User talk:IZAK: Difference between revisions

Archives: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10;

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Dear Ram-Man: Thank you for all this information. I will need to give your communication some thought. Best wishes. IZAK 06:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• As do many others. Take as much time as you need and get back to me whenever you'd like. Update: I've updated the original comment, which contains more useful links. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reasonable adjustment to the template I created.

I made a comment here: Template_talk:Biblegateway#Change_in_format. I am not associated with that website, nor am I a great fan of their origins. However, they do an outstanding and well-made range of Christian translations.

I would like to continue with sensitive NPOV contributions on some of the pages where both Jews and Christians have an interest. I declare myself a Christian, but interested in that NPOV!

I hope to see you around. I have found the contributions of yours that I have glanced at to be very valuable. I hope you will come to think the same. — Dizzley (Peter H) 12:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Book of Amos#External links - I hope you like the effect. Dizzley (Peter H)

Oh my. By which, of course, I mean, GOOD FRACKIN LORD. Who comes up with this stuff? I seriously doubt pretty much all of them after John Hyrcanus II...if you look at the list, there are only 2 for whom there exist articles...Caiaphas, who is only attested in the Christian appendage to the Bible, and Theophilus ben Ananus, who is attested somewhat dubiously from the writings of Josephus. The other apparent legitimate Kohen Gadol is Jonathan, except if you actually click on the blue link, it takes you to Yonathan, chaver laMelekh (Davidh). I'm tempted to go put a {{fact}} after each and every one of the peeps in the list. I concur with you...some of these names are not even remotely "Jewish", by which I mean either Hebrew or Aramaic...Antigonus, from Antigone, Ananelus, Aristobulus, Ananelus (restored) = romanized Greek, Joshua ben Fabus...ben WHO? Simon ben Boethus, I assume they mean Shim`on ben Bo`ethya (to make up a name that sounds at least somewhat Hebrew), Mattathias ben Theophilus? Maybe they mean Matithyahu ben Ohavyahu? (WHO?!) Joazar ben Boethus? Who is this Boethus? and then [his brother?] Elazar...followed quickly by Joshua ben Sie [who?] then another pineapple Ananus ben Seth [Ananya ben Sheth perhaps? but still...WHO?!] OMG. I'm not going to go through the other 2/3 of the list, but this is, in a word, without citation, ridiculous. Or, in the words of Suzie Changstein (I believe that was her name in that Seinfeld ep.), "ridicurous". That said, the last one is clearly supposed to be Pinchas ben Shmu`'el.(again, tho, WHO?!) :-p Tomer^TALK 09:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically, since I think that the whole point of the names at the bottom of the list is to function as a kind of Stalking horse for New Testament pseudo-scholars, and has nothing to do with the facts of Jewish history at that time. Go ahead, as it was Clint who said, "make mah day", and dispute the whole darn list for all I care since it's full of "misfabrications". IZAK 09:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What!? Are you axking me to do you all the dirty werks?! :-p Tomer^TALK 11:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I'll start then...watch me go... IZAK 11:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing my dramamine! :-) Tomer^TALK 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh- so it's come to this. Your comments in the discussion have sank to you claiming support of creationist beliefs over evolution science. Firstly this has nothing to do with the article- so there's no point putting it on the discussion page there.

If you want to argue with the science- then bring it on. I'll wait for you and everyone else to bring forth mountains of papers published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals that support your claims. (I've been waiting for a long time now.) If however you want to attack my opinions in the same spirit that you think I've attacked yours... I haven't attacked your beliefs. I haven't denigrated your beliefs. I've repeatedly said that people's beliefs are their own right. It's only when they make pronouncements about the physical testable factual world that I will step in and ask them for proof. Please stop lecturing me about what you think of my beliefs (which you don't know). Oh- and don't insinuate that your religion is being victimized here because people are too scared of Islam. Yeah- right- Islamists are going to look up my IP address and hunt me down. Maybe you'd like to guess my religion? Maybe I'm Islamic, in which case your comments are in incredibly bad taste. Maybe I'm a 'heathen' as you put it- in which case I presumably have no right to edit religious Wikipedia pages.

The most ridiculous thing is that we actually helped put together a reasonably unbiased page. There's really little need for insulting me- telling me that I've 'trivialized' concepts etc.

I think you need to take a chill pill. I'm going to leave by thanking you for the work on the article and on Wikipedia in general.Christianjb 12:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Christianjb: Please do not misconstrue my "methodology", I just enjoy trying to look at different aspects of subjects, that's all. And I do agree with you that the Red string (Kabbalah) article is not that bad after all. I really enjoy having a top-notch dialogue with you. Thanks again. IZAK 03:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made a kind of sloppy edit at Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi. I did my best to fix it to what I think was your intention, but you should have a look and see if the result is what you meant to do. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes thanks, you did the right thing. IZAK 03:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this; an anonymous editor is insisting on adding the term "Anti-Semite", thus claiming that is a political epithet, rather than a description of someone who hates Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I looked, but couldn't find it. Seems it's not on the list so far. IZAK 03:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Noachian Law and its AFD. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have voted to delete it. IZAK 03:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davidic line could use your input again. The BUPC section is based on a very, very poor source as outlined on the talk page, as you are probably aware. If I delete this section I'll be called partisan — even if wikipedia policies are clear. Thanks, MARussellPESE 14:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I will seek your input before adding categories on new articles in this area, that way you can take a look at the article itself, if you have time. With respect to the Get articles, please note my comments on those articles talk pages at Talk: Get (divorce document). Please note that the categories for Get (conflict), the categories were (and still are) International law‬ and ‪Law‬. It did not come up when I looked at the Jewish article categories. As I noted at Talk:Get (divorce document), I simply did not notice the existence of Get (conflict) and, although it is listed in the Get disambiguation page, the reference is ambiguous. I simply missed it. Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS please feel free to use the list of articles on my talk page for your review of categories. Joaquin Murietta 15:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Judah ben Baba and feel free to edit the categories. Thanks Joaquin Murietta 16:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Joaquin: I looked and Category:Mishnah rabbis is correct. Keep up the good work. IZAK 02:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion re: Judea & Samaria vs. WB at Template talk:Israelis. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Right now I am working on updating the List of political parties in Israel (lot's of old parties were left out), and working to improve Category:Political parties in Israel, where I have also started Category:Defunct political parties in Israel. All this has been an outgrowth of my work on the new party Kadima, so that people can perhaps comprehend that Israeli political parties basically "mutate", they never stand still and that Israeli politicians have always been carving out and reshaping new political parties and alliances. So what Sharon and Peres are doing right now is actually an old "Israeli Middle Eastern political trick" that may surprize people not familiar with the fluidity of Israeli "party" politics, but has always been a "stock in trade" of the elite Israeli power-brokers. IZAK 10:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am being harassed by User Eliezer, who keeps making personal attacks on me, is accusing other Wikipeida contributors of attempting to "shock" and deceive readers of our articles, is making outrageous lies about my editing, and is unilaterally reverting a consensus version of an article to one which pushes his own religious belief system. For almost a year I have tried to work with him, along with JayJg and JFW, but Eliezer shows no sign of stopping his religious tirade.

Eliezer is now trying to ban me from Wikipedia by flat-out lying. He is making outrageous baldfaced lies, such as (a) I am writing under sockpuppets, and (b) that I am making more than three reversions in a single day. In point of fact (a) I use no sock puppets, and I proudly sign the discussion page of each article, and (b) two reverts is not more than three. Eliezer has become unhinged in his outrageous dishonesty. RK 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer's latest violations of Wikipedia policy are thus:

• Doing multiple reverts of an article that had a stable consensus state, and then flat out denies that he had done so, even though the edit history clearly shows this.

• Making false accusations that I am editing Wikipedia under some kind of "sockpuppet", a bizarre and obviously false lie. In fact, despite using multiple computers, I take pains to sign in and use my username, RK.

• "Outing" Wikipedia members who edit under anonymous usernames by broadcasting their real names in the article Discussion pages. This is a gross breach of Wikipedia protocol.

• Lying about the status of an important researcher in the field of the disputed subject. (Eliezer keeps retitling Rabbi Professor David Beger and Mr. Berger, which is not only misleading, but also considered a gross and delibertae insult in the Jewish community.

• Inserting attacks questioning academic and Orthodox Jewish authorities whose view of Chabad theology differs from his own. When discussing the new forms of theology developing within Chabad, Eliezer refuses to allow various POVs to be shown in accord with our NPOV policy. Rather, his edit censors multiple academic and Orthodox voices, and replaces all of their POvs with the slur "While the term received little attention at the time, it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources." Please see the article to see the full context. Eliezer is stating that academic and Orthodox Jews who disagree with messianic Chabad beliefs are deceiving their readers by shocking them, and not letting them know that such beliefs are (in Eliezer's view) standard theology. Of course, how could anyone know, since his edits cut out many quotes and sources....all with an array of POVs that Eliezer apparently does not want our readers to be exposed to. RK

For example, Eliezer write "I would like to make a note here about the use of sockpuppets by RK to circumvent his restrictions in editing Judaism related articles. He is 66.155.200.129. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Well, that's just bizarre. Please see the page in question, Chabad, which I sign with my username all the time. In fact, my name is all over that page, explaining my edits. There is simply no way that Eliezer can claim that I am trying to hide my User ID identity. He's just out of control. RK 20:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• RK: Certainly some of the points you mention are truly objectionable. He actually "outs" people? That's really disgusting. All I can say or advise, in Wikipedia parlance, is the following, (otherwise it's like chasing "ghosts" and going nowhere by "marching in place"):

1. You are definitely having a serious problem with Eliezer' Wikipedia:Etiquette to say the least,
2. you need to look towards Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and
3. you can either look into Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or
4. you can aim for Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RFC) and from there,
5. make it a case for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (See also Wikipedia:Arbitration policy) about a "final" ruling.

