vandalism, the user should learn not to do that, then the user, after having changed their user IDs at least twice more returns to perform a "prank" in September of 2010 with the original prankish/vandal user name, and you refuse to condemn both the use of the controversial user name User:JacobFrank connected to the Jacob Frank article in violation of WP:USERNAME guidelines, let alone worry about possible sockpuppetry. No user would be allowed to call themselves User:Napoleon and be allowed to have that redirect to the Napoleon article, be warned not to play pranks and be accused of vandalism in January 2010 and then go ahead and play a prank in September of 2010 at WP:FRANCE, and at the same time switch around with at least two other user names and sow confusion, while admitting on Wikiversity that they had had serious issues with WP:FRANCE along the way and hinted at even more problems in the past on WP. Such a situation would be clarified very quickly on WP by admins concerned with WP policies and WP:FRANCE. IZAK ( talk) 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK. What we have is a person ( User:La comadreja) who changed her username once probably for privacy reasons, and also briefly used a joke account to do nothing significant. I can assure you that this has less than nothing to do with User:ChildofMidnight— I've met User:La comadreja multiple times at meetups etc and she's definitely her own person.-- Pharos ( talk) 04:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK,
Re: the link of JacobFrank's Userpage to his article, I am aware that this is unusual. My intent was to show people who Jacob Frank was in the quickest possible fashion, which would illustrate how Judaism and Wikimedia have another side besides the one that plays extra-stringently by the rules. JacobFrank has a real Userpage on Wikiversity, in which "purification through transgression" is used to discusses the policies of "be bold" and "ignore all rules" (these Wikiversity policies are the same as Wikipedia's). The hook for JacobFrank on Wikiversity has been up for months and reads: "There are some interesting and colorful people in Jewish history, don't you think? I'm just one of them. Find out more." His signature on Wikipedia links directly to the Wikiversity page. However, his Wikipedia userpage would only have a soft redirect if it were given that link, so I chose a redirect that would explain who Jacob Frank was as quickly as I could. If you found this problematic, I could change that redirect to my primary Wikipedia userpage. His Talk page already links directly to my Talk page, which is the same.
Part of the issue seems to be that Wikiversity has a slightly different policy about User accounts than Wikipedia. Wikiversity has several accounts, including JacobFrank, that are known as "mascots." These are obviously controlled by real people, but make edits in-character and with a distinctly different persona from the Users that control them. They are tolerated, so long as they are harmless to the encyclopedia. There was some controversy about JacobFrank becoming a Wikiversity mascot, but he was ultimately accepted. On Wikiversity, my idea was to add educational content to the mascot itself, in this case information about Jewish history that countered stereotypes. Since the real Jacob Frank has been dead for hundreds of years, I thought there would be no question User:JacobFrank is different from the historical figure.
It seems to me that your real question is about the character of Jacob Frank, and why I would choose to impersonate him. My choice of Frank was not because I support his rendition of Sabbateanism, but mostly because of where and when he lived--Frank was the most recent of the major Sabbatean leaders, and the only one based in Eastern Europe. Frankism was considered to have foreshadowed the predecessor of my own Judaism, the Ashkenazic Judaism of the Haskalah. While I do not believe Zevi was the Messiah, I differ from most Jews in admiring his boldly original antinomianism and in asking whether it's still possible to give his story a different ending. I think Zevi was a Jewish genius reminiscent of William Blake or Joni Mitchell. Blake, in his illuminated book _The Marriage of Heaven and Hell_ (which I shared in a JacobFrank post to WikiProject Judaism), also moved contrary to the religious trends of his day in advocating a religion of emotion and spontaneity rather than strict obedience. Perhaps this is one reason the High Holy Day JacobFrank post was "provocative" to you. Mitchell resembles another side of Zevi--a major theme of her music is the redemptive power of individualism. She pioneered the use of alternate string tunings, and in songs like "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" (about sexual activities that would be reviled in traditional Judaeo-Christianity) she showed that these tunings opened new realms of expression to the guitar. In "Woodstock," Mitchell even reaches toward the idea of redemption of the world--"And I dreamed I saw the bombers riding shotgun in the sky, and they turned into butterflies above our nation. We are stardust…and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden." Unlike Ottoman Sufism or 1960s America, which encouraged antinomian creative spirits to accomplish realistic goals, the Judaism of Sabbatai's time had no clear place for such a person and ran into trouble when it found one. Frank had a number of interesting ideas, but his excesses were part of the trouble. However, people who are conventionally considered Jewish heroes committed crimes at least as terrible--it is difficult to top King David, who murdered Uriah because of Bathsheba. Even Jacob Frank does not seem to have gone that far.
I am not the only editor with a positive view of Zevi, or the only editor with a Username based on Jacob Frank or other Sabbatean leaders--some of the other owners of Sabbatean Usernames have commented on my User talk page. While mine is not the conventional viewpoint of Progressive Judaism, I believe most major Progressive movements are making the mistakes of (1) failing to develop a distinct and compelling Progressive Jewish story to teach our children, (2) confusing Progressive Judaism (or Judaism in general) with social conformism. The major thrust of Classic Reform Judaism is integration with the surrounding society, and the major thrust of Traditionalist Reform and Conservative Judaism is mimicking Orthodox Jews in replicating the old traditions. Although Zevi's story is normally taught as a cautionary tale, he reveals that there is a third path, one that may be essential to realizing Progressive Judaism's creative potential. As Jews, we are already consciously choosing to be different from most of the world. So long as we do not depend on fulfilling impossible objectives and we remain moral, there is a power in being ourselves.
I try to be neutral in my edits to articles and in my suggestions about what should be done to them. Other types of Talk page comments, as well as User pages, are another story. My philosophy about them is almost the opposite, that they are a chance to express an editor's individuality and reveal that editor's particular angle. While Wikipedia is not Myspace, a byproduct of the editing process is that it accomplishes another worthy goal--to provide a common meeting ground for experts, some of whom may have unconventional angles. Someone relatively sympathetic to Judas Iscariot should not be prevented from participating in WP:Christianity as User:JudasIscariot, and hopefully countering the tendency to speak excessively negatively about him so that the overall discussion approaches neutrality.
