Welcome!
Hello, Newman Luke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Kashrut. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
—
Elipongo (
Talk
contribs) 13:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Newman Luke ( talk) 13:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
Why's your name in blue and mine in red?
Thanks. 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
Is there an easy way to make bible references, like links to Book Chapter:verse, etc.?
Great, thanks. Newman Luke ( talk)
When rewriting articles such as kashrut, please be mindful of WP:NPOV when choosing your language. For instance, the term "religious fundamentalist" is heavily loaded and should be used with great care, preferably only when citing a secondary source, when labeling someone with this epithet. I'll still not completely sure whether your extensive editing has brought major improvements to the article or whether you've just shuffled stuff around. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I deliberately added a link to NPOV so you can read the related policy page. It is probably the most important policy on Wikipedia; get used to it. I warned you about the use of the term "religious fundamentalists" because while it might be technically correct, it is associated with scary bearded men brandishing AK-47s. I'm a bit surprised that you've missed my point. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Your roughshod editing of kashrut continues to be a cause for concern. You simply cannot slice off the most important content of an article into a subarticle without some form of discussion on the talkpage.
Concerning my previous message, I think you've managed to misunderstand me completely. I tried to explain that the term "religious fundamentalists" nowadays has a meaning that extends well beyond its actual academic meaning, and should be used sparingly. I also wrote "get used to it" without any aggressive intent, but rather as a form of encouragement to familiarise yourself with basic Wikipedia policy. It would be good if you didn't perceive it as a form of a personal attack. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia editing happens by consensus. You might make some BOLD edits, and someone else will boldly undo them because they feel these edits are not constructive. That happens on a basis of equality (perhaps a look at WP:BRD would be helpful). I don't claim expertise in kashrut, [1] but I do think that your edits removed some content that definitely should have stayed there. In general, an important article like that will have a number of editors who would prefer that large edits are prefaced by some discussion on the talkpage.
I think it would be very helpful if you could, on Talk:Kashrut and/or Talk:Kosher foods, clarify what your ideas are about these articles, and how you would spread the content between these articles. For instance, I think the philosophical underpinnings belong on kashrut, as well as a summary of the main laws. Kashrut is determined by more than whether the food is kosher; for instance, we need to discuss what to do with the laws of mixtures (basar be-chalav, kilayim), technical concepts (bittul, berya, status of stam yeinam versus yein nesech) and where best to discuss the somewhat controversial status of shechita in some countries. JFW | T@lk 09:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Historia Animalium requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Erik the
Red 2
~~
~~ 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Jacob ben Meir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
LGF1992UK (
talk) 19:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This page gives the rundown on whether to use a title or not regarding different clergy. Typically, we don't use "Rev." and such, unless it has become a part of their name. I've run into it before on academic titles. We don't use "Dr." or "Prof." there. But for clergy, it's a bit more complex. So hopefully that page will answer your questions. Cheers, Auntie E. 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a look, thanks. Newman Luke ( talk) 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Apart from sex in the Bible, another topic that is arguably controversial is sex in the Talmud. There are all sorts of allegations that the Talmud promotes sexual immorality such as pedophilia and it would be good thing if we could clear up those charges. [2] [3] ADM ( talk) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What's your source for moving this to spadone from eunuch? "Spadone" doesn't appear to generate any relevant google results, nor appear in most dictionaries. Whereas "eunuch" is a common word, and used in the sources for that article. -- Mairi ( talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You'll find it in most historic academic writings. Remember, google isn't a reliable source for notability. But if you really want to read google results, see [4]. Highlights from that google search include:
Its a bit like the word "cherub". Technically it is the singular of Cherubim, and refers to a creature rather like a Shedu. But in recent times people have bizarrely confused it with " putti", which is basically a baby with wings.
You have
and therefore
(a) are Eunuchs (literally translating as 'bed-chamber attendants'), (b) are Spadones
people who are castrated in modern times are not usually castrated for the purpose of an official position; in other words, they are not (a)
similarly there were bed-chamber attendants who were not castrated - who were not (b)
laws tend to apply to (b) not (a)
(a) and (b) overlap heavily, but they are not the same thing
Newman Luke ( talk) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Much of the material that would have been expected to be under the headword eunuch is now in an article called spadone. I had not previously heard of this term. Nor, apparently, have the New Oxford Dictionary of English, dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, or (except as a back-reference to the Wikipedia article in question) in OneLook. The word does not, as far as I can tell, occur in the current mainstream medical literature, based on a search of abstracts of articles stored in PubMed.
While I can't say I've made an exhaustive search, none of the web-accessible references given in the article actually appear to use the term "spadone" as an English word, either in the sense given in the article or any other. (Furthermore, several of the references given in the article only point to top-level pages in sites, and not to the material they cite, so it's impossible to use them to confirm anything at all.)
I have read your references above. Although I can see that your edits were made in good faith based on these references, I'm not persuaded that the references given above trump the common English meaning of the word; their usage appears to be the exception, not the rule. Since Wikipedia's naming conventions suggest following common English usage by default, I've undone your page move and split. Unfortinately, because of the way you split the page, auto-disambiguation bots re-linked links on large numbers of pages, all of which I had to revert by hand.
Please do not revert these changes without first obtaining consensus for them after first discussing them with other participants in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit but please give sources. In that case not all scholars agreed, so it should be written in more neutral spirit. Please give sources. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 16:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. My source four years ago was a lecture I had at York University in a class I had for a professor named Maynard P. Maidman. He's the one who told me about Jehu/Joram. I'm not quite sure how I would cite that though. - RomeW ( talk) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've posted to Child marriage in Judaism's talk page some comments on the article design. I really think having two separate articles is overkill, and will make maintenance much harder. See full comments at the talk page. -- ShadowRangerRIT ( talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Marriageable age in Judaism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ShadowRangerRIT ( talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
To make the article WP:NPOV here are some sources:
Still searching for more. Alatari ( talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The article reads just like a list and not an encyclopedic entry. The current contents could be moved to [[ age of marriage by country]] and then various topics relating to the age of marriage expanded. The marriageable age in Judaism can be moved in along with headings for other religions and specific laws, such as the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages or English Common Law, limiting the age of marriage. A discussion on age of majority and age of consent relation to age of marriage should be included. Does this resolve the overall problem? Alatari ( talk) 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. But list of marriageable ages by country would be more a slightly more appropriate title for the current contents. 1891 Age of Consent Act is another specific law. Newman Luke ( talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Child marriage in Judaism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child marriage in Judaism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Illness among Jews requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the 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.
I42 (
talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Illness among Jews, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Newman, from recent edits ( Illness among Jews; Child marriage in Judaism; Marriageable age in Judaism -- ALL up for deletion by various editors) it would seem that you are entering into that bizarre realm of WP:SPIDERMAN. How unfortunate. I see that you are a very erudite editor with a penchant for diving often into Judaic topics. However, it is very evident by now that the way you are coming at the subject is neither pleasant nor complimentary to Judaism, especially to points of view that connect very deeply with Orthodox Judaism and the Biblical perspective. In trying to understand where you are coiming from, I skimmed over most of the above discussions and of all the points I was horrified to read this from you:
What do you mean by that?