It is time for you to decide to follow the above process, which will allow other people to look into this in a methodical fashion, rather than running around in circles as is happening at the present time. Sincerely, IZAK 06:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About this subject of "outing" people. He was already "outed by himself and many others. Many times he signs his name with his username and real name. See the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Old_mediation_requests http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/006096.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/006959.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-April.txt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-December/026001.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-July/013966.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009209.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January.txt

• Firstly, please sign any comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that it's clear to whom comments belong. Secondly, while some people may know who "RK" may be, his name should not be mentioned in full if it makes him upset, so no need to mention his name when it is obviously used as a form of personal attack. Thirdly, the question is not so much about who "RK" is, because he is quite well know on Wikipedia since he is one of the oldest and most active editors for a long time but rather is Eliezer "outing" other users on Wikipedia who do not wish to have their own names splashed around? Finally, why are things sinking to such a low level of silliness and babyishness at this time? IZAK 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that not just many people know who he was, but he himself signed his name with his username followed by his real name. I only brought that to bring a proof from his own words about how his and everyone elses silence on the version that was sitting there for a few months that they agreed with it and that there was consensus. I have nothing personal against RK, and now that I have seen how much it has affected him, I won't "splash" it around. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left the following comment on Nandesuka's page. Regarding your comments to chabad. I have to admit I am not the best writer. However when speaking about reverting to a better written version you must take into account, whether this better written version is accurate and in a NPOV. I would like to ask for your help in improving the chabad article from a grammatical view. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Eliezer: I always enjoy editing the articles and trying to establish good English usage. Thanks for your confidence in me. IZAK 07:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry IZAK, unless its a regular vandalism, I won't be much help there. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the article is a mess, but I don't have any experience in the geography or politics of Israel. I'm more knowledgeable about hashkafa, halacha and Jewish texts. Yoninah 10:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for trying, the problem is that one-time User:Fulani made some weird changes [1] which I have reverted for now. Thanks for looking into this. IZAK 10:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I tried to tidy up that article. I moved it to Maalot-Tarshikha and moddeled it on the article Kaaba (where no odd symbols are in the article title). Please check it, as I don't know much about Israeli cities. Izehar 10:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, I just wonder what User Gilgamesh will say? IZAK 10:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh has been pushing for "scholarly" transliterations of Hebrew names on the grounds that Hebrew is important to Christianity and Islam. Why he is renaming Israeli villages remains a mystery. The only person who would want to look up Maalot-Tarshikha is someone who is likely to visit it. They will want to know how it is pronounced, not how stuffy academics write it. You did notice that his version did not include a simple transliteration. I'd like to know what relevance Maalot-Tarshikha has to Christianity and Islam that warrants its renaming. Izehar 10:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's not such a tough question, Gilgamesh likes the idea of a combined name "Israel-Palestine", I guess he supports the "one state idea" which would then be majority Arab (not nice for the Jews, but he would probably not lose sleep over it.) In the past he in fact tried to put all the towns and cities of Israel into a new category called "Israel-Palestine" and we had to stop him and make him put them back into Category:Geography of Israel. In fact he wrote the short article Israel-Palestine in July 2004, and you can read the debates I had with him then at Talk:Israel-Palestine about that subject. Recently, he got a new "brain-wave" and created Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations which is a way of getting his pet subjects "in through the back door" by creating pro-Arab categories (they are certainly not pro-Israeli!). Imagine if someone created Category:Arab cities with prior significant Jewish populations? He also does not like the idea that Hebrew belongs to the Jews as a language, he prefers inventions from professors' theories about Canaanite languages, see my debates with him also in July 2004 at Talk:Canaanite languages and at Talk:Modern Hebrew language#Do Gilgamesh and Mustafa "own" Hebrew on Wikipedia? and continuing at Talk:Hebrew languages. Gilgamesh is also a very proud Mormon and one wonders if that has anything to do with his desire to inject himself into every discussion that involves the holy Hebrew language of the Jews? (He in fact gets upset when the word "Mormons" is used and tells evryone to use "Latter Day Saints" -- so what if some people don't regard them as "saints"?) How would he react I wonder, if Jews got involved in every issue and reference concerning the language used by the Mormons in their religious texts, writings and utterrances? More people should become aware of this. IZAK 11:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Mormon? Don't they use the phrase "House of Israel" to refer to themselves (!) and claim to be descendents of the ancient Israelites? You may want to read Mormonism and Judaism#Mormonism to gain a fuller perspective. Anyway, we are having a registered straw poll on Talk:Maalot-Tarshikha#Requested move to move it to the neutral name. Please vote. Izehar 12:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK...you do not listen. I do not support the "one-state idea", because nationalist politics leave a terrible taste in my mouth. I only believe that everyone has the right and dignity to settle where they wish. Hell, Jews should have every right to settle on the East Bank if they wish, or wherever. As for "Israel-Palestine", it is a discussion term designed specifically to avoid giving preference to either idea when referring to the whole of both regions. Saying only "Israel" will offend some, and only "Palestine" will offend others, and terms like "Canaan", "Levant" and "Holy Land" are ambiguous and don't refer specifically to this area, and that's why some people say "Israel-Palestine", to avoid this whole messy, icky and fully disgusting conflict that shouldn't ever have to be to begin with, because I can never fully respect anyone's solution to a disagreement that does not include peaceful pluralistic coexistence. Personally, I have every wish in the world for Israel to survive and thrive as much as possible, in all its various cultures, especially the world's Jews and Samaritans. They are blessed human beings and, as with the rest of humanity, deserve peace and prosperity. Also, as for "proud Mormon"... I won't deny the religious affiliation, nor my tribe, but it's not a proud affiliation. For one thing, I regard pride as a vice—I am an imperfect being and I strive for humility, and to better myself, and be a kind and decent person to those around me. For another thing, I am totally gay, and I often find myself ostracized in most Mormon cultures, and I'd almost surely be lynched almost anywhere in the Arab world. But as someone who receives a huge amount of persecution and harassment myself, I find myself more addressing of people's concerns when and where they seem legitimate on the surface. And the condition of Arab citizen populations in Israel is a subject many people are interested in. As legal citizens in a state whose second official language is Arabic, they are considered significant enough for even the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics to record them in special context. And if they go to that much effort, why not we? It seems a very encyclopedic topic. As for my involvement in Jewish studies, I actually do have quite a few good Jewish friends, though most are Reform Jews, and only one lives in Israel (in Ra'anana). I also have Christian friends, Muslim friends, Buddhist friends, and even avowed atheist friends, but one thing that makes us all the same is that we're all human beings, equal to one another. When we cannot agree about everything, it is inevitably far more productive to set aside differences and cooperate and find ways to respect other people. It really does not help to make accusations against people one does not even know well. Most of the time, when people launch personal attacks at me, I ignore it, because I figure it's not worth my energy. But if it never stops, it really takes the energy and academic enthusiasm out of editing. Please...just put an end to it—I really hate getting into arguments over a person's character, and I'd still prefer not to, but this just cannot go on forever. I follow science. In an encyclopedic context, I will always follow the scientific method and established empirical scientific fact. Subjects such as the Canaanite languages are scientific orthodoxy, accepted by the scientific community worldwide, including accredited university-trained linguists in Israel itself. Now, I have a suggestion. You focus on your strengths—documenting the traditions and disciplines of your creed. And I will focus on my strengths—the collection and dissemination of scientific canon. They will all find a place here. - Gilgamesh 12:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh: One thing I will say though, is that you are a GOOD SPORT and unbelievabley hard-working! It seems every six months or so, maybe longer now, we bump into each other on Wikipedia, yet we are still around to keep the debates going. By the way, you may want to consider joining Reform Judaism as they seem to have adopted a totally pro-gay agenda, see Same Gender Officiation A Statement by Rabbi Eric Yoffie Greensboro, NC March 29, 2000 and Reform Head Blasts Right For 'Bigotry,' 'Blasphemy' By Jennifer Siegel November 25, 2005 Take it easy. IZAK 12:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...I do appreciate that acknowledgment. So please, won't you give me reasonable credit? I hate scuffles like this. Anyway, I'm thinking of joining Affirmation, an LDS LGBT support group that resists the Church organization's hardline stance and the prevailing culture's antipathy towards all things LGBT. As for Judaism...if I understand it, I can be simply Israel, but I cannot formally be recognized a Jew with the things I believe in. Besides, though I have a great deal of interest in Jewish studies (and read up all the time), I have a greater interest in Samaritan studies, but Samaritan academic materials are much harder to come by because of the culture's small size and obscurity. - Gilgamesh 13:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh: I just figured that for someone like yourself, with your vast knowledge of the Hebrew language and its intricacies, added to your in-depth knowledge of the Tanakh (in it's original language yet!), and your very obvious devotion to Jewish studies all the time, that you are only a few short steps away from becoming a Ger tzedek? However your statement that "As for Judaism...if I understand it, I can be simply Israel" is not correct. Perhaps according to your belief-system you may think of yourself as an "Israel", but according to classical Judaism, if someone is not Jewish then they ought to adhere to the Seven Noahide Laws but that does not make them into type of "Israel" in any way. IZAK 04:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, I figured it might differ between Jewish sects. I don't remember the exact details. - Gilgamesh 05:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, IZAK? Look at the edit history of Ma'alot-Tarshiha and see who added the template requesting that the article be renamed. Go ahead. - Gilgamesh 13:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh: I did, and I know you put in some good work there. IZAK 04:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I significantly added data to the main article - please review to ensure NPOV, since it has the potential to start another Israeli-Palestinian revert war... Regarding the transliteration, I refer you to the article's talk page were I mentioned that the transliteration is not a matter of "scholarly" transliterations, but an official set of rules (set by the British during their Mandate period). Until it changes officially (together with all road signs etc., we Wikipedia should stick to the official version. Best, altmany 15:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, I am supporting your proposed deletion of Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations. I vote delete. I really had no idea it could be a racist issue or a political minefield, but then an autist can rarely see these things, as my theory of mind is radically different and often mutually alien from that of neurotypicals. I mean, I always regarded Arab Israeli cities and mixed cities with esteem, if they can live peacefully in Israeli society without a constant insurrection. Far from being a sign of racism, I thought their special mention would be seen as examples of peaceful coexistence worth documenting. I mean, what's seriously not to like about a multicultural and bilingual Haifa, Yafo, Lod, Tiberias? You couldn't easily say the same of areas under PA administration, where anyone rumored as or seen as a "collaborator" is bound to be lynched on the spot. If the category is racist, then it is because the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics made the approach seem inappropriately overimportant and I don't always easily read between the lines. - Gilgamesh 21:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Gilgamesh, thanks for your serious response. I know you mean well, but I hope that over the years here on Wikipedia you have become a little more sensitized to Jewish and Israeli "sensibilities" (and by this I don't mean to any type of "POV") because there are some "hot button" issues that are guaranteed to perk up their antennae if topics near and dear to their hearts and minds are mishandled. And I will say to you again, as an example, that both as a Jew and as an editor, I would not dream or dare to creep into articles devoted to Category:Mormonism which I know mean so much to you, and start potentially controversial articles and categories (even if backed up by outside scholarship) in areas that I know are very sensitive and would trigger vituperative counter-responses. Even though Wikipedia encourges the notion of "be bold" but that should never mean one check's common sense at the door the instant you log onto Wikipedia to edit and write articles in any field. IZAK 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh...well, autists do not have "common sense" in the way neurotypicals understand it. An autist's common sense is very different, and autists and neurotypicals cannot always intuitively understand each other's reasonings. However, since I as an autist am in the minority theory of mind in this world, I always try to figure out the neurotypical theory of mind and work with it where I can. I also try to educate neurotypicals about my theory of mind—to the best of my ability—so they can work with mine. Communication is the key. - Gilgamesh 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I've finished turning the List of cities in Israel into columnular form, and an idea struck me which I would like your (and Gilgamesh's, and others') feedback on before I do it. Please see Talk:List_of_cities_in_Israel D'n 05:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, got your note. Thanks for taking the time to write; it's appreciated. First, I'm concerned that you may be getting an unclear picture of me based on a few articles. I have an interest in Haredi Judaism and its personalities and try to keep updated of what's going on in that sector. I haven't been posting controversial stuff for muck-raking's sake, but rather out of a desire to make the articles more complete. Furthermore, I think you may have misinterpreted my intent in my added information to the Eliashiv article; all I wanted to do there was to demonstrate to people that may not have had much knowledge about Eliashiv that he had a varying range of opinions/rulings and that it was hard to "pin him down"- to this end, the (what I considered significant) tidbits about him ruling Sharon was not a rodef. Ditto for the Greenberg anecdote, which I can't decide was objectionable because it was originally private (certainly no longer, as per the link I provided), or because it could be construed as him giving him support to homosexuality (which, after all, is not what he says, either). Being a new contributor, I'm fully willing to admit that I might need more experience in determining what's worthy of being included or not. That said, I'm a little unclear on whether you're taking issue with material being controversial, untrue, or simply unflattering. Anyway, my intention is not to offend or attack, but merely to help contribute. I'd respectfully ask for your patience, and maybe a little advice. Regards, and thanks again. ShalomShlomo 10:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ShalomShlomo: Thanks for your comments. Yes, it's smart to worry about putting in stuff that smacks of "muck-raking" but it's noticable that you are willing to contribute important information. One should weigh the kind of information and facts that are to be inserted into any article and the way that words and ideas are phrased to avoid not just "POV" but also the "appearance of POV", as in the notion of "justice should not only be done, it should appear to be done!" Please feel free to call on me. Rav Eliashiv is not a man of many words and you are putting too much into his mouth and blowing things out of proportion by attributing little disjointed scraps to him. The question with "rodef" is that you are "quoting" him for what he did not say, as if not saying something by "ommision" is worthy of a "quote", which it is not. With Greenberg, it in no way means that Rav Eliashiv condones homosexuality because he may have said something unusual in a personal discussion with Greenberg (regardless if Greenberg then goes and writes it up on the Internet -- we will never know if it's true or not because Rav Eliashiv won't tell anyone what he told Greenberg). Best wishes with your work. IZAK 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • IZAK: My intent with the rodef comment was meant to contextualize Eliashiv's "middle-ground" position in the Orthodox world; that while some others may have said Sharon was a rodef or like a rodef, it had been made public (albeit indirectly, via the interview with the other rabbi) that Eliashiv had said he was not. In other words, I was trying to quote him as saying, "Sharon is NOT a rodef", as opposed to quoting him as NOT saying Sharon was a rodef. Does that make sense? I feel that his negative ruling on Sharon's rodef status is probably something worth mentioning, but I'm interested in your thoughts. Maybe it's a question of phrasing? As far as Greenberg- I agree with your comments there. I wrote a new version of this (after checking his book for the complete text) and put it on Greenberg's page, as it makes more sense there. I also added some context to try and emphasize why I thought the anecdote, if accurate, is significant. Feel free to take a look. Thanks for the advice; it's appreciated. ShalomShlomo 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Shalom: Obviously, if Rav Aliashiv gave the green light for his party Degel HaTorah to support and be a part of Sharon's government he did not think of Sharon as a "rodef". For that matter, it was not rabbis from Rav Eliashiv's camp that would have called Rabin a "rodef" either because they just don't talk in those terms and they do not incite anyone to violence. On the contrary, they would hold that it is the "victims", i.e. the Haredi Jews themselves, as was the case with forbidding Haredi girls to join the army, who should sacrifice their own lives (yehareg ve'al ya'avor) rather than transgress a decree of the rabbis. It is only some rabbis from the National Religious camp that talk in those terms, in a "sermonic" fashion, but it's very doubtful they want anyone to act on those words, even though people think Amir acted on the "advice" of rabbis, he did NOT! Orthodox Judaism is very subtle, but it does not incite to violence and certainly never to kill, it's just unthinkable! It's not a case of "fanatics" running around screaming crazy things, certainly not the rabbinic leadership, and certainly not Rav Eliashiv who basically never speaks in public. One must tread with caution here. IZAK 12:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on ShalomShlomo's talk page concerning CITE. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK - you seem to be confused about what is happening at SFD. No-one is talking about getting rid of the template and category, simply renaming them to be in line with the stub naming conventions. All that means is that {{JewHist-stub}} and Category:Jewish history-related stubs would become {{Jewish-hist-stub}} and Category:Jewish history stubs. It would be a bit silly having this category as "xxx-related stubs" when all the others are "xxx stubs" (which they will be within a week), or having "JewHist-stub" when all other history stub subcategory templates are of the form xxx-hist-stub. I'd ask you to please reconsider your vote. Grutness...wha? 11:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the explanation Grutness, I now see what you are saying and agree with you. IZAK 11:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at Talk:Kaddish, specifically, my translation of lines 29-31? Artscroll doesn't have an English or interlingual siddur for nusaḥ eiðoþ hamizraḥ, and I don't have an aramaic dictionary... Thanks. Tomer^talk 07:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Tomer old chap, how, as a regular Jewish human, am I supposed to know what "nusaḥ eiðoþ hamizraḥ" is in the first place??? (You think we all went to weirdo letter-writing school or som'n ???) IZAK 07:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For you, I'll make it "nusach eidos hamizrach".  :-) Tomer^talk 08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • senk u veri mutz! By the way, jnothman just beat me to it, but I did add in my own changes. IZAK 08:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I've been refreshing the page pathologically waiting for you to step in. ;-) I'm going to bed now I think... ttyl. Tomer^talk 08:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, you do know what happened on the 7th of December right? Sleep tight... IZAK 08:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what to make of it... Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's "odd". I edited it a bit, but it should prolly be merged into about half a dozen other articles and redirected to Sephardi. Tomer^talk 00:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a vote on at Talk:Mormon views about Mormonism and Judaism#Name change. Just thought you should know. Izehar (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A user has repeatedly added this quote: [2]