I hope this answers your questions. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I am being honest and upfront with you, and I assume you will take what I say in the right spirit. I enjoy WP and above all I have a lot of respect for it as an institution and that is why I care so much. IZAK ( talk) 06:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Auschwiz Selektion.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
12:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Category:Yiddish, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you might be interested in the new article about Harris Lenowitz I've just created. Lenowitz is one of the leading modern authorities on Jacob Frank. I've just found out about Lenowitz from User:Yalhak, and I'm trying to make the Lenowitz article into a Did You Know. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, congrats about being recognized as one of the most active Users. I'm sure you worked hard for that. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Just for your interest, I plan to reopen the ArbCom case. I hope this time it will rule clearly to exclude you from making edits in Judaism-related article. Please see User_talk:Dougweller#How_to_proceed.3F for your information ONLY. You are kindly requested not to comment there. Debresser ( talk) 11:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like, in time, to see all the portals related to Christianity be serious contenders for Featured Portal status. One of those portals, even though it is not solely related to Christianity, is Portal:Bible. For what little it might be worth, I personally think that maybe, given the amount of material that exists here related to the topic, that we might be able to alter the portal so that the two articles, and maybe the DYKs and images, which appear together might all be directly related to one book of subdivision of the Bible. I do know that the Jewish editors are probably the ones who have the greatest interest in the books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and think that having input from Jewish editors on which article, DYKs, and image should be chosen as accompaniments for a given book or subsection of the Jewish Bible would be probably the most reasonable way to go for that material. Perhaps, ultimately, the portal might be arranged such that the selections change on a weekly basis, starting with alternating weeks of Jewish Bible and New Testament selections, and then continuing with selections on the remainder of the Jewish Bible until all the books/sections are completed. Personally, I think that we would definitely be more likely to get it to FP if we were to include all the directly relevant FAs and GAs and maybe FPs somewhere in the selections. Anyway, you seem to be one of the editors who most frequently works with Portal:Judaism, so I'm thinking your input would be possibly particularly valuable. If you would like to offer any advice on selections or any other input regarding the subect at User:John Carter/Christianity portals#Portal:Bible, I would be very appreciative. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
I’m sorry, Izak.
I am one little bold, it is not that the English is my language, the problem is that I do not speak it. Now I use a translator of the web page.
I ask you excuses for the troubles.
Using my audacity, I will comment you a question, if you allow me it, I am the author of the original article in Catalan
ca:xueta, this article was translated to English before that it was intensely improved incorporating bibliographical references and some other improvements, the article was considerate “Featured article” in Catalan, later in Spanish
es:chueta, it has also been translated literally to the German
de:xueta. Much work is not necessary to the article in English for attaining the same level of quality than those of the other three languages.
Could we make anything?
Best regards--
Lliura (
talk)
19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you've made a number of substantive changes to the Yitzchok Hutner page, without bothering to comply with WP:VERIFY. Additionally, your edits appear to run afoul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I have spent considerable time improving the article with WP:SOURCES and would appreciate your contributing in kind. It seems quite clear that edits to this article are likely to be met with WP:CHALLENGE and should therefore be clearly based on WP:SOURCE material only. Winchester2313 ( talk) 05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
1. Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin was NOT founded by Rabbi Hutner, in fact its existence preceded his arrival to the US by more than thirty years!
2. Aaron Schechter cannot be listed as Hutners 'designated successor' as the matter has been the subject on a never resolved ongoing dispute with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach and others, which has involved various legal summonses etc., including the involvement of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. The way the paragraphs inserted by USER:IZAK read are misleading and definitely ]]wp:unsourced]].
3. One might assume that the primary value of references is that they provide the reader with the ability to see what was actually said. Goldbergs book quite clearly quotes an anonymous (pseudonym) 'Saul' as the sole source for Hutners supposed 'fierce criticism' which seems to fly in the face of much conflicting evidence. So it is correct to cite Goldberg as quoting "an anonymous source" which is exactly what he does.
4. Likewise when USER:IZAK modifies actual quotes from both Hutners work and the 'Mibeis Hagenozim' sources quoted, this amounts to vandalism and is another violation of wp:ew. Winchester2313 ( talk) 15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Winchester2313 ( talk) 15:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your repeated threats and intimidation, specifically when you constantly level accusations of some spurious Chabad-POV in articles having nothing to do with Chabad. Lacking other recourse, and as you seem determined to continue with the threats and warring, I have no choice but to request an arbitrators involvement, which I will do shortly. Winchester2313 ( talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your accusations here: [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchester2313 ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The case and its continuation, see:
I see you are trying to help out in perfecting all the articles on prayers. This is very nice.
I have a couple of questions:
1.) You made the second word of prayers in lower case. Shouldn't they be capitalized, being that they are proper names? I saw you compared it to some others, like Rosh yeshiva. But a "Rosh yeshiva" is a position, just like Prime minister is a position. Meanwhile, Baruch She'amar is a title, just like Avinu Malkeinu is a title.
2.) A noticed you created a category called Category:Siddur of Orthodox Judaism. I don't see why this is Orthodox-specific. Conservative Judaism publishes its own siddurim, but uses all the identical prayers. The only major differences are that it is geared more toward prayer in English (in the USA and Canada), and the Matriarchs are included in the liturgy. Reform Judaism leaves out a lot of prayers and modifies many others, and altogether is most unlike Orthodox. There are also variations between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and other nusachim, but mostly in the order the prayers are recited.
Why don't you tell me what you think. Xyz7890 ( talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your great work that I admire. Yours sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sincerely yours. Xyz7890 ( talk) 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your efforts and I welcome communicating with you and any and all feedback. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
For rescuing Country Yossi from deletion and more importantly fixing up and fully sourcing an article that was in poor shape for several years. Keep up the good work. J04n( talk page) 00:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
IZAK - I came over here to tell you what excellent work you did on Country Yossi. I see that I've been beaten to the punch so I will simply echo the above sentiments! Joe407 ( talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks is due to be closed soon and it still has no sources. How do you feel about it being moved to User:IZAK/Moshe Sacks until sources can be found? J04n( talk page) 23:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You will never get Cush to stop his crusade. Honestly. He just ignores any criticism of his behavior. He's had RfCs brought in the past, but he ignores those as well. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
IZAK, please don't vote again in an AfD after it was relisted, like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks and at least one other discussion I saw. The discussion simply continues, and people are expected to voice their opinion (keep, delete, redirect, ...) only once. Making additional comments, replies, ... is of course allowed and often necessary in a discussion, but please don't vote twice, it gives the cursory reader the impression that more people are supporting keeping an article than is actually the case. Fram ( talk) 11:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have time, please comment at this AfD. It seems like Wikipedia standards don't always jive with publicity-shy Haredi mosdos. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I meant to point this out to you before, but appear to have forgotten. I've proposed that your move of Sephirot to Sephirot (Kabbalah) be undone. Since you made the move, I'm commenting to let you join the discussion at Talk:Sephirot (Kabbalah) if you wish. — me_ and 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a question concerning the use of "ha" with kodesh or ketoret. When should "ha'kodesh" be used and when should "kodesh" be used? When should "ha'ketoret" be used and when should "ketoret" be used? For example which of the following statements would be gramatically correct: (1) The primary purpose of the Shemon HaMishchah was to cause the anointed persons or objects to become kodesh – most holy. (2) The primary purpose of the Shemon HaMishchah was to cause the anointed persons or objects to become ha'kodesh – most holy.