Constructive editing is better than violating WP:WARRING. Please take this in the positive spirit of friendship that it is meant. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Really now? Care to respond to each point? I can and will back up each one I have made with regards to you. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK ( talk)
DGG, thanks for your well considered efforts. As you affirm, and I can assure you, having been a Wikipedia editor for close to seven years, I have learned and tried to abide by the rules of WP:NPOV. I do not come at any subject with any personal agenda and I have never tried to make any articles conform to Orthodox-only outlooks or points of view. I have no objection to any VALID perspective being expresssed or inserted into articles or into how articles are structured. However, for the sake of clarity, specificity, accuracy, factualness and truthfullness I constantly strive to make sure that an orderly and clear presentation is made of all reliable views on a subject, but not by creating a mish-mash and upturning the apple cart or chopping and changing things in a manner that a lawyer would twist words and views into structures and things that they are not. As in this case, the way Newman has been cutting up, editing and re-structuring articles, it is very clear that he has an agenda of casting Orthodox Judaism in a negative or "fundamentalist" light as he himself puts it, totally marginalizing a larger picture that does not appear like that and is not the way that Newman often portrays it. By all means cite all the reliable sources you want and all the accepted perspectives you care to dig up, but for heaven's sake at the end of the day, don't create a "frankenstein Judaism" when none exists. This is a fine line, as you point out, but with the increasingly aggressive and now violent edits that Newman has made, one cannot just sit idly by and ignore it, otherwise years of work of creating fine articles about so many Judaic topics will be smashed and re-cast as jokes and "enemies of Judaism" when that is not what is meant or should be. Thanks for caring. IZAK ( talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newman, just a few points. I will try to be brief (not easy): (1) Agreed, the Jewish Encyclopedia is a good and reliable source. But it is archaic in many ways and it does have a prejudice all of its own. The scholars were not from the classical traditional school of Torah scholars, so it needs balance. (2) There is no such thing as Wikipedia functioning with "wikipedians belonging to these denominations" which is total bull. Every Wikipedian has to function like a Wikipedian, period. (3) This statement is totally absurd: "IZAK, for example, claims that Orthodox Jews view the Torah as condemning homosexuality, yet there is at least one gay Orthodox Rabbi - Steven Greenberg (rabbi) who disagrees - and there are plenty of gay Orthodox Jews, who are neither Rabbis nor self-hating" -- because even if you line up a million Orthodox gay rabbis and ten million gay Jews it does not mean that objectively JUDAISM as a religion based on the Torah allows it. I will repeat again, it is a no-brainer that Judaism, as based on the Torah/Hebrew Bible is 100% opposed to homosexuality derived from two simple verses: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. It's an open and shut case. The fact that Reform doesn't care is because they reject the Torah as being a Divinely given book emanating from God. It is a theological dispute. But please do not portray Orthodoxy as being a fringe view. In fact Christianity representing 2 billion Christians also opposes homosexuality as based on the same verses, and Islam with a billion and a half adherents also drew from Judaic Biblical tradition to condemn homosexuality. So the Torah view is key, no need to slam it. (4) Your related points are illogical, and I will point it out: You say: (i) "More people study the bible than there are Jews" -- but so what? There are more Christians than Jews, 2 billion versus 13 million, it does not negate Judaism in any way, nor does Judaism get "crossed out" because Christianity opposes its premise that Jesus is not the promised messiah. Just because more people get sick does that mean they are therefore "bigger experts" in sickness than doctors or medical scientists. (ii) How can a subject about Jews be studied without a Jewish or even Orthodox point of view? It is like eating the peel and throwing away the banana or building ahouse without knowing the original plans and the foundation. You must start with the core in Judaic topics and in Judaism Jews come first. Then you allege (iii) "Orthodox Jews are a minority within Judaism. Their views should therefore not dominate articles, except where they are the only views (or where the other denominations do not have an opinion)" which is absurd. What "domination" are you talking about? You make it sound that Judaic articles on Wikipedia are like a Torah journal. Since when are articles based on the "proportions" and sizes of groups in communities or nations? This is an odd view in any field. Orthodox Jews retain, study and observe with the highest intensity the same Torah that can connects with millenia of Jewish history. Nothing can be a substitute for that. But at no time have I or anyone advocated that "Orthodox views" or any views be predominant. You are making up things and fighting your own ghosts. (iv) "The sources I happen to use do not go into the level of detail IZAK would like about modern Orthodox Judaism. I cannot put in material that is not in my sources. No-one should be trying to put in unsourced material} but who is arguing with this? You say: "There is nothing stopping IZAK from finding reliable sources about official/verifiably-widely-held views of the Orthodox Jews about subjects. IZAK shouldn't expect other editors to do things for him>" -- What do you mean by "widely-held" and the rest of your "requiremnst" as if anyone is trying to sneak in the forbidden fruit here? Sure if anyone wants to insert what a million college professors have to say about Judaism in articles feel free, but how is that going to help anyone understand what Judaism itself objectively per se is in the first place? Don't worry, there are plenty of sources. Would you feel happy if the entire Talmud was inserted into Wikipedia? (5) I have levelled no "canards" against you. Your words, and more than that, the way you structure and come at Judaic topics renders all of Judaism, forget about Orthodox Judaism, in a less than flattering light that is worrisome. Forget about Orthodox Judaism, it will stand on its own, there are many editors and the topic has too many branches, roots and fruits to be unprooted, chopped down and sliced up. It's just very troubling, that is what I say. I am trying my best here to engage in an honest dialogue. IZAK ( talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Newman Luke ( talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Newman, thanks for the response which only confirms your determination to marginalize and basically eradicate any classical Judaic views from Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia, not just in Orthodox or Haredi ones. Since you do speak your mind, I will try to respond sincerely, following your points, I hope you can take it in the right spirit of dialogue, so here goes:
I hope you can moderate your views and at least try to work towards WP:CONSENSUS and to that end please try to post and engage as many editors as you can at WP:TALKJUDAISM where, if editors agree with you, you will then have support and allies for your views that will then create an atmosphere of dialogue and trust rather than supicioun and recriminations. (It's not enough that you seek support in groups that have nothing to do with Judaism topics and unfairly drag them into issues they are neither familair with nor interested in). Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you really are just spouting canards there. I have no intention to marginalise views. Simply to make sure they do not receive UNDUE WEIGHT.
Hi Newman: Please, if and when you nominate articles obviously relating to Judaism, be so kind as to place the {{subst:delsort|Judaism}}<small>~~~~</small> template on any AFD page connected with Judaism, and ALSO place the relevant link at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism page like this: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashert}} for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashert. IZAK ( talk) 08:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was a robot that did that. Something did that automatically when I put things into the appropriate deletion sorting categories before. Newman Luke ( talk) 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newman, please see Talk:Mishk'vei ishah#Talk:Mishk'vei ishah, Thanks IZAK ( talk) 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah was neither warranted nor appropriate as you are an involved editor. The AFD is from November 18 and discussion woudl run for seven days with ample of participation already anyways. See also WP:RELIST and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_speedy_closure_of_this_AfD. noting that this thread has not been brought up as complaint against you. Best regards, -- Tikiwont ( talk) 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to see the DRV thread on that AfD was closed prematurely; I didn't anticipate that. Let me know if you need any more help with the situation. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 04:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this article is called Forbidden relationships in Judaism you should not complain about the article following Jewish interpretations. In general, if you want to make such drastic changes, the right way is to discuss it first on the talkpage. Debresser ( talk) 15:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Its not a terribly drastic change to point out that the Bible doesn't say "women captured in warefare", or "halitzah", in Leviticus 21:7. Its a plain fact that it doesn't. Read it for yourself - [23]. It says 'whores', 'the profane', and 'women put away from their husbands'. Its simply not neutral or accurate to claim that it says something it doesn't. It may be the Jewish interpretation that 'halitzah' and 'women captured in warfare' are what is implied, but you cannot put "Lev 21:7" as the reference for these - you can only say "Judaism says that this means....". Newman Luke ( talk) 15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I know "grusha" is a divorcee. "woman put away from her husband" is just the archaic way of saying "divorcee" - I wrote that because that's what how the first hit on google rendered it; I'd rather quote it to you from an actual english bible translation, rather than rely on memory/my own translation (after all, WP:NOR).
As for "whore" and "the profane". Indeed, who is to say what it means. We cannot take the view of one group and say that's what the Torah actually says. We can only say 'this is a literal rendering', and 'Group X think it means ....'. Which is how I altered it - to say 'it says profaned, Judaism thinks this refers to...'. You cannot say 'Torah says women captured in warfare', because it does not say that. You can say something like 'Torah implies women captured in warfare', but implies is a subjective thing - it has to be attributed; in this case attributed to classical Judaism.