Following the the war (and most notably during and after the trial of Adolf Eichmann) the mufti's role and the extent of his influence with the Nazis were inflated in what historian Idith Zertal describes as "a landmark in the process of the organized, explicit mobilization of the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy, especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict". Zertal continues: "The transference of the Holocaust situation on to the Middle East reality, which harsh and hostile to Israel as it was, was of a totally different kind, not only created a false sense of the imminent danger of mass destruction. It also immensely distorted the image of the Holocaust, dwarfing the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, trivializing the unique agony of the victims and the survivors, and utterly demonizing the Arabs and their leaders."

• I pointed out to him that this is predicated on three unverified premises:
  • a) The Mufti's Nazi-ties were exaggerated after the war.
  • b) This was done by Jews/Zionists to further their malign aims, by gaining sympathy.
  • c) There is a campaign to "explicitly mobilize the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy."
• I put it to him that before he can add such a POV quote to the article he must provide the writers answers to how, where and when this was done and not just the why (to gain sympathy by abusing the memory of the holocaust. jucifer 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jucifer: In this instance I happen to agree with you, he is espousing historical revisionism. The Mufti was an evil man who did not need "Zionists" to "bolster" his Jew-hating "credentials". On another front I do not agree with your editing-out material relating to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson in the articles about Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik and Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner -- the three of them had a historical long-standing inter-personal friendship and theological rivarly going back to their days as Eastern European Torah geniuses who spent time studying in Berlin, a universally known fact. So why nit-pick? It just makes you look like you are "out to get" Rabbi Schneerson (with your own POV agenda), a rather pointles and counter-productice undertaking for anyone IZAK 09:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, Thanks for your good work, and thanks for your kind note on Portal:Judaism. I would be happy to contribute to the weekly parshah. Do you currently add the new section each week? Do you know what sources go into the material? Thanks for your guidance. Dauster 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Dauster: Thanks for your message. I traverse over a broad range of Jewish issues on Wikipedia and I am so impressed that someone is finally working on the Parsha project which has been an on-again-off-again project. Feel free to keep adding, I am sure that once others notice it, it will catch on, and people will add to it. In working to put content into Portal:Judaism I noticed your work in the Parsha area so I wanted to call on you to "keep an eye out" and change the Parsha section early each week, like say on every Sunday, if possible so that the over-all presentations on the Portal:Judaism keep current, and it's good to share responsibilities with so much going on all over Wikipedia. I only deal with the subjects in Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism and I am never able to keep track of my own "watchlist", let alone head into "virgin territory" all the time, so that's why I left you the note to help with Parsha on Portal:Judaism each week. Be well and Shabbat Shalom to you and yours! IZAK 12:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Izak: Thanks. I will change the parshah item regularly Sunday evenings (Eastern US time). It will be a pleasure. And congrats again on your good work. Shabbat Shalom to you and yours, as well. Dauster 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the edits to Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the discussion on the talk page and please give your input. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Eliezer: I have tried to make User:Juicifer aware that it is counter-productive to adopt a hostile attitude to important Orthodox Jewish leaders. See my comments to her above at User talk:IZAK #Quote added by Ian Pitchford. Still, you will need to watch those articles that you know to be of great importance. Best wishes. IZAK 04:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked out other District of X`s (referring to districts of Palestine before 1948), but in District of Acre I'm having a revert war with someone who claims that In 1948, as a result of both the rejection of the 1947_UN_Partition_Plan by the Jewish settlers in Palestine, among other things. Because I'm in the army now, I've really got no time for this, although I did add a few links and words that might help appease the other editor. Please take a look :) Thanks. -- Ynhockey 08:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK. There seems to be some issues at present involving people continuously changing and reverting the article on Aaron Teitelbaum. I've reverted the page and tried to incorporate some of the other contributors' changes, but if it keeps up, maybe you could step in. Thanks. ShalomShlomo 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Het and Khaf actually have different sounds, though few Ashkenazim distinguish them - ideally Wikipedia should try to be consistent in this, though it rarely is (see Challah and Chametz). In any event, I'm not sure why it would be difficult to simply move the articles back where they came from - is there some issue with that? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jay: I am not talking about the "Het" and "Khaf" issue. I am not disputing usage of "Khaf". I'm talking about the usage of Het for Hakham here as in "Hanukkah, Humash, Hazzan, Hivites, Horites, Hebron, Hermon, Horeb, Habakkuk, Ham, Hur, Heshbon etc". My point is that once an article has been set up with a "H", then it should be left that way, even though some articles also have the "Ch" as a first letter -- otherwise it becomes a free-for-all and some people will change things one way and others will change them another way, since there is no clear-cut policy about these things. The reason I am asking for your help is that even though one can easily do a "cut and paste" job of re-directing the article back, but with that method the edit-history of the article gets lost in the proces which makes a lot of people upset, so the correct thing to do is to ask for the help of an admin to revert the article back without the loss of that article's edit history. Best wishes, IZAK 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't understand why you or he don't simply use the "move" function to move the article back to the original name? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just followed your advice and presto!... because in the past a red-lettered message would come up "this page already exists please ask an admin to move it." I guess that with all the latest upgrades in the Wiki soft-ware around here lately I was not aware of this possibility. Thanks again. IZAK 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IZAK! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D