The second is being used in many blogs on the Internet, however, it is not correct, is it? Please feel free to delete my question after responding to my question. Thank you. CWatchman ( talk) 04:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. You have been most helpful. CWatchman ( talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 29 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jewish American military history, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that more than 500,000 Jewish Americans served in the United States armed services during World War II (one soldier's grave pictured), and roughly 52,000 received military awards? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Most of the article was yours, so you more than deserve this for the wonderful job you did. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
With 5,300 page views yesterday, Jewish American military history was popular enough to belong here. Apparently, we aren't the only ones interested in the subject. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well of course. Jews have contributed to every country we've lived in, and are a significant percentage of America's population. The only people who would be surprised are the ones who wouldn't think to put that in perspective. Do you know about the website and blog Jew or Not Jew? Each day, it profiles a different famous person and discusses that person and their connection (or lack thereof) to Judaism. It's come up with a lot of interesting stuff over the years. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I've stumbled upon Category:History of Hanukkah. Many articles so categorized don't mention Hanukkah at all and seem at best barely related. How, for example, is Hanukkah relevant to the Seleucid Empire? What's the connection between Jonathan Apphus and Hanukkah? Right now I'd advocate deleting the entire category for overcategorization, but I probably missed your intent and would like to ask for an explanation of that category's purpose. Yours, Huon ( talk) 15:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still doubtful. What you describe seems to be the historical background of the Maccabean Revolt, but I don't see why an eight-day temple re-dedication celebration held by the Jews would be relevant to either the Seleucid Empire or to one of the Maccabees who, for all I can tell, had nothing to do with said celebration. From WP:CAT: [Categories] should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects [...]. It's hardly essential to the Seleucid Empire that some rebels held a celebration after defeating it. The category seems to me an unnecessary duplication of Category:Maccabees, with some topics to which neither the Maccabees nor Hanukkah are essential thrown in for good measure. Put bluntly: The only article that even mentions Hanukkah and is contained in the "history" category, but not in Category:Hasmoneans, is Hanukkah itself. Do we really need such a category? Huon ( talk) 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a legitimate amount of cross-referencing and overlap as happens with any inter-related subjects and categories. But categorization in particular lends itself to flexibility depending on what the main focus is. If the main focus is Judaism and Jewish history, then there is Hanukkah and Hanukkah has a history as well. If the main focus is Hanukkah and history, then there needs to be category that contains relevant categories. Categorization is not an iron straight-jacket, it takes skill and a good knowledge of the subject matter. Hope this helps. IZAK ( talk) 05:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK, I just recently started getting very lightly involved in WP again. While I don't intend to get very involved at present, I hope that we can get along better from now on, focusing on our common ground and being respectful when we disagree. Chanukah Sameach, Shlomke ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for advice. I'll quell my "deletionistic rampage," as you put it. Bulldog123 22:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK,
Regarding this addition to your list, you might want to remove it for now, as one of the lists is currently undergoing deletion review. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've replied to your reply to my !vote. cymru lass (hit me up)⁄ (background check) 01:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
See the diff to understand how useless your revert was. :( Debresser ( talk) 10:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kevinkor: Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps I am starting to understand, and it confirms my initial responses that you are coming at this subject, of God's names, with a much too narrow and ultimately frustrating and futile, perspective. Just to take a few steps back again here, let me just ask, why does WP have to become the forum for clarifying your own very specialized and intensely personal questions about the names of God?, especially if this causes problems and even offends Jewish readers and users of WP who do not get into the actual specifics of God's names because it's basically a closed and esoteric subject in Judaism that remains one big unknown, best left to Kabbbalists. What is wrong with leaving it at two general and generic names in English, God and Lord, otherwise there are so many variants for the Names of God in Judaism that it would be impossible, impractical and basically wrong to get into every last detail and create templates for every nuance and meaning of God's names. Basically what I am saying is that every name of God can go under the rubric of "God" in English while there are some times when the word "Lord" can be used too in English, but to try to break down and micro-analyze God's names and create templates and whatnot to "steer" through all the possible variants just creates an impossibly complicated maze creating many more problems than solutions. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 14:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kevikor: I take everything with a grain of salt, so don't worry about me personally, but I am conveying genuine concerns. As for Hebrew Bible in fact that is the preferred term on WP (as discussed years go) and not "Old Testament" because Judaism (and hence Jews) does/do not believe in, and in fact reject, the "New Testament" as you may know. As for God's name in Psalm 120 as it starts, let's see... I am looking it up now... from the Artscroll edition (informally associated with Agudath Israel of America) of Tanakh, it says: "1 A song of ascents. To HASHEM [sic], in my distress I cried and He answered me. 2 HASHEM, rescue my soul, from deceitful tongue from lying lips..." Not surprising, there you have it, they use the generic term HASHEM meaning "The Name [of God]", of course, that avoids getting into the humanly unknown twilight zone of knowing and pronouncing God's name/s. Howver, when pronouncing it in Hebrew it would be pronounced as "Adonai" (roughly meaning "My Lord")! Take care and stay in touch, IZAK ( talk) 13:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Kevinkor: The translation from the same source says: "1 Regarding David, a psalm. The word of HASHEM to my master, 'Wait at My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.' 2 HASHEM will dispatch the staff of your strength from Zion; rule amid your enemies!" In Hebrew it would be pronounced as "Adonai" again by a religious praying Jew. However, here is a turnaround, in verse "5 The Lord is at your right; He crushes kings on the day of His anger." And that's because the verse does not use YHVH, which this edition translates as the generic "HASHEM" but rather because the verse itself refers to God as "Adonai" so that then perforce means that the correct translation of the actual word "Adonai" (and not YHVH) from the Hebrew can be made and it therefore can be generally translated as the literal "my Lord" or "my Master" or just "the Lord". Please note that when I write "YHVH" I have no idea how to pronounce it, and have never been taught how, and all of Judaism teaches that the translation of "Jehova" or "Yaweh" or some such is a falsification and absurdity of trying to figure out and pronounce the hidden real Tetragramaton for which YHVH really stands and which it denotes. According to tradition someone like the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) would pronounce it in full on Yom Kippur when entering the Kodesh HaKodashim ("Holy of Holies") as part of requesting and hopefully attaining forgiveness and atonement from God (in that case the real YHVH) for the sins of the Children of Israel and all mankind for that year. IZAK ( talk) 13:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK,
At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD, Hans Adler has an interesting opinion:
I plan to go through the 49 (or so) uses of the template, {{ LORD}}, and see which are direct quotes from an English source and which are in the body of the article ("written in the voice of the article"). I hope that most of the uses are for direct quotes. For the rest, I hope to change them to the two general and generic names in English, God and Lord, because there are so many variants for the Names of God in Judaism that it is impossible for a Manual of Style to navigate through them.