Hence 'Torah says profaned. Judaism thinks this implies women captured in warfare...'
There should not be anything controversial about that. Its basic WP:NPOV procedure. Newman Luke ( talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You confuse 'interpretation' with 'what it physically says in the actual physical words physically written on the page'.
"the profane" is a correct translation. Now it might refer to something specific, but it does not actually say that. What it says is the profane. People may interpret that as a reference to some specific group or other, but the only words in the actual text are the hebrew for the profane, etymologically related to other hebrew words for the profane, cognate (curiously) with halal (the arabic word that now means something like kosher).
You cannot say the text says something it does not. You can say that people interpret whatever it says to refer to some specific group, which you can identify, but you cannot say the text explicitly says that, because it doesn't. In point of fact, the Septuagint only has two women - literally "the woman prostitutional and profane, and the woman cast out by her man" (the latter almost definitely = divorcee); which is why one or two major english bible translations render the passage as "the profane prostitute and the divorcee" rather than "the prostitute, and the profane woman, and the divorcee".
The text is clearly not necessarily referring to a specific group by "the profane" - that's just one interpretation among others. Now it might be the correct interpretation, it might be supported by most scholars, but its still only an interpretation and not the actual words on the page; at best, it can only be "the bible says 'the profane', which is generally interpreted to mean a specific group, namely....". To put "the bible says a specific group, namely..." is simply a violation of NPOV, regardless of what the article is about.
It doesn't matter here what Judaism thinks, or what Scholars think, or what I think, or what you think. These are all things thought, not the actual physical text. The actual physical text has the word "halalah". It does not state what this means. You cannot say that it does, because that is simply a lie. You can say that "in Judaism 'halalah' is near universally citation needed interpreted to mean such and such...." but you cannot say that the bible says that, because it simply doesn't.
Newman Luke ( talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Unexpected ending to the saga. The material needs to be presented, it is obviously cogent and important. The title should be different. Hard to say how else to correct it, as the closing admin presented no useful rationale. It might have been better if he had let the editors know, even in advance, of his objections, they could have been corrected. Let me know if you need a hand. Haiduc ( talk) 08:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the only person who is complaining about the article's move, which was done rather well by Debresser. Please do not go against consensus. -- Avi ( talk) 06:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the one going against consensus. Haven't you heard of talk pages? See that "discussion" tab at the top of articles - please use it. I've repeatedly asked you to use the talk page of the article, and you've repeatedly ignored it. Newman Luke ( talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.
Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.
Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK ( talk) 08:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Newman:
(1) Have you even bothered to read the article about the Jewish Encyclopedia wherein in clearly states that it was written from a very specific WP:POV, and it is not "automatically" a WP:NPOV source, nor is it fully reliable as such: " Jewish Encyclopedia#The Jewish Encyclopedia and Wissenschaft des Judentums: The scholarly style of the Jewish Encyclopedia is very much in the mode of Wissenschaft des Judentums studies, an approach to Jewish scholarship and religion that flourished in 19th-century Germany; indeed, the Encyclopedia may be regarded as the culmination of this movement. <ref>[http://www.jewishlibraries.org/ajlweb/publications/proceedings/proceedings2002/levy.pdf (Levy 2002)]</ref> In the 20th century, the movement's members dispersed to Jewish Studies departments in the United States and Israel. The scholarly authorities cited in the Encyclopedia—besides the classical and medieval exegetes—are almost uniformly Wissenschaft figures, such as Leopold Zunz, Moritz Steinschneider, Solomon Schechter, Wilhelm Bacher, J.L. Rapoport, David Zvi Hoffman, Heinrich Graetz, etc..."
Therefore, WHATEVER their strengths and uniqueness, these are NOT classical or conventional Torah and Judaic scholars. They are fundamentally secular academics and they do not write from within the 3,500 year old heritage of Torah Judaism, to say the least. Thus, their views cannot be accepted carte blanche nor can they be the lone standards by which Judaic subjects on Wikipedia are reported and judged. That is why it is both dangerous and foolish to copy their words verbatim without seeking greater balance from the classical religious commentators and sources.
(2) And very importantly, please read " Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics#Method: ... DO NOT indiscriminately dump text from the JE into Wikipedia! At a minimum, please:
You are also encouraged to research and update the articles with new information.
When you have finished editing your article, add the {{JewishEncyclopedia|article=...|url=...}} template. This practice not only creates a proper reference of the source of the text, but will also help locate articles which demand updates since some of the information from the JE may be obsolete.
For a good example of a Wikipedia article adapted from the JE, see Yiram of Magdiel."
Thank you for your attention to this serious matter in the hope of avoiding any misunderstandings. IZAK ( talk) 05:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(1)
The article clearly states that the encyclopedia was written in a very specific style. Not that it pushes a specific WP:POV.
In fact, it actually says
“ | Although published in the early 1900s, this was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. Much of the material is still of value to researchers in Jewish History | ” |
“ | For events prior to 1900, it is considered to offer a level of scholarship superior to either of the more recent Jewish Encyclopedias written in English | ” |
So read your sources properly. And don't use wikipedia as a source for wikipedia. Its not considered appropriate - see WP:RS.
(2)
I don't "indiscriminately" dump text. I'm very particular about which text I use. If I wasn't I'd have just put the whole article on "Idiocy" into wikipedia, instead of carefully distinguishing between the marriage-related aspects, the statistical/prevalence aspects, and the crime aspects.
And I fully wikify it, rather than merely "dump" it. This involves reformatting the text according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, correcting any spelling errors, rephrasing any awkward-sounding prose to improve clarity and flow, removing 19th century references from the body of the text (unless they really move the text along), and adding the {{JewishEncyclopedia|article=...|url=...}} template.
You'll note that's exactly what the guidelines you quote tell me to do. If you could be bothered to read the edit summaries in article history, instead of just trying to throw your weight around like some POV-pushing bully, you'd have worked that out for yourself.
Newman Luke ( talk) 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
…has been raised here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Newman Luke. -- Avi ( talk) 03:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
When discussing IZAK in your "very important message," you seem to have confused various wikipedia policies. You meant to refer to canvassing, not meatpuppetry. However, what IZAK did, by posting on the talk pages of related wikiprojects, is not only allowed, but encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. You may want to rescind the statement, but even if not, any closing admin knows both the difference as well as what is allowed, and, if anything, should commend IZAK for NOT canvassing but using talk page notices, per policy. -- Avi ( talk) 05:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. While referring to you as "unable to let go" was not the best wording, perhaps, all he says is that the original consensus was to delete; he does not ask for any particular vote. -- Avi ( talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Newman Luke/Editnotice, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Newman Luke/Editnotice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Newman Luke/Editnotice during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
With your latest edit, the article now seems to suggest that Baruch ben Samuel attended the synod of Mainz eighteen months after his own death. Could you look into this? Cheers, Jheald ( talk) 10:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll see if I can find some explanation from the sources. The only thing I can think of offhand is him attending the Christian "Synod of Mainz" rather than the Jewish one, but that doesn't seem even remotely likely, somehow. Newman Luke ( talk) 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I wrote my comments to your recent overhaul of this page on the talk page for that article. Yoninah ( talk) 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Synod of Mainz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synod of Mainz. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newman Luke, I declined your PROD because PROD doesn't apply to userpages, only articles and disambiguation pages in the mainspace. Consider sending the page to Miscellany for deletion instead. All the best— Glenfarclas ( talk) 03:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little uncomfortable with taking it straight to MFD, as it is a userpage. I'd prefer to give him the chance to turn it into a proper userpage or some reference, rather than the myspace-type page it is now. I'll try using maintenance tags, coupled with a warning. Newman Luke ( talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke. Debresser ( talk) 11:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Since you repeat your disruptive edits without engaging in diuscssion, I have reported you on WP:ANI. Debresser ( talk) 12:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Shiddukhin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Simon-in-sagamihara (
talk) 12:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Shiddukhin. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot ( talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Newman Luke! I saw that you added a {{ hangon}} tag to a page which you created, Shiddukhin. This is good, but in the process you removed the tag requesting deletion under CSD A1. Even though there is a hangon on the page, the deletion template should remain there. But don't worry, this doesn't mean that the page is going to get deleted. Make sure you edit the talk page of the page nominated for deletion, located at Talk:Shiddukhin, administrators will look at your reason why the page should remain before they decide what to do. Thanks - SDPatrolBot ( talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Newman Luke. I noticed your report at WP:AN3#User:Debresser reported by User:Newman Luke (Result: ). It seems possible that you also could have made four reverts at Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Perhaps you could add a comment at the 3RR board as to what your role has been in this dispute? When an admin studies these reports, it is usual that the conduct of both sides is examined. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Newman Luke. On February 16 I found that you were edit warring at Forbidden relationships in Judaism per WP:AN3#User:Debresser reported by User:Newman Luke .28Result: Protected.29 but decided not to impose a block, in hopes that actual talk discussion would occur. When closing that case, I said "I recommend that neither party make any significant change to the article until they receive a formal consensus on the Talk page". Now today I see you showing up at WP:Requests for page protection asking for admin help to keep others from undoing your changes on other Judaism-related articles. A check of your contribution history shows you making rapid-fire edits across a range of articles. (At least fifty edits since the 3RR case closed, including several reverts).