Tomer^talk

• You're welcome! Keep up the good work. IZAK 14:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IZAK, mah nishma?

I was wondering if you could summerize the discussion currently going on. I'll be honest, there was a lot being flung around and it was a bit hard to follow all of it. I would definitely like to vote, because I'm clearly opinionated in the matter ;) but as the discussion stands it's unclear on who's voting on what. More specifically, what the options are aside from Keep or Delete. PS, On a side note, remind me to ask you about Jewish/Israeli music later... or maybe just writing this down will be enough. --Hersch 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Hersch: Yes it is getting a little confusing. The Delete vote is to remove Category:Hebrew Bible because there already exists Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. The guy who recently created Category:Hebrew Bible does not want the word "Tanakh" in the category's name. So to vote to Delete Category:Hebrew Bible means that the Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh will stay -- and that is my vote (meaning I am voting to Delete the new category). Those people who are voting Keep are saying that they prefer to have Category:Hebrew Bible without the word "/Tanakh" in the category's name. I hope this explains things to you a bit. Keep in touch. IZAK 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK, would you apply the same reasoning to categories Slovak and Serbian inventors (which were created by the nominator of this afd)? They are both in my opinion only of usefulness to bolster national or ethnic pride. I don't look for inventors by nationality, I look for them by subject area. Regards Arniep 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Arniep: My areas of interest and work are in the fields of Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism so I am not getting involved in articles or issues outside of these. In the case of "Lists" and "Categories" for and about Jews I am now firmly against them. I think it's fine to cite a few examples or to have some VERY restricted lists but things have gotten out of hand and some people are creating the craziest lists and categories for Jews that have absolutely no scholarly, intellectaul, or human value. It's more of an obsession than a work of knowledge. If it's a vote on Wikipedia policy I would vote there, but I am not getting involved with subjects and people about which I am not an expert. Please stay in touch. IZAK 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed them, hope they're ok now. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. IZAK 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather interesting vote on at Talk:Jesus#VOTE: BC/AD vs BC/BCE. Just thought you should know. Izehar (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion and vote page are here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm being accused of ethnocentricity by Irishpunktom (pot and kettle?) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know how to write Hebrew on Wikipedia? I'm trying to write Lekhah Dodi, but there's a terrible bug I can't get around - I used to be able to, that's how I wrote Ein Keloheinu and Aleinu. Something's changed and I can't get around it anymore: I can't place breaks and punctuation in the right place. Do you know a way around this? Izehar (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not insert that much Hebrew into articles so I am not aware of the problem (yet). These users know a lot about Hebrew usage on Wikipedia: User:Gilgamesh (he has created a whole number of new templates); User:Jfdwolff (he used to have some Hebrew alphabet lists; User:El_C (knows Hebrew); User:Woggly (is a Hebrew-English translator); User:TShilo12 (has technical knowledge); User:Hoziron (inserts Hebrew); and these are users who are also sysops on the Israeli Wikipedia User:SHASHAZ & User:Almog. Best wishes. IZAK 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, please look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin2. Thanks IZAK 04:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked earlier when Jayjg emailed me and asked me to look. I have had no involvement in the matter, so it would take considerable research before I could endorse either side in good faith. It seems like there is a strong consensus in her favor so that my endorsement of either side would not matter much. Consequently, I'd expect that time investigating this would be time poorly spent. If you think I'm wrong, leave me an explanatory note on my talk. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point all I wanted to do is bring the matter to your attention. I respect whatever approach you adopt in this case. IZAK 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Been lurking for several months now. Became a (beneficially) aggressive newbie several days ago. I understan that you are one of the "old salts" in the Judaism department. I would appreciate some input from you on my various projects. They're listed on my user page. Daykart 09:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Daykart (Descartes?) I am actually reviewing your contributions to Jewish related topics right now. One important piece of advice: Do NOT rush to create all sorts of junky categories because if they are basically useless they will be nominated for deletion very quickly. Hope you enjoy Wikipedia and I hope you do not come here with an axe to grind against Lubavitch in some strange way just for fun (and I am not a Lubavitcher by any span of the imagination), it's like wasting your breath, man. Try being positive. IZAK 09:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, How come you didn't tell me here what you told User:Rooster613?: "I am an anarchist and a former Lubavitcher. I'd appreciate if you'd have a look-see at my recent major contributions, they're listed on my userpage. Also, I'm willing to assist with any articles related to Yiddish, Chassidus, or Kisvei Koidesh." [3], sounds to me like you need to cool your heels some more ... IZAK 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have an anti-Cartesian philosophy. I've been lurking for quite a while and have pretty much figured out the rules. I don't have a crazy axe to grind. I got all the axe-grinding out of my system with my minor vandalism. I attempt to stick to NPOV at all times, but we are all products of our conditioning. I'm honest, though; If I suspect that my writing is partial to one point of view, I will notify others. As for the categories, I feel that a category with more than twenty articles is overcluttered. That's just my sentiment though. Daykart 10:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment about your last point: You are mistaken, categories are designed to include hundreds of articles, the purpose of categories is to bring together scattered information so if you are now going to start splintering up categories then you are defeating the purpose of the categories in the first place. Twenty articles can all be linked together in a string of "See also(s)" on their pages, but categories are here to unite many more articles (hundreds actually) and sub-categories under one roof. So I strongly disagree with your view and I will be on the lookout to stop you from creating mini-categories that are of no use because they are functionally disconnected from other important categories and articles that they need to be connected to. IZAK 10:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to keep a lookout, I understand your point. Daykart 10:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually there will always be exceptions, see for example the few people in the Category:Hasidic rebbes (because we can't manufacture more rebbes than actually existed), but eventually the "rebbes" categories will be sub-categories of much larger categories about each individual Category dealing with each respective Chasidus or subject. As long as we create categories that will be functional, that is the important thing, and to split them up merely because we "don't like more than 20 articles in them" is not a good enough reason to start new ones. IZAK 11:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Although on a lighter note, I'm sure there are some folks out there who would love to be able to manufacture another rebbe. Daykart 11:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, in that vein, Boro Park has manufactured so many new rebbelach up and down every block it's pashut dizzying. But I was referring earlier to zeir groise rebbes. I must go to sleep now... IZAK 11:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, I wonder if the Liozhner is worthy of an article. Daykart 11:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just messing around with userboxes. Apparently, there are only three self-identified native speakers of Yiddish here. Can you help me out? Sometimes I see Yiddish rendered in YIVO orthography and sometimes in standard Hungarian. Is there a setting I can tweak to have it always show up in standard Hungarian orthography? Daykart 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so it is you that made the R' Hutner article! if i were you, i would double-check the information because i asked a rav about some of the things i read there and he said they were inaccurate. thanks! 4.234.230.45 El_C 04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, I am not sure who is addressing me, an anonymous user or El_C?, why doesn't the anonymous user get a regular Wikipedia user name? Secondly, it is true that I began the article a long time ago, but if you will examine the article's edit history you will see that many other editors have contributed much to it. Thirdly, if there is anything in the article that you have difficulties with then please feel free to discuss them on the article's talk page. Fourthly, you cannot just pop out of thin air and holler in a semi-accusatory tone into the cyber-air that you spoke to a "rav" (what is the name of this "rav" please?) and what is that supposed to mean exactly, some sort of threat? Finally, there have been so many articles and publications written about Rav Hutner that far exceed anything that is in the Wikipedia article about him, and that can be used as references if need be. Feel free to stay in touch and let me have your thoughts. IZAK 06:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not moi, I just moved the comment from your userpage. Best, El_C 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea El_C, I already figured that out. Sorry. Thanks. IZAK 06:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you comment on Talk:Parsha? --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 09:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, yes, I have "commented" there now. Stay in touch. Thanks. IZAK