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK,
I am starting to research the use of the template {{ LORD}} on Wikipedia. The raw research is happening at User:Kevinkor2/LORD2. I've analyzed 7 of approx 50 articles so far. Here are a few things that I have found surprising:
I also found mentions of {{ LORD}} outside of where I expected:
As always, comments welcome! Discussing things with you is very helpful to check my sanity before I post to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.
<humor> Self-deprecating humor: Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut! [17]</humor>
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 07:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your information on the Category:Galician Jews. Yes, maybe we ought to rename it to Category:Galician Jews (Eastern Europe). -- Shalom, Mibelz 07:13, 16 Dec 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr IZAK, I randomly came across these articles and it appears they are on the same topic. Do you think they should be merged? Basket of Puppies 04:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a post justifying your unilateral massive changes to the categorization of the Chabad articles. I see these changes as unnecessary and inefficient, but I am open to discussing the issue. If you posted such an explanatory post somewhere, please draw my attention to it. Yehoishophot Oliver ( talk) 04:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to be more careful going forward. By the way, there is a number of categories of type "Jews and Judaism in Country", many of which contain "Jews in Country". The second is meant only for articles about individuals. Is there a way to make it clear? I moved as many inter-wikis to the outer category as I could find, but this is not fool-proof; besides, I do not know what other wikipedias have similar category structure. As I was doing that, I also noticed that many French inter-wiki categories were named "Jewish history in Country", rather than "Jews and Judaism". It does appear that having both structures is unnecessary... Can they be merged? What's the best place to discuss this? -- Vicky Ng ( talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Vicky, for the sake of staying on the "same page" as you I will respond within ALL your comments below:
"My objective was to combine inter-wikis. It seems to me that the "primary" hierarchy here in en-wiki is Category:Jews and Judaism."
"However, within Category:Jews and Judaism by country there is one hierarchy of categories by country, and parallel to it are Category:Jews by country and Category:Judaism by country. In addition to these, there is Category:Jewish history by country. This leads to two questions:"
"How should articles be categorized?"
"For example, many articles include a section on history - do they fall under both "Jewish Country history" and "Jews and Judaism in Country" categories?"
"Are "Jews in Country" categories meant only for articles about individuals?"
"What should be included directly into "Jews and Judaism in Country", rather than "Jews in Country" or "Judaism in Country" (or, perhaps, in addition to one of those)?"
"Unlike en-wiki, Wikipedias in other languages often do not have all these distinct category hierarchies. The "primary" category may be named "Jewish history by country" in one language, "Jews by country" in another and "Judaism by country" in yet another. For example, see all four interwikis for Category:Jews and Judaism in Hungary. They literally mean, "Judaism in Hungary", but appropriately point to this parent category because Category:Judaism in Hungary in en-wiki is too specific. Same with lt-wiki for Category:Jews and Judaism in Lithuania, which translates "Jews in Lithuania". But then look at fr-wiki for Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany - fr:Catégorie:Histoire des Juifs en Allemagne. Well, it is correct in a way - at least, as close as it gets, although inconsistent."
"But what's the best way to handle this?"
"Perhaps, the French category should have Category:Jewish German history as its en-wiki, but here both Category:Jewish German history and Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany should link back to it?"
"Finally, the naming convention "Jewish Country history" is very unnatural and inconsistent with the way other categories are named. I think they should all reversed to "Country Jewish history" where adjective for that country name is widely used and changed to "History of the Jews in Country" otherwise. -- Vicky Ng ( talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)"
Hope this helps. Feel free to follow up with me. I will try to respond in detail. Thanks again for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Wow, what an honor! Thanks so much, Yoninah ( talk) 10:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
IZAK ( talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jewish_religious_censoring_by_user regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser ( talk • contribs) [1] [2]
IZAK, please don't post any new edits to the ANI in a closed topic. You might have wanted to get in the last word, but it's closed, and we need to respect that. Ishdarian| lol wut 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
IZAK, I just some of your edits today, particularly this one. That thread was archived and I already spoke to you almost a week ago about not getting the last word. Consider this a warning. Now, please, put down the stick and let the horse be. Ishdarian| lol wut 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
שלום אליכם, גמר טוב!