If you do not wish to be sanctioned for edit-warring per the original case, I suggest that you find a central place to open a discussion about the type of changes you are planning to make. Scattered comments here and there suggest that you are completely alone in thinking these changes are wise. You might be able to persuade others to support you, but to achieve that you'd have to be willing to actually negotiate.
If you continue rapid-fire editing while making no serious attempt to discuss, you will be blocked per the original case. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles:
“ | All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.... | ” |
“ | ....Examples of ownership behavior.... | ” |
“ | ...."Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" | ” |
“ | "Get consensus before you make such huge changes.".... | ” |
Now that's what Debresser and Avraham are doing, and it would seem you too. But the WP:OWN policy forbids it.
I'm quite happy to discuss specific content they/you feel problematic on the relevant article talk pages. But I have yet to see any specific content being raised on said article talk pages, indeed I have yet to see them/you use the article talk pages at all.
Indeed you said I recommend that neither party make any significant change to the article until they receive a formal consensus on the Talk page. However, Debresser still made a fifth revert - [24] - but I haven't edited that page since. Yet I notice that you haven't cautioned Debresser on his talk page, now why is that?
Indeed I made at least fifty edits since the 3RR case closed, but they weren't on that article. You protected the article, so how could they be.
This - showing up - at WP:Requests for page protection was not asking for admin help to keep others from undoing your changes on other Judaism-related articles. It was asking for admin help to keep specific others from ignoring Wikipedia's deletion policy on specific pages where they have defied it. Page blanking is not a legitimate way to go about trying to delete an article, and I was asking for help to enforce that official policy. There's absolutely nothing wrong with me doing so, and frankly I'm rather disturbed that you think there is. Newman Luke ( talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Biblical wedding. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical wedding. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I had to report you again for your undiscussed rewrite of Jewish views on marriage against all the advice you received to discuss your edits first. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Newman_Luke. Debresser ( talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Newman Luke. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke, where you may want to participate. Avi ( talk) 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I have put a request for information on some footnotes in article erusin. Here is some more detail:
Based on what you have said, your footnotes appear to be split into two categories:
1. Actual sources
2. "Wikified" footnotes taken from the actual source, but that you have not seen yourself.
I would appreciate knowing which category some of the footnotes fall into. I have some specific questions:
1. I assume all quote from the Talmud as category 2. Is this correct?
2. Are all quotes from the Bible category 2?
3. Are all quotes from Hebrew sources category 2? If this is not a good general rule, could you tell me about these sources:
Salomon Rinman, Mas'ot Shelomoh Abraham Danzig, Wisdom of Man Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh Joseph Judah Chorny, Sefer ha-Massa'ot, 1884 (published posthumously) Sefer Taamei haMinhagim
Thank you. I did check the change log, but there was no source information there. I suspect that it is hiding somewhere in the article it was moved from. I have no idea how to find the information.
P.S. This issue has reminded me that I need to be careful about leaving revision comments. I plan to reform in that area. Mzk1 ( talk) 23:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
As a completely uninvolved administrator, I will politely but firmly ask you to "cut it out". Look, appearing at AN/I multiple times, and now a full RFC, should have been warning enough. Your edits against consensus on this particular area of articles has reached a point where sanctions are probably necessary. Consider this a final warning - plain and simple, please back away from the topic or your disruption will receive a block. Jamie S93❤ 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Newman Luke/Zq, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Newman Luke/Zq during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- IZAK ( talk) 05:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Newman Luke: Just a reminder that when nominating articles or categories or anything for deletion, renaming or any sort of changes, the correct and courteous thing to do is to place notices on the talk pages of the creators of those articles or categories etc. I take pride in my editorial work, as I know you do too, yet you failed to inform me of your CfDs. Not only did you nominate Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 25#Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 25#Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel at CfD but you went ahead and added direct criticism of me in those nominations which was uncalled for, violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The categories you nominated have been around since 2006 and no one seems to have had a problem with them, but obviously it is you that feels the need to vent your WP:POV at every twist and turn. I resent your needless attacks on me and I hope you can retain your calm and keep cool with rational discussions that you are very capable at. Please don't lash out at people in violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND all the time. We are NOT at war here! Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely and Happy Purim ! IZAK ( talk) 10:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You filed a complaint against Debresser on 15 February regarding the above article. I closed the 3RR case by protecting the article, with warnings against continued reverts unless consensus was found. I see that you have restored the version that you were promoting during the last edit war, and I would like to know if you have obtained consensus for your recent change. If so, where did the discussion occur, and please name at least one editor who supported your position. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Newman Luke/AV, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/AV and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Newman Luke/AV during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- IZAK ( talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Newman Luke/dDb, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/dDb and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Newman Luke/dDb during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- IZAK ( talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You and your RfC pages have been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
on page Chaim Walkin you've added something about inline citations for the footsnotes. I think I took care of it, wc you please see if now it's ok and if yes to delete this note? thanks. -- Korach ( talk) 12:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Newman Luke. Your statement (including all the collapsed sections which count) totals over 2700 words. The word limit is 500. Please refactor it to within the limit within 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see my earlier warning to you about this article, which was posted here on 25 February. I see that you've once again made a large revert of this article to a version that you like better, but without getting any support for your change on the talk page. I'm issuing a final warning that you must promise to cease edit warring on this article. If you don't, I think there will be a block in your future, either from me or from some other admin, since your other edits of 29 March suggest you've gone back on a war footing. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Whilst familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's noticeboards, I saw your recent creation of WP:OWNING. It certainly is a problem that can happen. I'm curious, is there previous discussion regarding the creation of this noticeboard that I could read up on? ...comments? ~ B F izz 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Ownership alerts, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ownership alerts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ownership alerts during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy ( Help!) 11:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke, the community has enacted a topic-ban on Judaism-related articles. -- Avi ( talk) 05:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#Topic-ban for User:Newman Luke on Judaism-related articles, the community has enacted a mainspace topic ban on Judaism related articles. This means that until such point as the ban is lifted, you may not make changes to articles relating to Judaism topics, although you may make suggestions and comments on the talk pages of those articles. Failure to adhere to the community restrictions may result in measures being taken to protect the project which can include loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 20:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Marriage in the Bible. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage in the Bible. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:Conflated has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Newman Luke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Kashrut. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
—
Elipongo (
Talk
contribs) 13:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Newman Luke ( talk) 13:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
Why's your name in blue and mine in red?