Hey IZAK! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Eliezer: You are more than welcome! Sol zein mit glik und hatzlachah mit brachah, Amen! IZAK 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Izak, someone named Fischersc is going around adding a new Category:Old Testament people to all the Avos and Imahos pages (maybe more). Should this category be changed to Category:Tanakh people? Yoninah 09:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen this, and the way he is doing it does look almost like vandalism. However, it's not that simple, because to Christians, the people in the Tanakh are indeed "Old Testament people". Please ask the following three admins as to what they think: User:Jfdwolff; User:Jayjg; and User:Eliezer, because they all have excellent Torah standards and they are Wikipedia admins as well, so they would have a good sense how to balance this subject of "Tanakh vs. Old Testament". Please let me know what they say. Thank you and please call on me at any time. IZAK 05:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be duplicates of pre-existing Tanakh categories. They should probably be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of it, IZAK. I'll do the same if I see that Old Testament people category pop up on other pages. Yoninah 16:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I interlangued at Category:Jewish texts, is this OK? but what is "aron hasspharim yehudhi" (Jewish texts box)? --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 09:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, this seems correct. IZAK 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also: Jacob Neusner - how to read?([noisner]/[noizner]?) and where is his birthpace? --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 15:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• His name is pronounced "noizner" (he is still alive and famous and I have heard his name pronounced that way.) IZAK 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Do you know the full name and birth place, birth year/date of Baron Rosen(Rosen)? Please see David Günzburg. --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 00:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, I looked into this, but sorry, this is too much of an obscure topic, and I know nothing about it, and I doubt if there are any people on Wikipedia who would know. Try doing a search on Google is the best advice I can give you, unless you want to make a trip to the Library of Congress. Why are you into this weird stuff and why are you so obsessed with (mostly archaic) Jewish surnames of all things? IZAK 11:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 18:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, please add a source for this photo. Thuresson 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, isn't it part of {{NowCommonsThis}} ? Thanks. IZAK 05:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you write the hebrew letter to Piyyut page with nquddah, daghesh (like addir hu), hebrew languages link (like lkhah dodhi)? --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 18:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew you are Yiddish native speaker, but where is birthplace? And also Polish User:Halibutt wrote Yiddish on my talk page. all man can speak yiddish, Azoy gut, ikh iberrosht zayn! (confused english and yiddish) --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 18:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• What mumbu-jumbo is this? What do I have to do with User:Halibutt? Half the time I have to decifer what you are trying to say and sometimes it's just not worth it... IZAK 12:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also (please put nquddah, daghesh) Sh'atnez, Aleinu --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It should be Shatnez and I have now edited the article. IZAK 12:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your question:

• Saw this message, what do you think of it? IZAK 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC):

"I have rewritten the articles on all the Hebrew letters here and before I replace the pages, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)"

• It looks like Sputnikcccp just added an extra line or two to an already over-wordy, half-intelligible, and religiously pareve article. I know we have to abide by NPOV, but calling Midrashim "folktales" is self-hating. I'm finding in general that so many people are editing Wikipedia that any given article is going be touched up at least once a week. I don't think Sputnikcccp's additions make much of a difference, and someone else can theoretically come along and change it all around when he's through. (Frankly, it's not going to be me; I'm now devoting my Wikipedia time to creating articles that will make a difference, such as new articles about Jewish topics and rabbis, while most editors seem to be spending their time editing and re-editing others' material). Kol tuv, Yoninah 21:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yoninah: Your objectives sound very logical. I try to do the same, but often I find it necessary to edit or Wikify other articles related to Jews and Judaism to enhance their presentability, and also to make sure that facts do not get distorted. You should also monitor your "my watchlist" section so that articles you have written or added to don't get turned into mush while you are not looking. You are definitely on the right track. IZAK 07:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of the article. It doesn't seem to be too bad; do you have any specific concerns about it? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, not really, I was interested to see what others may think about it. IZAK 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK. I see you recreated Gil Student just now.

Personally, I agree fully with your move; I thought the way it was deleted was an absolute sham.

Nevertheless, is this allowed by current Wikipedia procedure? I though once an article gets deleted its continued deletion is enforced. Maybe I'm just not current on these things... Dovi 09:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good going man! You have far more energy than I do... Keep up the good work. (We'll continue to repectfully disagree about Rav Elyashiv... :-) Got to go now. Dovi 10:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I had no knowledge of anything about Gil Student's former article. Only when I wrote the article now did I see that it was once up for a VfD in JULY of 2005. In my honest appraisal there is no doubt in my mind that he is significant enough to merit his own article on Wikipedia. I have read some of his material as I am sure many others have. I cannot imagine why he was deleted. The only reason I could see is that the nominator who happened to be Eliezer did not like Student because he writes so convincingly that the late and last Lubavitcher Rebbe was not the Moshiach. I will defend the new article to the full. IZAK 10:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to chime in and add that I agree that Gil Student deserves a wikipedia page at this point. He's got 40,000+ google hits, has written a book, runs a publishing house, and his blog is amongst the most popular in the Jewish world right now - that's certainly more notable than a lot of the people I see doing RC patrol :-) --Bachrach44 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nor Gil can prove that Rebbe isn't Moshiach, Nor can the Chosidim that think he is prove that he is Moshiach (in enough of a way for everyone to except). Isn't there a policy about stuff which can't be proven...? 220.233.48.200 09:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A gezunt in dein keppelle, mein teire :-} IZAK 09:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had difficulty accepting category additions of Old Testament on several biblical articles. For Christians we do not call it the Torah or the Tanakh. Many Christians would not know what these words mean. For those who do not follow those names I was placing categories that would make sense to Christians. This was for navigation purposes. I see no problem in having the additional categories. I also noticed that you might you might be considering my changes vandalism. It is unfortunate that you would think that. My efforts are pure and true and I don't see how any of my changes could be vandalism. It was my understanding that Wikipedia was meant for all people of all faiths and understandings. By not allowing Christians the proper category to navigate through articles you are denying us that privilege.

Thank you for you time. fischersc 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would have been more proper if you would have discussed the category differences on my talk page before undoing the several hours I spent adding the Old Testament categories. Your actions have disheartened me. I look forward to you response. fischersc 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Fischersc: Thanks for your response. The questions you mention are not new, and for many years most people have managed to navigate with the categories that you now find it difficult to accept. Many Jewish scholars find the label "Old Testament" offensive. After much previous discussion over the years, there has basically been a consensus on Wikipedia to use the more neutral label Hebrew Bible (which you did not), and while not perfect, it is more acceptable to both Jewish and Christian scholars. (See Talk:Hebrew Bible.) Recently a vote was held in favor of not using the term Hebrew Bible in the categories of Category:Torah and Category:Tanakh. In addition, many of the pages where you had placed "Category:Old Testament people" was redundant and definitely NOT needed. For example, it is not necessary to add Category:Old Testament people to individual names in Category:Kings of ancient Israel and Category:Kings of ancient Judah when those categories are already sub-categories of Category:Old Testament people. It also makes no sense to add "Category:Old Testament people" to those who are already in Category:Christian prophets. So much for the redundancies you created (which also took me a few hours to undo.) Your comment that "Christians we do not call it the Torah or the Tanakh" only indicates your POV because the label "Old Testament" is a later historical fabrication of history, and is not accepted by either Judaism or Islam. In any case since Christianity DOES NOT DENY the truth and the validity of the Torah and the Tanakh that form the core of the "Old Testament", and since from the Christian perspective the "Old Testament" includes more than just the accepted Torah and Tanakh of Judaism, I have made Category:Old Testament people the super-category that contains the sub-categories of Category:Torah people and Category:Tanakh people and many others, so you have actually gained and not lost anything. Similarly with Category:Old Testament places which now includes far more sub-categories that I have added. Thank you. IZAK 04:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not just offensive, I have seen many rulings that hold it is in violation of the commandments that can be found in Sefer HaMitzvahs 13 and Sefer HaMitzvahs 14. 220.233.48.200 08:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Was that "a word from our sponsors" :-} ? IZAK 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am confused as to which commandment calling the Torah the Old Testament a violation of? These mainly have to do with idol worship. Christians do not worship idols.. fischersc 04:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Look I am not interested in a flame war - so I am just state what it is according to Jewish laws. It has to do with Negative Mitzvah 4, and with the churches containing idols-not-used-for-worship of Jesus, Merry and others, which according to this law are still called idols but have a special name, that doesn't exist in english. Negative Mitzvah 15 is a prohibtion of saying the word Jesus with your mouth, as he is used for an idol-not-used-for-worship. Your whole basis on the new testament is Jesus, which falls under a few violation mainly Negative Mitzvah 28 (because Jesus is also found as an idol but not-for-worship, which as explained above still falls under an idol), Negative Mitzvah 313 (Saying that it is old, implies you accept that it is old, which logically means you accept the new. Which is in violation of this) and because of the last one Negative Mitzvah 47. Also Negative Mitzvah 29 prohibates us from having any pity on you execpting the term old testaments. This is what some Rabbis pasken which must be obeyed - Positive Mitzvah 174, some pasken more violation. But the 613 mitzvahs is the foundamental foundation of Orthodox/Rabbinical/Torah Judaism. An online copy of Sefer HaMitzvahs is here and here. With blessing, 220.233.48.200 16:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming then that you follow these laws. When you say it "prohibits you from having pity..." what exactly does pity mean? Is it merely giving aid or more? When were these Jewish laws created? fischersc 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of using shared categories. This should be accomplished three-sidedly, as the contents of the Tanakh/Old Testament differ for Catholics/Orthodox (between them differences are minor), Protestants and Jews. I would like to refer everyone to the Dutch model, where I actually gave up using the categories Tanakh so that a common language could be reached. Beyond the desirable sake of finding a common language in a shared project and a little alteration when writing articles (as an art style), I do not see why the Tanakh but not the Old Testament should be called Hebrew Bible. This would be Christian POV. gidonb 12:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in favor of shared categories. However, the term "Old Testament" automatically implies the presence of a "New" (and improved) Testament, which is inherent Christian POV. Perhaps this new super-category of "Old Testament people" could be renamed "Bible People" or "Biblical People" instead? Yoninah 13:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: There already is Category:Bible which includes many sub-catgories. Take a look at how it's structured to acquaint yourself with the many sub-categories relating to our discussion here. ThanksIZAK 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also this falls under violation of Negative Mitzvah 313 [4] and Negative Mitzvah 47 [5] possibly more, but from what I have seen it is those 2. With blessing, 220.233.48.200 16:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you are referencing Jewish law as a reason to remove the words Old Testament then aren't you pushing your pov? There are millions upon millions of Christians who have millions upon millions of bibles printed using the words Old Testament. If that is offensive then you need to just deal with it. I think you are taking it to far and watering down reality. I don't think any Christian would have a problem with you calling your version the Tanakh or the Torah. We call it the Old Testament. Couldn't each category be used to accomodate all points of view. I don't think the npov policy means that no points of view are to be expressed, that would lead to a dry and boring encyclopedia. I would rather want all points of view expressed so each person can see the variety that makes life. It does seem that I have stepped on your turf and it seems that you and your friends have been established here for awhile, which means you basically own the articles you monitor. This is the problem I am finding with Wikipedia. The old guard rules while anyone new with a different point of view can't change anything. So I guess I let you and your friends be to rule your wiki pages with the utmost of your Jewish pov.