Weapon is not retired, he is back under a new name, and the closures occurred prior to the account's being compromised. -- Avi ( talk) 07:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Great Synagogue of Rome.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)? Thanks. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa ( talk • contribs) [3]
For the record, this was my full post to at User talk:Malik Shabazz#User:JacobFrank etc sockpuppet at work as well as to User talk:Avraham#User:JacobFrank etc sockpuppet at work in their capacities as admins:
Hi IZAK. I don't think there's anything suspicious going on with the JacobFrank. My understanding is that AFriedman ( talk · contribs), who has since been renamed La comadreja ( talk · contribs), started the JacobFrank account as a prank. (In her first edit, she declares bacon to be kosher.) I gave JacobFrank a vandalism warning when she repeatedly posted a "joke" I thought was in bad taste to WT:JUDAISM. Since User talk:JacobFrank redirects to User talk:La comadreja, I don't think you can say she's hiding her identity. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Therefore you need to clarify how a user with at least four user names, i.e. "Users": ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 ( talk · contribs); JacobFrank ( talk · contribs); La comadreja ( talk · contribs); AFriedman ( talk · contribs) is functioning with a fifth blocked user name ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs) acting as a redirect in the middle of them as explained above, as when you go to Special:Contributions/JacobFrank and at the bottom click on User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 it ONLY redirects to User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 by way of the blocked sock puppet User:ChildofMidnight. Which means that something is very wrong here since how can User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010/ User:JacobFrank/ User:La comadreja/ User:AFriedman be tolerated if a blocked sockpuppet User:ChildofMidnight (i.e. the fifth user name) is smack dab in the middle of this set of the four other user names used by one user? By the way, for any user to have or have had four (or five) user names in so short a time is also very problematic so that unused user names should be blanked and red-linked. Please look into it. Thanks again, IZAK ( talk) 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The plot thickens: By clicking on (presumably) current user La comadreja ( talk · contribs) there is more troubling supposed self-disclosure, namely:
The upshot of all this is that there are more questions than answers about this user who has used multiple names, has admitted to serious problems in the past, and continues to function both at WP and at Wikiversity referring to Jacob Frank and that sits with another group of her/his former/present user IDs that are connected to a blocked user accused of puppeteering. IZAK ( talk) 02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again Malik, but things just don't don't add up in this case of multiple user IDs. Just look at some time lines:
Thanks again, IZAK ( talk) 03:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Malik, I don't get it, on some pages, going back to January 2010 you warn a user about vandalism, the user should learn not to do that, then the user, after having changed their user IDs at least twice more returns to perform a "prank" in September of 2010 with the original prankish/vandal user name, and you refuse to condemn both the use of the controversial user name User:JacobFrank connected to the Jacob Frank article in violation of WP:USERNAME guidelines, let alone worry about possible sockpuppetry. No user would be allowed to call themselves User:Napoleon and be allowed to have that redirect to the Napoleon article, be warned not to play pranks and be accused of vandalism in January 2010 and then go ahead and play a prank in September of 2010 at WP:FRANCE, and at the same time switch around with at least two other user names and sow confusion, while admitting on Wikiversity that they had had serious issues with WP:FRANCE along the way and hinted at even more problems in the past on WP. Such a situation would be clarified very quickly on WP by admins concerned with WP policies and WP:FRANCE. IZAK ( talk) 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK. What we have is a person ( User:La comadreja) who changed her username once probably for privacy reasons, and also briefly used a joke account to do nothing significant. I can assure you that this has less than nothing to do with User:ChildofMidnight— I've met User:La comadreja multiple times at meetups etc and she's definitely her own person.-- Pharos ( talk) 04:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK,
Re: the link of JacobFrank's Userpage to his article, I am aware that this is unusual. My intent was to show people who Jacob Frank was in the quickest possible fashion, which would illustrate how Judaism and Wikimedia have another side besides the one that plays extra-stringently by the rules. JacobFrank has a real Userpage on Wikiversity, in which "purification through transgression" is used to discusses the policies of "be bold" and "ignore all rules" (these Wikiversity policies are the same as Wikipedia's). The hook for JacobFrank on Wikiversity has been up for months and reads: "There are some interesting and colorful people in Jewish history, don't you think? I'm just one of them. Find out more." His signature on Wikipedia links directly to the Wikiversity page. However, his Wikipedia userpage would only have a soft redirect if it were given that link, so I chose a redirect that would explain who Jacob Frank was as quickly as I could. If you found this problematic, I could change that redirect to my primary Wikipedia userpage. His Talk page already links directly to my Talk page, which is the same.
Part of the issue seems to be that Wikiversity has a slightly different policy about User accounts than Wikipedia. Wikiversity has several accounts, including JacobFrank, that are known as "mascots." These are obviously controlled by real people, but make edits in-character and with a distinctly different persona from the Users that control them. They are tolerated, so long as they are harmless to the encyclopedia. There was some controversy about JacobFrank becoming a Wikiversity mascot, but he was ultimately accepted. On Wikiversity, my idea was to add educational content to the mascot itself, in this case information about Jewish history that countered stereotypes. Since the real Jacob Frank has been dead for hundreds of years, I thought there would be no question User:JacobFrank is different from the historical figure.
It seems to me that your real question is about the character of Jacob Frank, and why I would choose to impersonate him. My choice of Frank was not because I support his rendition of Sabbateanism, but mostly because of where and when he lived--Frank was the most recent of the major Sabbatean leaders, and the only one based in Eastern Europe. Frankism was considered to have foreshadowed the predecessor of my own Judaism, the Ashkenazic Judaism of the Haskalah. While I do not believe Zevi was the Messiah, I differ from most Jews in admiring his boldly original antinomianism and in asking whether it's still possible to give his story a different ending. I think Zevi was a Jewish genius reminiscent of William Blake or Joni Mitchell. Blake, in his illuminated book _The Marriage of Heaven and Hell_ (which I shared in a JacobFrank post to WikiProject Judaism), also moved contrary to the religious trends of his day in advocating a religion of emotion and spontaneity rather than strict obedience. Perhaps this is one reason the High Holy Day JacobFrank post was "provocative" to you. Mitchell resembles another side of Zevi--a major theme of her music is the redemptive power of individualism. She pioneered the use of alternate string tunings, and in songs like "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" (about sexual activities that would be reviled in traditional Judaeo-Christianity) she showed that these tunings opened new realms of expression to the guitar. In "Woodstock," Mitchell even reaches toward the idea of redemption of the world--"And I dreamed I saw the bombers riding shotgun in the sky, and they turned into butterflies above our nation. We are stardust…and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden." Unlike Ottoman Sufism or 1960s America, which encouraged antinomian creative spirits to accomplish realistic goals, the Judaism of Sabbatai's time had no clear place for such a person and ran into trouble when it found one. Frank had a number of interesting ideas, but his excesses were part of the trouble. However, people who are conventionally considered Jewish heroes committed crimes at least as terrible--it is difficult to top King David, who murdered Uriah because of Bathsheba. Even Jacob Frank does not seem to have gone that far.