Thanks. 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
Is there an easy way to make bible references, like links to Book Chapter:verse, etc.?
Great, thanks. Newman Luke ( talk)
When rewriting articles such as kashrut, please be mindful of WP:NPOV when choosing your language. For instance, the term "religious fundamentalist" is heavily loaded and should be used with great care, preferably only when citing a secondary source, when labeling someone with this epithet. I'll still not completely sure whether your extensive editing has brought major improvements to the article or whether you've just shuffled stuff around. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I deliberately added a link to NPOV so you can read the related policy page. It is probably the most important policy on Wikipedia; get used to it. I warned you about the use of the term "religious fundamentalists" because while it might be technically correct, it is associated with scary bearded men brandishing AK-47s. I'm a bit surprised that you've missed my point. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Your roughshod editing of kashrut continues to be a cause for concern. You simply cannot slice off the most important content of an article into a subarticle without some form of discussion on the talkpage.
Concerning my previous message, I think you've managed to misunderstand me completely. I tried to explain that the term "religious fundamentalists" nowadays has a meaning that extends well beyond its actual academic meaning, and should be used sparingly. I also wrote "get used to it" without any aggressive intent, but rather as a form of encouragement to familiarise yourself with basic Wikipedia policy. It would be good if you didn't perceive it as a form of a personal attack. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia editing happens by consensus. You might make some BOLD edits, and someone else will boldly undo them because they feel these edits are not constructive. That happens on a basis of equality (perhaps a look at WP:BRD would be helpful). I don't claim expertise in kashrut, [1] but I do think that your edits removed some content that definitely should have stayed there. In general, an important article like that will have a number of editors who would prefer that large edits are prefaced by some discussion on the talkpage.
I think it would be very helpful if you could, on Talk:Kashrut and/or Talk:Kosher foods, clarify what your ideas are about these articles, and how you would spread the content between these articles. For instance, I think the philosophical underpinnings belong on kashrut, as well as a summary of the main laws. Kashrut is determined by more than whether the food is kosher; for instance, we need to discuss what to do with the laws of mixtures (basar be-chalav, kilayim), technical concepts (bittul, berya, status of stam yeinam versus yein nesech) and where best to discuss the somewhat controversial status of shechita in some countries. JFW | T@lk 09:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Historia Animalium requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Erik the
Red 2
~~
~~ 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Jacob ben Meir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
LGF1992UK (
talk) 19:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This page gives the rundown on whether to use a title or not regarding different clergy. Typically, we don't use "Rev." and such, unless it has become a part of their name. I've run into it before on academic titles. We don't use "Dr." or "Prof." there. But for clergy, it's a bit more complex. So hopefully that page will answer your questions. Cheers, Auntie E. 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a look, thanks. Newman Luke ( talk) 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Apart from sex in the Bible, another topic that is arguably controversial is sex in the Talmud. There are all sorts of allegations that the Talmud promotes sexual immorality such as pedophilia and it would be good thing if we could clear up those charges. [2] [3] ADM ( talk) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What's your source for moving this to spadone from eunuch? "Spadone" doesn't appear to generate any relevant google results, nor appear in most dictionaries. Whereas "eunuch" is a common word, and used in the sources for that article. -- Mairi ( talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You'll find it in most historic academic writings. Remember, google isn't a reliable source for notability. But if you really want to read google results, see [4]. Highlights from that google search include:
Its a bit like the word "cherub". Technically it is the singular of Cherubim, and refers to a creature rather like a Shedu. But in recent times people have bizarrely confused it with " putti", which is basically a baby with wings.
You have
and therefore
(a) are Eunuchs (literally translating as 'bed-chamber attendants'), (b) are Spadones
people who are castrated in modern times are not usually castrated for the purpose of an official position; in other words, they are not (a)
similarly there were bed-chamber attendants who were not castrated - who were not (b)
laws tend to apply to (b) not (a)
(a) and (b) overlap heavily, but they are not the same thing
Newman Luke ( talk) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Much of the material that would have been expected to be under the headword eunuch is now in an article called spadone. I had not previously heard of this term. Nor, apparently, have the New Oxford Dictionary of English, dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, or (except as a back-reference to the Wikipedia article in question) in OneLook. The word does not, as far as I can tell, occur in the current mainstream medical literature, based on a search of abstracts of articles stored in PubMed.
While I can't say I've made an exhaustive search, none of the web-accessible references given in the article actually appear to use the term "spadone" as an English word, either in the sense given in the article or any other. (Furthermore, several of the references given in the article only point to top-level pages in sites, and not to the material they cite, so it's impossible to use them to confirm anything at all.)
I have read your references above. Although I can see that your edits were made in good faith based on these references, I'm not persuaded that the references given above trump the common English meaning of the word; their usage appears to be the exception, not the rule. Since Wikipedia's naming conventions suggest following common English usage by default, I've undone your page move and split. Unfortinately, because of the way you split the page, auto-disambiguation bots re-linked links on large numbers of pages, all of which I had to revert by hand.
Please do not revert these changes without first obtaining consensus for them after first discussing them with other participants in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit but please give sources. In that case not all scholars agreed, so it should be written in more neutral spirit. Please give sources. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 16:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. My source four years ago was a lecture I had at York University in a class I had for a professor named Maynard P. Maidman. He's the one who told me about Jehu/Joram. I'm not quite sure how I would cite that though. - RomeW ( talk) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've posted to Child marriage in Judaism's talk page some comments on the article design. I really think having two separate articles is overkill, and will make maintenance much harder. See full comments at the talk page. -- ShadowRangerRIT ( talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Marriageable age in Judaism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ShadowRangerRIT ( talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
To make the article WP:NPOV here are some sources:
Still searching for more. Alatari ( talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The article reads just like a list and not an encyclopedic entry. The current contents could be moved to [[ age of marriage by country]] and then various topics relating to the age of marriage expanded. The marriageable age in Judaism can be moved in along with headings for other religions and specific laws, such as the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages or English Common Law, limiting the age of marriage. A discussion on age of majority and age of consent relation to age of marriage should be included. Does this resolve the overall problem? Alatari ( talk) 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. But list of marriageable ages by country would be more a slightly more appropriate title for the current contents. 1891 Age of Consent Act is another specific law. Newman Luke ( talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Child marriage in Judaism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child marriage in Judaism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Illness among Jews requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the 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.
I42 (
talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Illness among Jews, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Newman, from recent edits ( Illness among Jews; Child marriage in Judaism; Marriageable age in Judaism -- ALL up for deletion by various editors) it would seem that you are entering into that bizarre realm of WP:SPIDERMAN. How unfortunate. I see that you are a very erudite editor with a penchant for diving often into Judaic topics. However, it is very evident by now that the way you are coming at the subject is neither pleasant nor complimentary to Judaism, especially to points of view that connect very deeply with Orthodox Judaism and the Biblical perspective. In trying to understand where you are coiming from, I skimmed over most of the above discussions and of all the points I was horrified to read this from you:
What do you mean by that?