I was under the impression that Wikipedia would be beyond political correctness. Apparently it is the epitome of political correctness. fischersc 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Template:Biblegateway to understand the Christian perspective of the Hebrew Bible. This is a New Testament letter written to the Hebrew people. fischersc 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fischersc: Let us use logic and history as our guides and not theology. No-one, not even Christians question the fact that before anyone had any ideas to create a "New Testament" there was only one Torah for over one thousand years and only one Tanakh for over five hundred years. Christianity is a much later religion than Judaism. So there is both a logical and historical precedent at work here. Then, the Category:Old Testament books and its sub-categories are in fact in many cases Wikipedia super-categories because they are part of a broader subject not restricted to Judaism alone. Like in all categorizations, if, for example, the the reader clicks onto the Category:Torah people on a page, they will be taken to that pages sub-categries which they can find at the bottom of the Category:Torah people page, and so forth. So why create double loads of work and obvious redundancies? IZAK 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the name of Old Testament is important theologically for Christians. We don't call it the Old Testament just because it was written a long time ago. While it may be offensive to Jews by calling it Old, making it seem bad or outdated, it is pivotal to the new way of life that Christ offers us. It is important to differentiate between the Old and the New Testament because to us Jesus Christ is the pivotal point which the Old and New meet. For myself personally I am facinated by the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament because it helps explain so much of the New Testament, which was written by Jews. It is important for us to understand the Old Testament in relation to the New Testament so we can have a bearing on were our beliefs came from. fischersc 05:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Zionism (disambiguation)[reply]

• Fischersc: By the way, if I may point out, since Jesus is only "Christ" to Christianity and not to other religions, therefore the correct and NPOV way to refer to him is as Jesus on Wikipedia. As for how you view the "Old Testament" it is not there merely to "explain so much of the New Testament, which was written by Jews" (as you say), but rather, the so-called "Old Testament" is the one and only never-to-be changed Torah, a part of the Tanakh, central to Judaism until the present time, and for all Jews who practice Judaism. Thus the Torah can never be "replaced" or sub-sumed by any other book, and any claim to do so must be rejected, just as Judaism totally rejects Jesus' claim to be a "Christ" (the Greek word meaning a "Messiah"). Unfortunately, the majority of Christians believe in Christianity's claims of Supersessionism (i.e. the traditional Christian belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of Old Testament Judaism, and therefore that Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah fall short of their calling as God's chosen people) which to Judaism is just another example of heresy and apostasy, so you need to cool your Christian zeal when approaching such a broad audience as exists on Wikipedia. And you should be particularly careful in making any changes to Wikipedia articles and categories etc. IZAK 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category already exists; a duplicate category with a POV name (i.e. "Old Testament") should not be created. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to change existing articles and, hypothetically, add information regarding a Christian perspective on a Torah book, I would not remove anything existing, I would most likely create a subsection labeled Christian Perspective or something like this. My desire is not to kick you out or over rule your beliefs.

I don't think Wikipedia should be completely absent of Theological interpretation either. There are many mainstream theological understandings from various religions concerning the same texts. Muslims have a different understanding of both our religions and texts. If a Muslim were to modify the content of the Isaac article and make the core of the article focused on the Islamic interpretation of Isaac, who would be right? Personally I believe the way the Jews do, that Isaac was the son of promise not Ishmael, Muslims believe differently. They do have a small bit at the bottom citing the differences, but who wins the core article? I would assume that if anyone tried to change that article to state the Muslim view it would be promptly reverted. But is the article as it stands now really NPOV? Some would say yes, and some would say no. If the true definition of NPOV is not to offend anyone then the entire concept of an encyclopedia following that policy is bogus and worthless.

Concerning your input above; Are you not expressing your POV in stating what you say about the Torah? Also when you say, 'Unfortunately, the majority of Christians believe in ...' You are doing the same thing you decry! By saying "unfortunately" you are implying that the claims of Supersessionism are bad or wrong. I have never heard that term before by the way. Also this is a talk page. Talk pages should be free to discuss and talk without the dreaded worries of NPOV. We need to have proper discussions and open minds about the work on this system. If your Jewish laws forbid you to do or say or talk about certain things then it may be necessary for you to cool your zeal as you state about myself. I do not want to raise any blood pressure here I want an open and intellectually honest discussion. There are important things for you and the Jewish people and there are important things for myself and Christian people. Even within Christianity there are many differences of opinion/interpretation/acceptance.

Again, a side note of small talk: Pardon my ignorance but do Jews still await a Messiah or do they no longer look for one? Does it have to do with the rebuilding of a temple in Jerusalem? fischersc 06:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Fischersc: What I wrote about the Torah above is not "my POV" at all. It is basic Judaism. Most Jews today are secular and are not very familiar with the Jewish religion = Judaism. Many people express all sorts of views and just because they may belong to a certain faith, it does not make their views into that faith's objective known and accepted beliefs. So it is always best to frame a question in terms of what Judaism says and not what "Jews" say about xyz. In addition, there are a number of Jewish denominations, which have serious disagreements about the practice and application of the 613 commandments mandated by the Torah. The article Jewish Messiah will fill you in on some of Judaism's beliefs concerning the Messiah (and you will see that all of them reject Jesus as their Messiah). What I was disputing above was your use of the word "Christ" and not Jesus. Jesus is the central character in Christianity no-one disputes that, so the analogy to Isaac is not correct. While to say that Jesus is the Christians' Messiah is valid it is not valid to assume that he is that to other faiths, because he is not. On the other hand, the Biblical Isaac is first a character in the Torah of Judaism which no-one disputes. What other religions that came along much later in time decided to say is their POV but it does not detract from what Judaism had taught, and continues to teach, about him all along since he was part of Judaism's Torah to begin with, all along. As you correctly anticipate, many Biblical articles that are derived first from Judaism do indeed have sections "Christian Perspective" (as you correctly describe it) in them, so you have obviously not read many of the articles (sometimes there are even confused and confusing meshed views in articles which makes understanding the subject/s very difficult for the novice). Finally, you will find that all the Jewish and Judaism editors on Wikipedia are not afraid to discuss anything about Judaism, but what many of them do strive to do is to provide an ongoing Judaic (and Torah) perspective and assurance that Judaism's views are not "drowned out", so you needn't be concerned that any of us here are getting "our blood-pressure up", if we did, we wouldn't waste our time on writing and editing Wikipedia articles. IZAK 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would say that I do enjoy a decent discussion on topics such as this and I appreciate your continued patience. So would you mean to say that usage of the word Christ needs to be prefaced with the word Christian to make Christian Christ or Christian Messiah? Or some form of that? Why is mentioning the word Christ by itself offensive? Especially if you know the person stating it is a Christian. Now I would understand the need on an unbiased npov article but in general discussion that would be quite burdensome. Could not the other party realize and mentally understand that the person on the other side is from a given point of view and not hold that against them? In real life if I had to watch everything I said and did so as not to offend anyone I would go crazy! Again, I understand the importance when giving input on a specified impartial collaboration, but not for talk and discussion. fischersc 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fischersc: My main point was that in most articles the word "Christ" is POV since by associating that word with Jesus, what in Christianity is a given, it is not so in other religions that totally deny that Jesus was the Christ. (Remember, the Greek-derived word "Christ" means "annointed" in English which is what the word "Messiah" (Mashiach) means in Hebrew.) So, Judaism teaches that the true Messiah (Mashiach) has not come (yet) and that it was most certainly not Jesus, so to call him "Christ=Annointed=Messiah=Mashiach" is dead wrong. Moslems only view Jesus as an important "prophet" but not as the Christ (I'm actually not sure what they are waiting for, do you? I think they just want everyone to believe in Allah as of yesterday.) Be assured that I know this is only a talk page, when it comes to articles we all need to mind our editorial ps and qs. IZAK 07:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they agree with the promiss this world to the children of Ishmael. And the next is to the children of Yisrael (person). With blessings, 220.233.48.200 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if the category was called 'Christian Old Testament' to differentiate it from the Old Testament. This would remove the confusion readers may have with the Hebrew Bible. It is only my intention to produce the most common and wide spread nomenclature for this collection of books for Christians. Allowing categories and article additions that cross between Judaism and Christianity would be beneficial not negative. There is a lot of content on Wikipedia that is offensive to me. Especially on Jesus and other Christian related articles. Things that go against my point of view or theology however, I must let them have their say as. The Jesus article is one of the most vandalized. Allowing the different points of view and variety would be better in the long run. If votes and decisions have been made and a new person comes by and desires to add/change things shouldn't the discussion be reopened rather than stay closed. I think it would have to work this way to stay true to the spirit of Wikipedia. Not everyone knows to look at the Talk pages and voting discussions before editing. I didn't realize this at the time I made my additions. Personally I have learned a lot already reading the articles from a Jewish perspective. It adds to my understanding of my faith and knowledge. I would not want you to remove your pov from anything you have done because it would remove the value in it.

Dear fischersc, thank you for your eloquent and very reasonable comments and conclusions. I would also support the dual categories of Christian Old Testament and Hebrew Bible or Torah. However, I am new to this discussion and am not aware of all the water that's gone under the bridge to reach the current consensus on category names. I'll have to defer to IZAK on that. And yes, by the way, I do live in Israel, but I am a native Californian. Yoninah 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fischersc: Wikipedia is not perfect and there is always room for sensible discussions and contributions and for amicable solutions. I agree with Yoninah that "Christian Old Testament" is a very thoughtful suggestion. Let us see what others think. I will try to find a place to have a more open discussion about this. I will keep you posted. IZAK 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally oppose. It would be like saying Moshe was part of the christians, because the name is going to be Christian Old Testament People. He was not christian. It defantly will be opposed according to Judaism. With blessings that it should not go aganist Judaism, 220.233.48.200 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense I didn't think of that. fischersc 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note are you in Israel? fischersc 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why do you ask? Yoninah 21:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that most of the posts on here are about 12 hours or so after mine and it was just a guess.