I am not the only editor with a positive view of Zevi, or the only editor with a Username based on Jacob Frank or other Sabbatean leaders--some of the other owners of Sabbatean Usernames have commented on my User talk page. While mine is not the conventional viewpoint of Progressive Judaism, I believe most major Progressive movements are making the mistakes of (1) failing to develop a distinct and compelling Progressive Jewish story to teach our children, (2) confusing Progressive Judaism (or Judaism in general) with social conformism. The major thrust of Classic Reform Judaism is integration with the surrounding society, and the major thrust of Traditionalist Reform and Conservative Judaism is mimicking Orthodox Jews in replicating the old traditions. Although Zevi's story is normally taught as a cautionary tale, he reveals that there is a third path, one that may be essential to realizing Progressive Judaism's creative potential. As Jews, we are already consciously choosing to be different from most of the world. So long as we do not depend on fulfilling impossible objectives and we remain moral, there is a power in being ourselves.
I try to be neutral in my edits to articles and in my suggestions about what should be done to them. Other types of Talk page comments, as well as User pages, are another story. My philosophy about them is almost the opposite, that they are a chance to express an editor's individuality and reveal that editor's particular angle. While Wikipedia is not Myspace, a byproduct of the editing process is that it accomplishes another worthy goal--to provide a common meeting ground for experts, some of whom may have unconventional angles. Someone relatively sympathetic to Judas Iscariot should not be prevented from participating in WP:Christianity as User:JudasIscariot, and hopefully countering the tendency to speak excessively negatively about him so that the overall discussion approaches neutrality.
I hope this answers your questions. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I am being honest and upfront with you, and I assume you will take what I say in the right spirit. I enjoy WP and above all I have a lot of respect for it as an institution and that is why I care so much. IZAK ( talk) 06:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Auschwiz Selektion.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
12:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Category:Yiddish, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you might be interested in the new article about Harris Lenowitz I've just created. Lenowitz is one of the leading modern authorities on Jacob Frank. I've just found out about Lenowitz from User:Yalhak, and I'm trying to make the Lenowitz article into a Did You Know. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, congrats about being recognized as one of the most active Users. I'm sure you worked hard for that. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Just for your interest, I plan to reopen the ArbCom case. I hope this time it will rule clearly to exclude you from making edits in Judaism-related article. Please see User_talk:Dougweller#How_to_proceed.3F for your information ONLY. You are kindly requested not to comment there. Debresser ( talk) 11:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like, in time, to see all the portals related to Christianity be serious contenders for Featured Portal status. One of those portals, even though it is not solely related to Christianity, is Portal:Bible. For what little it might be worth, I personally think that maybe, given the amount of material that exists here related to the topic, that we might be able to alter the portal so that the two articles, and maybe the DYKs and images, which appear together might all be directly related to one book of subdivision of the Bible. I do know that the Jewish editors are probably the ones who have the greatest interest in the books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and think that having input from Jewish editors on which article, DYKs, and image should be chosen as accompaniments for a given book or subsection of the Jewish Bible would be probably the most reasonable way to go for that material. Perhaps, ultimately, the portal might be arranged such that the selections change on a weekly basis, starting with alternating weeks of Jewish Bible and New Testament selections, and then continuing with selections on the remainder of the Jewish Bible until all the books/sections are completed. Personally, I think that we would definitely be more likely to get it to FP if we were to include all the directly relevant FAs and GAs and maybe FPs somewhere in the selections. Anyway, you seem to be one of the editors who most frequently works with Portal:Judaism, so I'm thinking your input would be possibly particularly valuable. If you would like to offer any advice on selections or any other input regarding the subect at User:John Carter/Christianity portals#Portal:Bible, I would be very appreciative. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
I’m sorry, Izak.
I am one little bold, it is not that the English is my language, the problem is that I do not speak it. Now I use a translator of the web page.
I ask you excuses for the troubles.
Using my audacity, I will comment you a question, if you allow me it, I am the author of the original article in Catalan
ca:xueta, this article was translated to English before that it was intensely improved incorporating bibliographical references and some other improvements, the article was considerate “Featured article” in Catalan, later in Spanish
es:chueta, it has also been translated literally to the German
de:xueta. Much work is not necessary to the article in English for attaining the same level of quality than those of the other three languages.
Could we make anything?
Best regards--
Lliura (
talk)
19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you've made a number of substantive changes to the Yitzchok Hutner page, without bothering to comply with WP:VERIFY. Additionally, your edits appear to run afoul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I have spent considerable time improving the article with WP:SOURCES and would appreciate your contributing in kind. It seems quite clear that edits to this article are likely to be met with WP:CHALLENGE and should therefore be clearly based on WP:SOURCE material only. Winchester2313 ( talk) 05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
1. Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin was NOT founded by Rabbi Hutner, in fact its existence preceded his arrival to the US by more than thirty years!
2. Aaron Schechter cannot be listed as Hutners 'designated successor' as the matter has been the subject on a never resolved ongoing dispute with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach and others, which has involved various legal summonses etc., including the involvement of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. The way the paragraphs inserted by USER:IZAK read are misleading and definitely ]]wp:unsourced]].
3. One might assume that the primary value of references is that they provide the reader with the ability to see what was actually said. Goldbergs book quite clearly quotes an anonymous (pseudonym) 'Saul' as the sole source for Hutners supposed 'fierce criticism' which seems to fly in the face of much conflicting evidence. So it is correct to cite Goldberg as quoting "an anonymous source" which is exactly what he does.
4. Likewise when USER:IZAK modifies actual quotes from both Hutners work and the 'Mibeis Hagenozim' sources quoted, this amounts to vandalism and is another violation of wp:ew. Winchester2313 ( talk) 15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Winchester2313 ( talk) 15:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your repeated threats and intimidation, specifically when you constantly level accusations of some spurious Chabad-POV in articles having nothing to do with Chabad. Lacking other recourse, and as you seem determined to continue with the threats and warring, I have no choice but to request an arbitrators involvement, which I will do shortly. Winchester2313 ( talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your accusations here: [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchester2313 ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The case and its continuation, see:
I see you are trying to help out in perfecting all the articles on prayers. This is very nice.
I have a couple of questions:
1.) You made the second word of prayers in lower case. Shouldn't they be capitalized, being that they are proper names? I saw you compared it to some others, like Rosh yeshiva. But a "Rosh yeshiva" is a position, just like Prime minister is a position. Meanwhile, Baruch She'amar is a title, just like Avinu Malkeinu is a title.