Constructive editing is better than violating WP:WARRING. Please take this in the positive spirit of friendship that it is meant. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Really now? Care to respond to each point? I can and will back up each one I have made with regards to you. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK ( talk)
DGG, thanks for your well considered efforts. As you affirm, and I can assure you, having been a Wikipedia editor for close to seven years, I have learned and tried to abide by the rules of WP:NPOV. I do not come at any subject with any personal agenda and I have never tried to make any articles conform to Orthodox-only outlooks or points of view. I have no objection to any VALID perspective being expresssed or inserted into articles or into how articles are structured. However, for the sake of clarity, specificity, accuracy, factualness and truthfullness I constantly strive to make sure that an orderly and clear presentation is made of all reliable views on a subject, but not by creating a mish-mash and upturning the apple cart or chopping and changing things in a manner that a lawyer would twist words and views into structures and things that they are not. As in this case, the way Newman has been cutting up, editing and re-structuring articles, it is very clear that he has an agenda of casting Orthodox Judaism in a negative or "fundamentalist" light as he himself puts it, totally marginalizing a larger picture that does not appear like that and is not the way that Newman often portrays it. By all means cite all the reliable sources you want and all the accepted perspectives you care to dig up, but for heaven's sake at the end of the day, don't create a "frankenstein Judaism" when none exists. This is a fine line, as you point out, but with the increasingly aggressive and now violent edits that Newman has made, one cannot just sit idly by and ignore it, otherwise years of work of creating fine articles about so many Judaic topics will be smashed and re-cast as jokes and "enemies of Judaism" when that is not what is meant or should be. Thanks for caring. IZAK ( talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newman, just a few points. I will try to be brief (not easy): (1) Agreed, the Jewish Encyclopedia is a good and reliable source. But it is archaic in many ways and it does have a prejudice all of its own. The scholars were not from the classical traditional school of Torah scholars, so it needs balance. (2) There is no such thing as Wikipedia functioning with "wikipedians belonging to these denominations" which is total bull. Every Wikipedian has to function like a Wikipedian, period. (3) This statement is totally absurd: "IZAK, for example, claims that Orthodox Jews view the Torah as condemning homosexuality, yet there is at least one gay Orthodox Rabbi - Steven Greenberg (rabbi) who disagrees - and there are plenty of gay Orthodox Jews, who are neither Rabbis nor self-hating" -- because even if you line up a million Orthodox gay rabbis and ten million gay Jews it does not mean that objectively JUDAISM as a religion based on the Torah allows it. I will repeat again, it is a no-brainer that Judaism, as based on the Torah/Hebrew Bible is 100% opposed to homosexuality derived from two simple verses: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. It's an open and shut case. The fact that Reform doesn't care is because they reject the Torah as being a Divinely given book emanating from God. It is a theological dispute. But please do not portray Orthodoxy as being a fringe view. In fact Christianity representing 2 billion Christians also opposes homosexuality as based on the same verses, and Islam with a billion and a half adherents also drew from Judaic Biblical tradition to condemn homosexuality. So the Torah view is key, no need to slam it. (4) Your related points are illogical, and I will point it out: You say: (i) "More people study the bible than there are Jews" -- but so what? There are more Christians than Jews, 2 billion versus 13 million, it does not negate Judaism in any way, nor does Judaism get "crossed out" because Christianity opposes its premise that Jesus is not the promised messiah. Just because more people get sick does that mean they are therefore "bigger experts" in sickness than doctors or medical scientists. (ii) How can a subject about Jews be studied without a Jewish or even Orthodox point of view? It is like eating the peel and throwing away the banana or building ahouse without knowing the original plans and the foundation. You must start with the core in Judaic topics and in Judaism Jews come first. Then you allege (iii) "Orthodox Jews are a minority within Judaism. Their views should therefore not dominate articles, except where they are the only views (or where the other denominations do not have an opinion)" which is absurd. What "domination" are you talking about? You make it sound that Judaic articles on Wikipedia are like a Torah journal. Since when are articles based on the "proportions" and sizes of groups in communities or nations? This is an odd view in any field. Orthodox Jews retain, study and observe with the highest intensity the same Torah that can connects with millenia of Jewish history. Nothing can be a substitute for that. But at no time have I or anyone advocated that "Orthodox views" or any views be predominant. You are making up things and fighting your own ghosts. (iv) "The sources I happen to use do not go into the level of detail IZAK would like about modern Orthodox Judaism. I cannot put in material that is not in my sources. No-one should be trying to put in unsourced material} but who is arguing with this? You say: "There is nothing stopping IZAK from finding reliable sources about official/verifiably-widely-held views of the Orthodox Jews about subjects. IZAK shouldn't expect other editors to do things for him>" -- What do you mean by "widely-held" and the rest of your "requiremnst" as if anyone is trying to sneak in the forbidden fruit here? Sure if anyone wants to insert what a million college professors have to say about Judaism in articles feel free, but how is that going to help anyone understand what Judaism itself objectively per se is in the first place? Don't worry, there are plenty of sources. Would you feel happy if the entire Talmud was inserted into Wikipedia? (5) I have levelled no "canards" against you. Your words, and more than that, the way you structure and come at Judaic topics renders all of Judaism, forget about Orthodox Judaism, in a less than flattering light that is worrisome. Forget about Orthodox Judaism, it will stand on its own, there are many editors and the topic has too many branches, roots and fruits to be unprooted, chopped down and sliced up. It's just very troubling, that is what I say. I am trying my best here to engage in an honest dialogue. IZAK ( talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Newman Luke ( talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Newman, thanks for the response which only confirms your determination to marginalize and basically eradicate any classical Judaic views from Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia, not just in Orthodox or Haredi ones. Since you do speak your mind, I will try to respond sincerely, following your points, I hope you can take it in the right spirit of dialogue, so here goes:
I hope you can moderate your views and at least try to work towards WP:CONSENSUS and to that end please try to post and engage as many editors as you can at WP:TALKJUDAISM where, if editors agree with you, you will then have support and allies for your views that will then create an atmosphere of dialogue and trust rather than supicioun and recriminations. (It's not enough that you seek support in groups that have nothing to do with Judaism topics and unfairly drag them into issues they are neither familair with nor interested in). Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you really are just spouting canards there. I have no intention to marginalise views. Simply to make sure they do not receive UNDUE WEIGHT.
Hi Newman: Please, if and when you nominate articles obviously relating to Judaism, be so kind as to place the {{subst:delsort|Judaism}}<small>~~~~</small> template on any AFD page connected with Judaism, and ALSO place the relevant link at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism page like this: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashert}} for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashert. IZAK ( talk) 08:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was a robot that did that. Something did that automatically when I put things into the appropriate deletion sorting categories before. Newman Luke ( talk) 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newman, please see Talk:Mishk'vei ishah#Talk:Mishk'vei ishah, Thanks IZAK ( talk) 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah was neither warranted nor appropriate as you are an involved editor. The AFD is from November 18 and discussion woudl run for seven days with ample of participation already anyways. See also WP:RELIST and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_speedy_closure_of_this_AfD. noting that this thread has not been brought up as complaint against you. Best regards, -- Tikiwont ( talk) 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to see the DRV thread on that AfD was closed prematurely; I didn't anticipate that. Let me know if you need any more help with the situation. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 04:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this article is called Forbidden relationships in Judaism you should not complain about the article following Jewish interpretations. In general, if you want to make such drastic changes, the right way is to discuss it first on the talkpage. Debresser ( talk) 15:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Its not a terribly drastic change to point out that the Bible doesn't say "women captured in warefare", or "halitzah", in Leviticus 21:7. Its a plain fact that it doesn't. Read it for yourself - [23]. It says 'whores', 'the profane', and 'women put away from their husbands'. Its simply not neutral or accurate to claim that it says something it doesn't. It may be the Jewish interpretation that 'halitzah' and 'women captured in warfare' are what is implied, but you cannot put "Lev 21:7" as the reference for these - you can only say "Judaism says that this means....". Newman Luke ( talk) 15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I know "grusha" is a divorcee. "woman put away from her husband" is just the archaic way of saying "divorcee" - I wrote that because that's what how the first hit on google rendered it; I'd rather quote it to you from an actual english bible translation, rather than rely on memory/my own translation (after all, WP:NOR).
As for "whore" and "the profane". Indeed, who is to say what it means. We cannot take the view of one group and say that's what the Torah actually says. We can only say 'this is a literal rendering', and 'Group X think it means ....'. Which is how I altered it - to say 'it says profaned, Judaism thinks this refers to...'. You cannot say 'Torah says women captured in warfare', because it does not say that. You can say something like 'Torah implies women captured in warfare', but implies is a subjective thing - it has to be attributed; in this case attributed to classical Judaism.