Whoops, thanks for fixing that up. I'm inadvertantly letting my biases show, I think. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem really. Thanks for the feedback. IZAK 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK- I'm happy to follow your lead on the Satmar page (and I agree, it is a neologism), but I'm becoming rapidly frustrated trying to deal with User:Rebbeshe_Kneesocks and his anonymous partner User:207.127.40.3, who have begun a tag-team edit war and are deleting and/or moving the section multiple times a day. Have you any advice on how to proceed? I tried to list the page on the protected list but I may have done it wrong, as it no longer appears there and has not been protected. Every attempt to talk with Kneesocks about the conflict section seems to get nowhere. I'd really appreciate your input. 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For some reason you have not sugned your name here, just the date. What I advise is that you contact User:Jayjg and User:Jfdwolff, who are both admins and very familiar with these subjects, and Jayjg is an expert in dealing with sockpuppets. They will help to get the article protected and to block any vandals and their IP addresses. IZAK 04:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi IZAK- sorry, that was me above. For some reason the signature didn't go through. Thanks for the advice; I'll be in touch with the above (and below). ShalomShlomo 08:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, would you like me to protect the page? Tomer^talk 07:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Tomer: Thanks for the response, please be in touch with User:ShalomShlomo as he is the one mostly involved with it and having the most headaches as the page gets cut up. Thanks. IZAK 07:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left him a message. Haven't heard anything since. I guess the situation isn't that incredibly desperate. Tomer^talk 08:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright...no sooner had I said that than I had a request waiting for me.  :-) I know very little about Satmar Chasidim, so I'm not really sure what to do about the content parts of the dispute. Tomer^talk 08:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like most things, it's not that hard to learn, especially as it pertains to a brief article, and it won't take you long to latch on. IZAK 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your opinions on, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moses#NPOV Also in general the article needs a lot of work. Up until a recent edit, under a Jewish section was a lot of christianity statements. 220.233.48.200 18:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently posted a complaint to your move of the Tree of life (Kabbalah) article to Sephirot (Kabbalah) on the talk pages of both articles. I would greatly appreciate it if you would read my arguments and reply to them, preferably CCing to my talk page. Thanks. Shaggorama 08:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Shaggorama: I have now done so at both Talk:Tree of life (Kabbalah) and Talk:Sephirot (Kabbalah). Let us try to keep the discussions in one place. Let me know where. Thanks. IZAK 07:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For simplicity's sake, let's keep the discussion with main article, so Talk:Sephirot (Kabbalah). I will be responding to your comment soon, and thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Shaggorama 10:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I look forward to the discussion, God willing. IZAK 11:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that so many people are checking into Wikipedia nowadays that as soon as I rewrite an article, a slew of people start editing it! Surprise aside, I just looked at the changes which FDuffy made to the Sarah page, and noticed that he created a new article called A wife confused for a sister which is totally based on bible criticism. Would you kindly look at the discussion page which I started on that article and add your comments? Thanks, Yoninah 09:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that basing an article entirely on academic knowledge of a subject rather than pious guesswork is NOT a bad thing, and entirely the right thing to do. --User talk:FDuffy 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah: So you have now met "Fduffy" aka "Francis" a notorious Bible-hater and someone whose only aim in life seems to be to trash any conventional knowledge about the Torah/Bible on Wikipedia. It's pretty sad actually, because it makes one wonder why this person has such a chip on their shoulder and what this person would otherwise be doing if the Torah/Bible did not exist? Like, why doesn't "FDuffy" spend its life trashing Atheism or Hedonism or Modernism, which would be just as fun don't you think? Worse yet, "FDuffy" is not afraid to create its own self-styled worthless "myths" from sources that have nothing to do with respectable normative religion and trash religion big time. So what we have here is just a pathetic hater and trasher of everything traditional Judaism (and even Christianity) respects. Do not get discouraged because that type of empty-headed intellectually bankrupt parasitic vandalism is bound to fail. IZAK 05:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for enlightening me. I really thought that spending some time beefing up the Torah people articles would be non-controversial, or at least that the classic Jewish interpretations would be clearly set off from the Christian interpretations. But what FDuffy has done to the article on Dinah is a travesty. Sabotaging the Torah narrative by calling it a "tale" and stating as fact what is clearly not fact by anyone who possesses a first-grade intelligence and an English translation, then going ahead and presenting the bible criticism (aka "scholarship") as fact, without any sources, is simply misleading. I wrote all my counterarguments on the Talk:Dinah page, but FDuffy is ignoring it. I don't have the koach to get into an edit war over this. What should I do? Yoninah 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: Like in any other situation in life, you have to draw the line somewhere and do your own personal version of a "triage" and decide for yourself which articles you will work on and defend, and keep on your "my watchlist", and then do your best to defend your own contributions to articles and not submit to anyone's war-of-nerves designed to wear down people like yourself. Remember, Wikipedia is sort of like "a work of art in motion" and by nature this means that no article will ever be "safe" from additional editing (until maybe, there will come a time when the "the powers that be" will decide to "lock down" what they consider to be the best versions of articles that should no longer be edited -- but that time has not yet come for Wikipedia.) In the meantime, do not be intimidated by anyone, and you should fight for your own valid insertions of the Torah perspective which has been around for THOUSANDS of years, vs. the "biblical critics'" POVs which were literally invented out of thin air in the nineteenth century, and did so much to harm to both Jews and Judaism. Some Jewish historians have said that Julius Wellhausen the most important "father of biblical criticism" who came from Germany is guilty of the "murder" of the Torah (by denying its status as something which ultimately emanated from God and said that the Torah is basically "just another book like any other ") which was a historical and academic prelude that prepared the way as for the Final solution (these are not my views, but have been stated by notable rabbis and scholars of traditional Judaism). Keep in touch. IZAK 09:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I saw your post on your Talk page, as well as on mine, and I appreciate it. As an administrator, you must spend hours and hours putting out fires, but you probably enjoy it. If I spent that much time fighting my own little wars, I would never get any work done!

I don't understand what "My Preferences" is all about. Will editors' comments go directly to my Outlook Express in-box rather than to my Wikipedia page? And what is the difference between receiving mail on my Talk page as opposed to through e-mail correspondence? I thought that just having a user name, rather than an IP address, was more secure, confidentiality-wise. Yoninah 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: For the record, I am NOT an administrator, and I would not consider becoming one. I am just very active in articles relating to Jews and Judaism and Israel and Zionism because I have a great interest and a good educational background in these topics. I also enjoy writing in English a lot and for the last three years I have found Wikipedia to be a very challenging and important site to contribute to (Wikipedia is now in the world's top twenty Internet sites -- so that should tell you something about its significance). Hopefully my efforts will serve as an example to others who may share my interests and who have some time to devote to it. So, I do NOT "put out fires" at all, I just try my best to keep watch over SOME articles that are important to Jews and Judaism, and try as best I can to edit them, contribute to them, write new articles, or to partake in various Wikipedia votes and discussions in subjects that pertain to Jews and Judaism. On Wikipedia, in its present form, you never just write an article or contribute to it and then "walk away from it" because if you treasure your input you must defend it by tracking it via the "my watchlist" button which lets you know which articles that you are watching need your attention and follow-up. As for your technical questions, an "IP address" (meaning Internet Protocol address) is basically the unique number given to your computer by its manufacturer but it is NOT your E-mail address. (If you can, read the two articles: IP address and E-mail address to understand the different terms.) Basically, any computer's IP address is read by other computers it comes into contact with. So, for example, someone on the official technical side of Wikipedia can read the IP address of anyone's computer when they write anything on the Wikipedia website (that's how the Wikipedia admins get to "block" banned users, vandals, trolls, or sockpuppets). But, very importantly, E-mail addresses are not "IP adresses" (even though inside the technical body of a sent E-mail is the IP address of the computer from where it originated -- so using a computer is really not as hefker as some may imagine, and it's also a reason that every user should purchase some kind of firewall that serves to protect any computer from being attacked or hacked). With regards to your "IP" question about the "my preferences" feature at the top of every Wikipedia page, it does not mean that editors' comments go directly to your Outlook Express in-box rather than to your Wikipedia page when they write a comment on your regular Wikipedia user's page! It only means that a person trying to contact you has a choice (that is, if you provide your Email address in the "my prefrences" link) and you will see that on the side of every Wikipedia user's page there is the option for them to send a private Email to you, using Wikipedia's services and that remain private between you and the person sending you the Email, and even then, the person sending you the Email does not know what your Emaill address is unless you choose to respond to them. So to sum up: It is your choice. If you do not want even Wikipedia to have your Email address that's fine and it does give you added privacy, and some Wikipedians prefer it that way. But at the same time you should know that once you register on Wikipedia, Wikipedia knows your IP address in any case, and even without registering, even an anonymous user reveals their IP address once they place a comment on any Wikipedia page. Another option for you, if you have confidence in another Wikipedian, you can simply just click on their "Email this user" and send them your Email if you so desire for any communication that does not have to go into a user's talk page for the whole world to read. I hope that this clarifies some things. Feel free to ask again. Best wishes, IZAK 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, thanks for all the technical information. I understand it, I understand that Wikipedia administrators know which computer I have, but I wonder if logging in my e-mail for other users to correspond with me is going to turn my Wikipedia experience into a chat room. (I understand that I don't have to respond to them by e-mail, but then what is the point of returning the discussion to their talk pages?) And can you honestly say that none of the e-mail you've received through Wikipedia has been free of obscenities and the like? Yoninah 20:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: Gut Voch! In my over three years I have not received any obscenities through Wikipedia's Email system (Bli Ayin Hara). I don't know what it would be like for a woman. But experienced Wikipedia users know that if Wikipedia's Email system is abused, with things that you describe, Wikipedia technicians can trace the user who wrote the obscenities and have them banned, so there is a good level of security on Wikipedia's side for Emails as well. Honestly, I am a heavy user of Wikipedia and I am in touch with many different editors, as you can tell from this talk page, but I get hardly any Emails of any kind from Wikipedians and I barely use the Email system myself. Usually it's about votes taking place all over the place. Probably every heavy Wikipedia editor has contacted a fellow Wikipedian this way, they wouldn't have the feature otherwise, so it's 100% legitimate. So, there are times when I wish to communicate with a User via their Email feature, usually for a more private sort of message that the world does not have to have access to and I can't because they have opted out of having the Wikipedia system's Email service. There is another solution however that I have seen more and more Wikipedians use and that is to set up a completely seperate Email account only for Wikipedia usage and that way, if you ever get any messages you don't like, you can simply disconnect that account. More and more people seem to be using Google's FREE "gmail" service. Bottom line, for busy Wikipedians the fun part is that they can chat with other users on all the talk pages of any articles, so they are not hungry for chats via Email, of this I can assure you. But if you have strong privacy issues, then stay put with what you have. Be well. IZAK 11:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for all the clarification! Yoninah 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do you wish to get "rid" of me? Thanks for any response. Antidote 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Antidote: Only based on the complaints (for some examples, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Antidote and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, and claims by admins that you are operating sockpuppets as indicated on your user page at User:Antidote), if these allegations are indeed true, then you are making a huge nuisance of yourself on Wikipedia (and if the claims about you having all those sockpuppets are true it makes things even worse). Otherwise, if all the complaints against you are not true, then, hey, be my guest, and enjoy Wikipedia like everyone else. IZAK 05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IZAK. I am grateful for your support on this rfc. The user has been persistantly disruptive and dishonest since March so it is overdue that action is taken. I agree that some of the Jewish lists are unnecessary, i.e. the Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society list, and, I agree that if they continue to include living people it may well do the dirty work of Jew Watch as you say. I do not think the people who currently contribute to the lists have that intention at all, but maybe they are being somewhat naive in their actions. Personally my interest is mainly in pre 20th century Jewry so I am not interested in the listing of living persons. Regards Arniep 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Arniep: Thanks for your message. As far as Jews who are no longer alive being listed as Jews, I think that a huge problem is that in many cases they have been placed on "Lists" and into "Categories" of Jews when in real life they had hardly anything, in fact NOTHING, to do with either Jews or Judaism. A good example is Karl Marx whose parents apostacised to Christianity when he was young, and then Marx himself wrote virulent things against both Jews and Judaism which should place him into the category of "Former Jews" or "Self-hating Jews" if anything, and ironically that is not possible in an ethnic sense if he was born to a Jewish mother according to Halakha ("Jewish law"), so it just shows you the ridiculous quandaries of logic, ethnicity and religion this subject leads to, and why even dead Jews should not be placed into mass lists and categories of Jews implying a kind of "definitive" definition of who they were. IZAK 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IZAK. I think it is perfectly acceptable to list people involved in the history of the Jewish people whether or not they were practicing Jews or whether they were Jewish according to Halakha. Regards Arniep 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep: I agree that they should and must be part of articles about Jewish history, no question about it, but it is an exercise in futility (and stupidity) to put people into arbitrary lists that they themselves would have abhored or that serve no real scholarly or encyclopedic purpose. Unless you want to create lists such as: List of Jews who converted to Christianity, List of Jews who were atheists, List of Jews who never acknowledged their Jewish identity, List of Jews who married gentiles, List of Jews with dubious conversions to Judaism, List of Jews who fought against other Jews, List of Jews who disguised their identity as Jews, List of Jews identified as Jews by the Nazis etc ad nauseam, these may all sound like interesting "historical" lists that could have many names placed into them, but they would serve no real scholarly or encyclopedic purpose insofar as scholarship is defined. IZAK 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which is why is better to just accept that Jew can mean different things, and then annotate the lists explaining in what way that person is considered to be Jewish. Arniep 10:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep: By doing that you would be making any meaning of Jew into a MEANINGLESS word on the one hand, on the other hand it would make "Jews" out of people who never considered themselves as such (for example, people with one lost great grand-parent as for example it is said Vladimir Lenin had a Jewish grandfather or great grand-father so do you think that therefore Lenin should presto become a "Jew" because of that --akin to pulling "Jewish" bunnies out of ethnic and religious "hats"?) This has already made NONSENSE of the term Jew and has also violated the rights to anonymity and privacy that some living people may have logically expected, but which now some users on Wikipedia have decided should be done on a mass scale verging on ludicrous scandal-satisfying publicity. By the way, when the List of Jews was originally started on Wikipedia some years ago, there was only one list and it served as an interesting feature, but when massive amounts of lists and categories of Jews based on infinite types of crazy criteria began to crop up the whole undertaking became an exercise in foolishness bordering on the dangerous.IZAK 10:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