2.) A noticed you created a category called Category:Siddur of Orthodox Judaism. I don't see why this is Orthodox-specific. Conservative Judaism publishes its own siddurim, but uses all the identical prayers. The only major differences are that it is geared more toward prayer in English (in the USA and Canada), and the Matriarchs are included in the liturgy. Reform Judaism leaves out a lot of prayers and modifies many others, and altogether is most unlike Orthodox. There are also variations between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and other nusachim, but mostly in the order the prayers are recited.
Why don't you tell me what you think. Xyz7890 ( talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your great work that I admire. Yours sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sincerely yours. Xyz7890 ( talk) 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your efforts and I welcome communicating with you and any and all feedback. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
For rescuing Country Yossi from deletion and more importantly fixing up and fully sourcing an article that was in poor shape for several years. Keep up the good work. J04n( talk page) 00:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
IZAK - I came over here to tell you what excellent work you did on Country Yossi. I see that I've been beaten to the punch so I will simply echo the above sentiments! Joe407 ( talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks is due to be closed soon and it still has no sources. How do you feel about it being moved to User:IZAK/Moshe Sacks until sources can be found? J04n( talk page) 23:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You will never get Cush to stop his crusade. Honestly. He just ignores any criticism of his behavior. He's had RfCs brought in the past, but he ignores those as well. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
IZAK, please don't vote again in an AfD after it was relisted, like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks and at least one other discussion I saw. The discussion simply continues, and people are expected to voice their opinion (keep, delete, redirect, ...) only once. Making additional comments, replies, ... is of course allowed and often necessary in a discussion, but please don't vote twice, it gives the cursory reader the impression that more people are supporting keeping an article than is actually the case. Fram ( talk) 11:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have time, please comment at this AfD. It seems like Wikipedia standards don't always jive with publicity-shy Haredi mosdos. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I meant to point this out to you before, but appear to have forgotten. I've proposed that your move of Sephirot to Sephirot (Kabbalah) be undone. Since you made the move, I'm commenting to let you join the discussion at Talk:Sephirot (Kabbalah) if you wish. — me_ and 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a question concerning the use of "ha" with kodesh or ketoret. When should "ha'kodesh" be used and when should "kodesh" be used? When should "ha'ketoret" be used and when should "ketoret" be used? For example which of the following statements would be gramatically correct: (1) The primary purpose of the Shemon HaMishchah was to cause the anointed persons or objects to become kodesh – most holy. (2) The primary purpose of the Shemon HaMishchah was to cause the anointed persons or objects to become ha'kodesh – most holy.
The second is being used in many blogs on the Internet, however, it is not correct, is it? Please feel free to delete my question after responding to my question. Thank you. CWatchman ( talk) 04:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. You have been most helpful. CWatchman ( talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 29 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jewish American military history, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that more than 500,000 Jewish Americans served in the United States armed services during World War II (one soldier's grave pictured), and roughly 52,000 received military awards? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Most of the article was yours, so you more than deserve this for the wonderful job you did. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
With 5,300 page views yesterday, Jewish American military history was popular enough to belong here. Apparently, we aren't the only ones interested in the subject. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well of course. Jews have contributed to every country we've lived in, and are a significant percentage of America's population. The only people who would be surprised are the ones who wouldn't think to put that in perspective. Do you know about the website and blog Jew or Not Jew? Each day, it profiles a different famous person and discusses that person and their connection (or lack thereof) to Judaism. It's come up with a lot of interesting stuff over the years. -- La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I've stumbled upon Category:History of Hanukkah. Many articles so categorized don't mention Hanukkah at all and seem at best barely related. How, for example, is Hanukkah relevant to the Seleucid Empire? What's the connection between Jonathan Apphus and Hanukkah? Right now I'd advocate deleting the entire category for overcategorization, but I probably missed your intent and would like to ask for an explanation of that category's purpose. Yours, Huon ( talk) 15:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still doubtful. What you describe seems to be the historical background of the Maccabean Revolt, but I don't see why an eight-day temple re-dedication celebration held by the Jews would be relevant to either the Seleucid Empire or to one of the Maccabees who, for all I can tell, had nothing to do with said celebration. From WP:CAT: [Categories] should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects [...]. It's hardly essential to the Seleucid Empire that some rebels held a celebration after defeating it. The category seems to me an unnecessary duplication of Category:Maccabees, with some topics to which neither the Maccabees nor Hanukkah are essential thrown in for good measure. Put bluntly: The only article that even mentions Hanukkah and is contained in the "history" category, but not in Category:Hasmoneans, is Hanukkah itself. Do we really need such a category? Huon ( talk) 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a legitimate amount of cross-referencing and overlap as happens with any inter-related subjects and categories. But categorization in particular lends itself to flexibility depending on what the main focus is. If the main focus is Judaism and Jewish history, then there is Hanukkah and Hanukkah has a history as well. If the main focus is Hanukkah and history, then there needs to be category that contains relevant categories. Categorization is not an iron straight-jacket, it takes skill and a good knowledge of the subject matter. Hope this helps. IZAK ( talk) 05:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK, I just recently started getting very lightly involved in WP again. While I don't intend to get very involved at present, I hope that we can get along better from now on, focusing on our common ground and being respectful when we disagree. Chanukah Sameach, Shlomke ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for advice. I'll quell my "deletionistic rampage," as you put it. Bulldog123 22:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK,
Regarding this addition to your list, you might want to remove it for now, as one of the lists is currently undergoing deletion review. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've replied to your reply to my !vote. cymru lass (hit me up)⁄ (background check) 01:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