Hence 'Torah says profaned. Judaism thinks this implies women captured in warfare...'
There should not be anything controversial about that. Its basic WP:NPOV procedure. Newman Luke ( talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You confuse 'interpretation' with 'what it physically says in the actual physical words physically written on the page'.
"the profane" is a correct translation. Now it might refer to something specific, but it does not actually say that. What it says is the profane. People may interpret that as a reference to some specific group or other, but the only words in the actual text are the hebrew for the profane, etymologically related to other hebrew words for the profane, cognate (curiously) with halal (the arabic word that now means something like kosher).
You cannot say the text says something it does not. You can say that people interpret whatever it says to refer to some specific group, which you can identify, but you cannot say the text explicitly says that, because it doesn't. In point of fact, the Septuagint only has two women - literally "the woman prostitutional and profane, and the woman cast out by her man" (the latter almost definitely = divorcee); which is why one or two major english bible translations render the passage as "the profane prostitute and the divorcee" rather than "the prostitute, and the profane woman, and the divorcee".
The text is clearly not necessarily referring to a specific group by "the profane" - that's just one interpretation among others. Now it might be the correct interpretation, it might be supported by most scholars, but its still only an interpretation and not the actual words on the page; at best, it can only be "the bible says 'the profane', which is generally interpreted to mean a specific group, namely....". To put "the bible says a specific group, namely..." is simply a violation of NPOV, regardless of what the article is about.
It doesn't matter here what Judaism thinks, or what Scholars think, or what I think, or what you think. These are all things thought, not the actual physical text. The actual physical text has the word "halalah". It does not state what this means. You cannot say that it does, because that is simply a lie. You can say that "in Judaism 'halalah' is near universally citation needed interpreted to mean such and such...." but you cannot say that the bible says that, because it simply doesn't.
Newman Luke ( talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Unexpected ending to the saga. The material needs to be presented, it is obviously cogent and important. The title should be different. Hard to say how else to correct it, as the closing admin presented no useful rationale. It might have been better if he had let the editors know, even in advance, of his objections, they could have been corrected. Let me know if you need a hand. Haiduc ( talk) 08:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the only person who is complaining about the article's move, which was done rather well by Debresser. Please do not go against consensus. -- Avi ( talk) 06:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the one going against consensus. Haven't you heard of talk pages? See that "discussion" tab at the top of articles - please use it. I've repeatedly asked you to use the talk page of the article, and you've repeatedly ignored it. Newman Luke ( talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.
Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.
Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK ( talk) 08:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Newman:
(1) Have you even bothered to read the article about the Jewish Encyclopedia wherein in clearly states that it was written from a very specific WP:POV, and it is not "automatically" a WP:NPOV source, nor is it fully reliable as such: " Jewish Encyclopedia#The Jewish Encyclopedia and Wissenschaft des Judentums: The scholarly style of the Jewish Encyclopedia is very much in the mode of Wissenschaft des Judentums studies, an approach to Jewish scholarship and religion that flourished in 19th-century Germany; indeed, the Encyclopedia may be regarded as the culmination of this movement. <ref>[http://www.jewishlibraries.org/ajlweb/publications/proceedings/proceedings2002/levy.pdf (Levy 2002)]</ref> In the 20th century, the movement's members dispersed to Jewish Studies departments in the United States and Israel. The scholarly authorities cited in the Encyclopedia—besides the classical and medieval exegetes—are almost uniformly Wissenschaft figures, such as Leopold Zunz, Moritz Steinschneider, Solomon Schechter, Wilhelm Bacher, J.L. Rapoport, David Zvi Hoffman, Heinrich Graetz, etc..."
Therefore, WHATEVER their strengths and uniqueness, these are NOT classical or conventional Torah and Judaic scholars. They are fundamentally secular academics and they do not write from within the 3,500 year old heritage of Torah Judaism, to say the least. Thus, their views cannot be accepted carte blanche nor can they be the lone standards by which Judaic subjects on Wikipedia are reported and judged. That is why it is both dangerous and foolish to copy their words verbatim without seeking greater balance from the classical religious commentators and sources.
(2) And very importantly, please read " Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics#Method: ... DO NOT indiscriminately dump text from the JE into Wikipedia! At a minimum, please:
You are also encouraged to research and update the articles with new information.
When you have finished editing your article, add the {{JewishEncyclopedia|article=...|url=...}} template. This practice not only creates a proper reference of the source of the text, but will also help locate articles which demand updates since some of the information from the JE may be obsolete.
For a good example of a Wikipedia article adapted from the JE, see Yiram of Magdiel."
Thank you for your attention to this serious matter in the hope of avoiding any misunderstandings. IZAK ( talk) 05:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(1)
The article clearly states that the encyclopedia was written in a very specific style. Not that it pushes a specific WP:POV.
In fact, it actually says
“ | Although published in the early 1900s, this was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. Much of the material is still of value to researchers in Jewish History | ” |
“ | For events prior to 1900, it is considered to offer a level of scholarship superior to either of the more recent Jewish Encyclopedias written in English | ” |
So read your sources properly. And don't use wikipedia as a source for wikipedia. Its not considered appropriate - see WP:RS.
(2)
I don't "indiscriminately" dump text. I'm very particular about which text I use. If I wasn't I'd have just put the whole article on "Idiocy" into wikipedia, instead of carefully distinguishing between the marriage-related aspects, the statistical/prevalence aspects, and the crime aspects.
And I fully wikify it, rather than merely "dump" it. This involves reformatting the text according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, correcting any spelling errors, rephrasing any awkward-sounding prose to improve clarity and flow, removing 19th century references from the body of the text (unless they really move the text along), and adding the {{JewishEncyclopedia|article=...|url=...}} template.
You'll note that's exactly what the guidelines you quote tell me to do. If you could be bothered to read the edit summaries in article history, instead of just trying to throw your weight around like some POV-pushing bully, you'd have worked that out for yourself.
Newman Luke ( talk) 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
…has been raised here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Newman Luke. -- Avi ( talk) 03:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
When discussing IZAK in your "very important message," you seem to have confused various wikipedia policies. You meant to refer to canvassing, not meatpuppetry. However, what IZAK did, by posting on the talk pages of related wikiprojects, is not only allowed, but encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. You may want to rescind the statement, but even if not, any closing admin knows both the difference as well as what is allowed, and, if anything, should commend IZAK for NOT canvassing but using talk page notices, per policy. -- Avi ( talk) 05:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. While referring to you as "unable to let go" was not the best wording, perhaps, all he says is that the original consensus was to delete; he does not ask for any particular vote. -- Avi ( talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Newman Luke/Editnotice, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Newman Luke/Editnotice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Newman Luke/Editnotice during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
With your latest edit, the article now seems to suggest that Baruch ben Samuel attended the synod of Mainz eighteen months after his own death. Could you look into this? Cheers, Jheald ( talk) 10:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll see if I can find some explanation from the sources. The only thing I can think of offhand is him attending the Christian "Synod of Mainz" rather than the Jewish one, but that doesn't seem even remotely likely, somehow. Newman Luke ( talk) 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I wrote my comments to your recent overhaul of this page on the talk page for that article. Yoninah ( talk) 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Synod of Mainz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synod of Mainz. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newman Luke, I declined your PROD because PROD doesn't apply to userpages, only articles and disambiguation pages in the mainspace. Consider sending the page to Miscellany for deletion instead. All the best— Glenfarclas ( talk) 03:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little uncomfortable with taking it straight to MFD, as it is a userpage. I'd prefer to give him the chance to turn it into a proper userpage or some reference, rather than the myspace-type page it is now. I'll try using maintenance tags, coupled with a warning. Newman Luke ( talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke. Debresser ( talk) 11:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Since you repeat your disruptive edits without engaging in diuscssion, I have reported you on WP:ANI. Debresser ( talk) 12:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Shiddukhin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Simon-in-sagamihara (
talk) 12:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Shiddukhin. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot ( talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Newman Luke! I saw that you added a {{ hangon}} tag to a page which you created, Shiddukhin. This is good, but in the process you removed the tag requesting deletion under CSD A1. Even though there is a hangon on the page, the deletion template should remain there. But don't worry, this doesn't mean that the page is going to get deleted. Make sure you edit the talk page of the page nominated for deletion, located at Talk:Shiddukhin, administrators will look at your reason why the page should remain before they decide what to do. Thanks - SDPatrolBot ( talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Newman Luke. I noticed your report at WP:AN3#User:Debresser reported by User:Newman Luke (Result: ). It seems possible that you also could have made four reverts at Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Perhaps you could add a comment at the 3RR board as to what your role has been in this dispute? When an admin studies these reports, it is usual that the conduct of both sides is examined. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Newman Luke. On February 16 I found that you were edit warring at Forbidden relationships in Judaism per WP:AN3#User:Debresser reported by User:Newman Luke .28Result: Protected.29 but decided not to impose a block, in hopes that actual talk discussion would occur. When closing that case, I said "I recommend that neither party make any significant change to the article until they receive a formal consensus on the Talk page". Now today I see you showing up at WP:Requests for page protection asking for admin help to keep others from undoing your changes on other Judaism-related articles. A check of your contribution history shows you making rapid-fire edits across a range of articles. (At least fifty edits since the 3RR case closed, including several reverts).