) cheers for the welcome mate! hows it going? XYaAsehShalomX 13:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As the Yanks say "You're welcome!" As for how it's going, well currently I have made some proposals at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession and it's stimulating some solid debate and voting on the related talk page over there. Take care of yourself, oh, and do you play rugby at all? (I have to take some shut-eye, so I will catch up with you soon.) IZAK 13:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nah - i watch and sometimes play REAL football ;) heh - personally im a bit opposed to all those lists, which seem to serve no purpose except to antagonise ppl. thanks - you too mate :) well i'll speak to you soon...im gonna go and watch Newsnight in a sec...ya'aseh shalom 22:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please share your thoughts at here; I remain open to persuasion and various formulas. Regards, El_C 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I did not expect that. El_C 06:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: Based on the initial discussions at Talk:Illnesses of Ariel Sharon it seemed logical to merge. Actually, most of the information is trashy, so it needs radical editing as well, but you beat me to it, so I will try again. IZAK 06:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is obvious that much of it is presented in a rather doubious way; feel free to radically edit accordingly. But there are two people that object to the merge at this time, so you four (5?) do not quite amount to consensus. Simply speedy deleting it at this point makes no sense. I delete a lot of patent nonesense. This type of 'trashy' is not patent nonesense; it needs to be AfD'd. El_C 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: From what I can tell, the only worthwhile and non-repetative information in the "Illnesses" article are the "International reactions" which are important. The other stuff about Sharon eating Pringles is a joke. Sharon is an old man, most people don't make it to 77, and as he is close to 78 all the discussions are moot because old people get sick and die from such things as heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, pneumonia, dehydration, or accidents (what's missing?). Sharon is nothing special. The article should be renamed, if anything, to the Health of Ariel Sharon and how he functioned so well for most of his high-pressured life. IZAK 06:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's pringles now? Why don't you and Tomer and others begin to delete impertinent material liberally, then we can see where we stand. There are more international reactions, for example, the Pope calling on Catholics to pary for his recovery (if I recall correctly). Adding more details about the health aspect of it could be beneficial; detail impertinent to a biographical article (entailing a more brief summary of these), but that readers may still find interest in. Feel free to change the title to Health of Ariel Sharon, or whatever you see fit, I don't consider the title to be of an important issue (barring pringles & such!). El_C 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, in the context of Israel (and beyond), this is a major historical event. He was in Office. What if after a while we merge and perhaps by then would end up with a stroke conspiracy article or something of the sort...? Difficult to tell. Let's not be hasty, is all I'm asking. El_C 06:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems particularly POV, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Would you mind taking a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I read the article and added to it. It's basically ok. One may dislike the guy perhaps, but the article is basically fair, I think. IZAK 11:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli postage stamps are probably not OK for illustrating Wikipedia. Please consult any web page regarding "state copyright" and Israel. [6] --Hoziron 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Hoziron: Thanks for contacting me. Your own words here "probably not OK" reveal what I have read from some of your references, that there are basically no laws restricting the FAIR USE of, for example, official Israeli stamps. The articles you point out frankly state that Israel's copyright laws are not up-to-date and have almost nothing to say about how information should or should not be used on the Internet, this article [7] is a very good example. So for now, unless you can come up with a very specific reason not to do it, Israeli stamps, like all postage stamps, can be used provided the relevant Stamp template is attached to it, and that template does state that stamps are usually copyrighted but may be used for fair-use types of purposes:

The copyright for it may be owned by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information.

What are your views about the template's conditions? IZAK 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IZAK. I agree with your general premise about the links, but don't know what to suggest. I'm not involved in either of these and don't know offhand who to appeal to. -- Cecropia 03:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Cecropia: See Talk:Main Page#Arbcom elections link please and Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#When do the fundraiser end???. After a few Emails back and forth with some people at the top some progress was made in scaling back the too ostentatious and distracting appeals at the tops of article pages. For the ArbCom vote users will still have to click on their "my watchlist" to catch them. Best wishes. Thanks. IZAK 13:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your changes. I'm not religiously observant so please feel free to expand in that area, I'm not qualified (yet). Kaisershatner 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Kaiser: Best wishes. IZAK 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative military ranks of World War II. Thanks. Izehar 13:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meanwhile, can you look at the lead to Tosafists? I'm trying to figure out whether or not it really is a copyvio. It was tagged as a potential copyvio 2 weeks ago...if it is, we should get rid of it, but I'm not sure it is... Tomer^talk 06:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a plan... my email is messing up bigtime...can you email shaya@shayadesign.com and ask them whether their text there is original and copyrighted or if they got it from somewhere else? It's kinda ballsy, but I'm beginning to suspect that what looks like a copyvio may very well be a case of mistaking an image for the original. Tomer^talk 06:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the text on their homepage and the history of the Toysfes page. Tomer^talk 06:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer: Great minds think alike... I just thought of that and sent "Shaya" an Email. I posted a copy on Talk:Tosafists and sent you a cc of it. So let's wait and see what happens. Gotta go, Shabbat Shalom. (By the way, I read on Haaretz that one of the ways that they are trying to get a response out of Sharon is by placing a plate of steaming shawarma near his nose, the article claimed it was his "favorite dish". Heavens, what will they think of next, falafel ball cures?) Be well, I gotta go. IZAK 07:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a question. is this the ner tamid? and are you rabbi? →image:Göttingen-Lampe.JPG

And shall you join to ja:Wikipedia:ウィキプロジェクト ユダヤ教 (Wiki project)? --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Sheynhertz: I looked at the image and yes it looks like only one TYPE of Ner tamid. There is no "one single design" for a Ner tamid, it could even be just a light bulb or candle, but the main point is that the FUNCTION of the Ner Tamid is what is important and what is required, so that there must ALWAYS be a light burning 24 hours day preferably, in any synagogue hanging in front of the ark (the aron). How can I be part of a Japanese project if I don't understand or speak Japanese? I don't even belong to the Hebrew WikiProject because I am so busy at the English one. And, if I am not a "rabbi" then I am about as close to one as you can get around here it seems to me... IZAK 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

• A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
• A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]