User talk:Nahum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello fellows. Feel free to leave me personal notes here. I do try to follow discussions relevant to articles I wrote/modified/am interested in, but sometimes am too busy and miss some. Here I am sure to read it. In case of need, feel free to cantact me here. - Nahum

Hello. Concerning your Amber series, please see how I edited several of them, with the summary "Correcting the two usual newbie errors". 131.183.84.56 00:22 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Besides changing "This is" to "<name of book> is", which you should have been done in the other books in this series as well, did you change anything else? Nahum 01:54 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Meforshim and rabbis 2 Proposed Judaism template 3 Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel 4 Hey Nahum 5 Tzadik 6 Israeli Wikipedians 7 Tom Ayrton 8 Thanks for your support on my RfA 9 Hebrew Alphabet 10 Tzadik

[edit] Meforshim and rabbis

Hi, please see discussion at Talk:Meforshim, and see RK's recent edits about Rabbi at [1] thanks. IZAK 08:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Judaism template

Hi Nahum, please see and provide your input on the talk page of the proposed Template:Judaism. Thank you. IZAK 07:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel

Hello Nahum: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 06:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Nahum

Looks like you've been away for most of last 2 years; that's unusual. Welcome back. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I got tired of Political fights, but friends convinced me my opinion needs to be heard. --Nahum 13:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tzadik

Please see the page that I made for Tzadik and my comments to the talk page of chabad regarding ther merging of the section "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" into Tzadik. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How are they different? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I was thinking about the messianism subsection. -- Nahum 06:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The section already starts off with saying that this is according to those that follow kabbalah. Additionaly the statements from the people about chabad would remain applicable even after the section is removed. Furthermore the intention isn't to comepletely remove it, rather the intention is to replace it with a sentence saying that there has been controversy regarding this subject which is elaborated at length in the Tzadik article, and as I explained on the talk page of chabad it is unfair to have just that paragraph without a full background which is able to be put in the Tzadik article but would be too long for the chabad article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A summary of the issue still needs to be retained at the original article, not just a refernece. -- Nahum 06:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, a brief summary saying something to the effect of that there is a controversy regarding chabad beliefs of a Tzadik which are fully elaborated upon in Tzadkin. Or something like that. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you now agree with me that to have the entire concept in a place that it can be fully elaborated upon with background information and other views as well and therefore it would be best to have the main area in the Tzadik article and a brief summary as I wrote above directing users in the chabad article to the Tzadik one, please make a note on the talk page of chabad. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Wikipedians

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Israel page as living in or being associated with Israel. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Israeli Wikipedians for instructions. —Simetrical (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Ayrton

Thanks for notifying me. I have checked the entire article and fixed the remainders of stuff that still made it so that having the {{cleanup}}-tag was appropiate. Once again, thanks for the notification. -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support on my RfA

[edit] Hebrew Alphabet

I have rewritten the articles on all the Hebrew letters here and before I replace the pages, your input would be appreciated. Feel free to comment on the talk page or edit the page directly. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tzadik

Check out the article on Tzadik. The entire article grossly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy by only promoting the Chabad (Lubavitch) point-of-view. It presents quotes from various eras of Jewish history totally out of order, totally out of context, and interspersed with quotes from the Tanya and the Luabvitcher rebbes. This is done in order to convince the reader that the Jewish view of a tzadik is the Chabad view. No other view is acceptable. When I merely separated Chabad quotes from non-Chabad quotes, all my edits were reverted without comment or discussion. When I tried to present other points of view, all of my edites were reverted without comment or discussion. In a rather blatant attack on all Jews not in Chabad, a user refused to even allow sections for non-Chabad Hasidic views of a tzadik, and Modern Orthodox views of a tzadik. Even the mere suggestions that they be mentioned was deleted! Plainly, someone is abusing their Wikipedia priviliges to convince Wikipedia users that no form of Judaism's teachings is Jewish except the Chabad view. This is unacceptable.

Any discussion of a tzadik must include a historical context. No matter what Chabad apologists might claim, the views of rabbis in the Talmud is not identical to the views of Chabad. After all, if they are allowed to push their interpretation as absolutely true, then what is to stop other religious groups from doing the same? Of course, the article can state something like "According to adherents of Chabad Judaism, the Tanya and the Lubavitcher rebbe provide the correct interpretation of Judaism's view on this issue." And the article certainly should discuss the views of Breslover Jews, Satmar Jews, and Modern Orthodox Jews. The views of non-Orthodox Jews should also be mentioned. But the article does no such thing. Its self-styled protectors ruthlessly delete all mention of non-Chabad points of views. You might want to look into this. RK 00:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)