If you do not wish to be sanctioned for edit-warring per the original case, I suggest that you find a central place to open a discussion about the type of changes you are planning to make. Scattered comments here and there suggest that you are completely alone in thinking these changes are wise. You might be able to persuade others to support you, but to achieve that you'd have to be willing to actually negotiate.
If you continue rapid-fire editing while making no serious attempt to discuss, you will be blocked per the original case. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles:
“ | All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.... | ” |
“ | ....Examples of ownership behavior.... | ” |
“ | ...."Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" | ” |
“ | "Get consensus before you make such huge changes.".... | ” |
Now that's what Debresser and Avraham are doing, and it would seem you too. But the WP:OWN policy forbids it.
I'm quite happy to discuss specific content they/you feel problematic on the relevant article talk pages. But I have yet to see any specific content being raised on said article talk pages, indeed I have yet to see them/you use the article talk pages at all.
Indeed you said I recommend that neither party make any significant change to the article until they receive a formal consensus on the Talk page. However, Debresser still made a fifth revert - [24] - but I haven't edited that page since. Yet I notice that you haven't cautioned Debresser on his talk page, now why is that?
Indeed I made at least fifty edits since the 3RR case closed, but they weren't on that article. You protected the article, so how could they be.
This - showing up - at WP:Requests for page protection was not asking for admin help to keep others from undoing your changes on other Judaism-related articles. It was asking for admin help to keep specific others from ignoring Wikipedia's deletion policy on specific pages where they have defied it. Page blanking is not a legitimate way to go about trying to delete an article, and I was asking for help to enforce that official policy. There's absolutely nothing wrong with me doing so, and frankly I'm rather disturbed that you think there is. Newman Luke ( talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Biblical wedding. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical wedding. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I had to report you again for your undiscussed rewrite of Jewish views on marriage against all the advice you received to discuss your edits first. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Newman_Luke. Debresser ( talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Newman Luke. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke, where you may want to participate. Avi ( talk) 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I have put a request for information on some footnotes in article erusin. Here is some more detail:
Based on what you have said, your footnotes appear to be split into two categories:
1. Actual sources
2. "Wikified" footnotes taken from the actual source, but that you have not seen yourself.
I would appreciate knowing which category some of the footnotes fall into. I have some specific questions:
1. I assume all quote from the Talmud as category 2. Is this correct?
2. Are all quotes from the Bible category 2?
3. Are all quotes from Hebrew sources category 2? If this is not a good general rule, could you tell me about these sources:
Salomon Rinman, Mas'ot Shelomoh Abraham Danzig, Wisdom of Man Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh Joseph Judah Chorny, Sefer ha-Massa'ot, 1884 (published posthumously) Sefer Taamei haMinhagim
Thank you. I did check the change log, but there was no source information there. I suspect that it is hiding somewhere in the article it was moved from. I have no idea how to find the information.
P.S. This issue has reminded me that I need to be careful about leaving revision comments. I plan to reform in that area. Mzk1 ( talk) 23:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
As a completely uninvolved administrator, I will politely but firmly ask you to "cut it out". Look, appearing at AN/I multiple times, and now a full RFC, should have been warning enough. Your edits against consensus on this particular area of articles has reached a point where sanctions are probably necessary. Consider this a final warning - plain and simple, please back away from the topic or your disruption will receive a block. Jamie S93❤ 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Newman Luke/Zq, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Newman Luke/Zq during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- IZAK ( talk) 05:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Newman Luke: Just a reminder that when nominating articles or categories or anything for deletion, renaming or any sort of changes, the correct and courteous thing to do is to place notices on the talk pages of the creators of those articles or categories etc. I take pride in my editorial work, as I know you do too, yet you failed to inform me of your CfDs. Not only did you nominate Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 25#Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 25#Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel at CfD but you went ahead and added direct criticism of me in those nominations which was uncalled for, violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The categories you nominated have been around since 2006 and no one seems to have had a problem with them, but obviously it is you that feels the need to vent your WP:POV at every twist and turn. I resent your needless attacks on me and I hope you can retain your calm and keep cool with rational discussions that you are very capable at. Please don't lash out at people in violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND all the time. We are NOT at war here! Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely and Happy Purim ! IZAK ( talk) 10:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You filed a complaint against Debresser on 15 February regarding the above article. I closed the 3RR case by protecting the article, with warnings against continued reverts unless consensus was found. I see that you have restored the version that you were promoting during the last edit war, and I would like to know if you have obtained consensus for your recent change. If so, where did the discussion occur, and please name at least one editor who supported your position. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Newman Luke/AV, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/AV and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Newman Luke/AV during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- IZAK ( talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Newman Luke/dDb, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/dDb and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Newman Luke/dDb during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- IZAK ( talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You and your RfC pages have been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
on page Chaim Walkin you've added something about inline citations for the footsnotes. I think I took care of it, wc you please see if now it's ok and if yes to delete this note? thanks. -- Korach ( talk) 12:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Newman Luke. Your statement (including all the collapsed sections which count) totals over 2700 words. The word limit is 500. Please refactor it to within the limit within 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see my earlier warning to you about this article, which was posted here on 25 February. I see that you've once again made a large revert of this article to a version that you like better, but without getting any support for your change on the talk page. I'm issuing a final warning that you must promise to cease edit warring on this article. If you don't, I think there will be a block in your future, either from me or from some other admin, since your other edits of 29 March suggest you've gone back on a war footing. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Whilst familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's noticeboards, I saw your recent creation of WP:OWNING. It certainly is a problem that can happen. I'm curious, is there previous discussion regarding the creation of this noticeboard that I could read up on? ...comments? ~ B F izz 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Ownership alerts, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ownership alerts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ownership alerts during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy ( Help!) 11:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke, the community has enacted a topic-ban on Judaism-related articles. -- Avi ( talk) 05:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#Topic-ban for User:Newman Luke on Judaism-related articles, the community has enacted a mainspace topic ban on Judaism related articles. This means that until such point as the ban is lifted, you may not make changes to articles relating to Judaism topics, although you may make suggestions and comments on the talk pages of those articles. Failure to adhere to the community restrictions may result in measures being taken to protect the project which can include loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 20:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Marriage in the Bible. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage in the Bible. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:Conflated has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)