See the diff to understand how useless your revert was. :( Debresser ( talk) 10:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kevinkor: Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps I am starting to understand, and it confirms my initial responses that you are coming at this subject, of God's names, with a much too narrow and ultimately frustrating and futile, perspective. Just to take a few steps back again here, let me just ask, why does WP have to become the forum for clarifying your own very specialized and intensely personal questions about the names of God?, especially if this causes problems and even offends Jewish readers and users of WP who do not get into the actual specifics of God's names because it's basically a closed and esoteric subject in Judaism that remains one big unknown, best left to Kabbbalists. What is wrong with leaving it at two general and generic names in English, God and Lord, otherwise there are so many variants for the Names of God in Judaism that it would be impossible, impractical and basically wrong to get into every last detail and create templates for every nuance and meaning of God's names. Basically what I am saying is that every name of God can go under the rubric of "God" in English while there are some times when the word "Lord" can be used too in English, but to try to break down and micro-analyze God's names and create templates and whatnot to "steer" through all the possible variants just creates an impossibly complicated maze creating many more problems than solutions. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 14:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kevikor: I take everything with a grain of salt, so don't worry about me personally, but I am conveying genuine concerns. As for Hebrew Bible in fact that is the preferred term on WP (as discussed years go) and not "Old Testament" because Judaism (and hence Jews) does/do not believe in, and in fact reject, the "New Testament" as you may know. As for God's name in Psalm 120 as it starts, let's see... I am looking it up now... from the Artscroll edition (informally associated with Agudath Israel of America) of Tanakh, it says: "1 A song of ascents. To HASHEM [sic], in my distress I cried and He answered me. 2 HASHEM, rescue my soul, from deceitful tongue from lying lips..." Not surprising, there you have it, they use the generic term HASHEM meaning "The Name [of God]", of course, that avoids getting into the humanly unknown twilight zone of knowing and pronouncing God's name/s. Howver, when pronouncing it in Hebrew it would be pronounced as "Adonai" (roughly meaning "My Lord")! Take care and stay in touch, IZAK ( talk) 13:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Kevinkor: The translation from the same source says: "1 Regarding David, a psalm. The word of HASHEM to my master, 'Wait at My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.' 2 HASHEM will dispatch the staff of your strength from Zion; rule amid your enemies!" In Hebrew it would be pronounced as "Adonai" again by a religious praying Jew. However, here is a turnaround, in verse "5 The Lord is at your right; He crushes kings on the day of His anger." And that's because the verse does not use YHVH, which this edition translates as the generic "HASHEM" but rather because the verse itself refers to God as "Adonai" so that then perforce means that the correct translation of the actual word "Adonai" (and not YHVH) from the Hebrew can be made and it therefore can be generally translated as the literal "my Lord" or "my Master" or just "the Lord". Please note that when I write "YHVH" I have no idea how to pronounce it, and have never been taught how, and all of Judaism teaches that the translation of "Jehova" or "Yaweh" or some such is a falsification and absurdity of trying to figure out and pronounce the hidden real Tetragramaton for which YHVH really stands and which it denotes. According to tradition someone like the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) would pronounce it in full on Yom Kippur when entering the Kodesh HaKodashim ("Holy of Holies") as part of requesting and hopefully attaining forgiveness and atonement from God (in that case the real YHVH) for the sins of the Children of Israel and all mankind for that year. IZAK ( talk) 13:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK,
At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD, Hans Adler has an interesting opinion:
I plan to go through the 49 (or so) uses of the template, {{ LORD}}, and see which are direct quotes from an English source and which are in the body of the article ("written in the voice of the article"). I hope that most of the uses are for direct quotes. For the rest, I hope to change them to the two general and generic names in English, God and Lord, because there are so many variants for the Names of God in Judaism that it is impossible for a Manual of Style to navigate through them.
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IZAK,
I am starting to research the use of the template {{ LORD}} on Wikipedia. The raw research is happening at User:Kevinkor2/LORD2. I've analyzed 7 of approx 50 articles so far. Here are a few things that I have found surprising:
I also found mentions of {{ LORD}} outside of where I expected:
As always, comments welcome! Discussing things with you is very helpful to check my sanity before I post to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.
<humor> Self-deprecating humor: Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut! [17]</humor>
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 07:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your information on the Category:Galician Jews. Yes, maybe we ought to rename it to Category:Galician Jews (Eastern Europe). -- Shalom, Mibelz 07:13, 16 Dec 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr IZAK, I randomly came across these articles and it appears they are on the same topic. Do you think they should be merged? Basket of Puppies 04:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a post justifying your unilateral massive changes to the categorization of the Chabad articles. I see these changes as unnecessary and inefficient, but I am open to discussing the issue. If you posted such an explanatory post somewhere, please draw my attention to it. Yehoishophot Oliver ( talk) 04:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to be more careful going forward. By the way, there is a number of categories of type "Jews and Judaism in Country", many of which contain "Jews in Country". The second is meant only for articles about individuals. Is there a way to make it clear? I moved as many inter-wikis to the outer category as I could find, but this is not fool-proof; besides, I do not know what other wikipedias have similar category structure. As I was doing that, I also noticed that many French inter-wiki categories were named "Jewish history in Country", rather than "Jews and Judaism". It does appear that having both structures is unnecessary... Can they be merged? What's the best place to discuss this? -- Vicky Ng ( talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Vicky, for the sake of staying on the "same page" as you I will respond within ALL your comments below:
"My objective was to combine inter-wikis. It seems to me that the "primary" hierarchy here in en-wiki is Category:Jews and Judaism."
"However, within Category:Jews and Judaism by country there is one hierarchy of categories by country, and parallel to it are Category:Jews by country and Category:Judaism by country. In addition to these, there is Category:Jewish history by country. This leads to two questions:"
"How should articles be categorized?"
"For example, many articles include a section on history - do they fall under both "Jewish Country history" and "Jews and Judaism in Country" categories?"
"Are "Jews in Country" categories meant only for articles about individuals?"
"What should be included directly into "Jews and Judaism in Country", rather than "Jews in Country" or "Judaism in Country" (or, perhaps, in addition to one of those)?"
"Unlike en-wiki, Wikipedias in other languages often do not have all these distinct category hierarchies. The "primary" category may be named "Jewish history by country" in one language, "Jews by country" in another and "Judaism by country" in yet another. For example, see all four interwikis for Category:Jews and Judaism in Hungary. They literally mean, "Judaism in Hungary", but appropriately point to this parent category because Category:Judaism in Hungary in en-wiki is too specific. Same with lt-wiki for Category:Jews and Judaism in Lithuania, which translates "Jews in Lithuania". But then look at fr-wiki for Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany - fr:Catégorie:Histoire des Juifs en Allemagne. Well, it is correct in a way - at least, as close as it gets, although inconsistent."
"But what's the best way to handle this?"
"Perhaps, the French category should have Category:Jewish German history as its en-wiki, but here both Category:Jewish German history and Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany should link back to it?"
"Finally, the naming convention "Jewish Country history" is very unnatural and inconsistent with the way other categories are named. I think they should all reversed to "Country Jewish history" where adjective for that country name is widely used and changed to "History of the Jews in Country" otherwise. -- Vicky Ng ( talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)"
Hope this helps. Feel free to follow up with me. I will try to respond in detail. Thanks again for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Wow, what an honor! Thanks so much, Yoninah ( talk) 10:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)