User talk:IZAK/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IZAK (talk · contribs · count · email)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20 →

Contents 1 Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles 2 Talk page spamming 3 Image Tagging for Image:Dr_Baruch_Goldstein_Israel.jpg 4 PZFUN's crusade 5 STOP! 6 Shalom 7 Kiddush Club notice 8 Yasher koach 9 Christian views of Hanukkah 10 Email 11 PArtnership Minyan 12 Cain and Abel article 13 Thanks for your support 14 Thank you! 15 AfD reform 16 Son of the Chofetz Chaim? 17 Israeli apartheid 18 "justice" 19 Reconsider 20 Tzniut 21 IZAK 22 Hello 23 Thanks for the Head's Up 24 Jericho 25 Thanks for the welcome message 26 Jewish articles 27 Thanks 28 Christian view of Nazarite 29 Thanks 30 Oops 31 Radbaz 32 Problem with Kugel(disambiguation) 33 Rav Hutner

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I posted this on another page you posted it on too. As for the congregation, while you might think it's important, if there is no other evidence for it and not many Google hits, it's tough to not delete it. Know what I mean? Otherwise, people might not delete things that really should be deleted because somebody says it's notable. --Awiseman 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty critical over at WP:AFD... User:PZFUN has nominated myriad entries into today (5/20)'s log. Many of these articles are extremely notable, such as USY or Young Judaea. This seems like a deliberate targeting of Judaism related articles, but I'm going to assume that this isn't the case. I know you're keeping an eye on what's going on, but the loss of these articles would be a big blow to the Wikipedia. Let me know how I can help. Wes! • ^T_c 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

IZAK, I can see you feel strongly about the deletion of articles on Judaism-related topics. Nevertheless, it's not a good idea to bulk-message on a large number of user talk pages--particularly when your message is so lengthy.

You might consider approaching this a different way. A short notice on some central message board can reach a larger audience, without raising concerns about spamming. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism or the Village Pump, for instance.

In the meantime, please stop the bulk messaging. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 09:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Ten: It's not spamming! I was merely contacting editors that I regularly communicate with. These are not strangers! I will follow up with your advice about the village pump and one or two more places. Thanks for the advice. IZAK 09:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Dr_Baruch_Goldstein_Israel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr_Baruch_Goldstein_Israel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

PZFUN's crusade

Are we willing to prosecute PZFUN for his hardly-deniable attack on Jewish communal and religious topics? He is clearly marking for deletion organisations with memberships of thousands. His criteria for deletions is also often that the article is not well-written (as well as "utterly non-notable" which is not the case. jnothman ^talk 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. 'memberships of thousands' isn't notability enough, though the tens of thousands generally is. Just explain about which orgs are notable, make that clear in their articles, and add references... +sj + 16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Since PZFUN has some jewish blood in there too I've been told, I'm pretty certain he's not a crusader ;-) . In fact, the articles he nominated are extremely ill-maintained. This is still an encyclopedia, so his actions were technically correct, as far as policy goes.

Even so, it's made several people rather unhappy, so Slimvirgin has applied Ignore All Rules and kept the articles for now, so as to keep the peace.

In the mean time, it would help everyone a lot if we saw some serious maintenance work being done on those articles! Kim Bruning 15:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I have a lot of Jewish family members, including my father. If you want to make this personal, so be it, but it is hardly bad-faith to list articles that currently meet none of the Wikipedia checkpoints, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Sources, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Just by merely saying "If you were Orthodox, you'd know him" does not make something notable. Such statements need to have third-party references (ie, they can't just be on their personal page) and must be verified, in otherwords, they must be proven to exist. When an article has no sources, it cannot be assumed by a secular institution that something is indeed encyclopaedic. As for groups, there is a certain level of Wikipedia:Notability requirements; in other words, just because something is there, doesn't mean it necesarily deserves an article. There is no article on my Street Association because I can't prove it exists since we've never published anything, nor would an informal organisation of 500-1000 people be encyclopaedic. Please read Wikipedia policy before accusing me of bad faith. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

More discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Definite bad faith. If it really was good faith, he should've at least found 36 cardinals, bishops, and imans to afd and hide behind. --Shuki 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there was Jewish blood in some of the crusaders too. But the aplication of "No references" to articles with references, just because they are among some without and you happen to be giving the same nomination rationale for 16 articles doesn't make your actions correct or justified, and makes it seem like an arbitrary crusade on the topic. jnothman ^talk 01:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, some of them had one (or maybe two) website that were personal or were videos of them speaking, or had no back up for any of the information sourced. Just because an article has one link attached to it that is called a reference or a source does not make it such. And I would like it if you laid of the crusade rhetoric, it's pointless and only makes the discussion hostile. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I used crusade last night when I was quite upset by my time being spent on countering poorly-submitted AFDs. I hope you can accept my apologies, but it's in the wiki and can't be taken out. I have given you two examples of Hasidic rebbe articles that you nominated where clear print references were properly cited at the bottom of the article. Maybe no citations were given fact-by-fact, but that's usually not done in printed encyclopedias either. jnothman ^talk 02:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost none of those articles is fact, it is all speculation and copyvios. And fine, those two articles were a mistake, if their texts do indeed exist. So the other 14, then? Fact-by-fact referencing IS done on Wikipedia. I am rather frustrated as well as I seem to be wasting my time by trying to have anything to do with Judaism on Wikipedia. The minute anyone who is not Jewish and well known for it attempts to edit or prune article, they are attack as an "anti-smite" on a "crusade. It is appaling that the lack of quality is not a concern, while the sheer numbers of articles are. Have you seen Wikipedia:CRUFT? Well, now this is JudaismCruft. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming anti-semitism. I think that's silly. What I am claiming is that you, without discretion, nominated a whole pile of things from one category, seemingly only to make a point. Otherwise you may have been more careful in trying to have the articles improved, as many were clearly of notable subjects, even if some lacked references: yes, even the Jewish community here has a sense of discretion as to who is a notable and who is unnotable as a religious figure, but the originators of large Hasidic dynasties clearly should fall into the "notable" category. So don't just nominate so many articles with the same AFD comment- at least change them for when "not notable" or "no references" are clearly false! It is hardly clear that you looked at the articles before nominating them. jnothman ^talk 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the claim of "CRUFT", I reply that I not at all a fan of most of these personalities and I object to many aspects of their ways of life or interpretations of Judaism. But they are still mentioned often, and are prominent former leaders of large current communities. The heads of smaller and much shorter-term communities are found on Wikipedia, and could possibly be called cruft. These, on the other hand, are the founding heads of leader-centric groups that have existed for a couple of centuries. They are a topic of interest to me, but I am certainly no fan that wants my favourite superhero to have a page on Wikipedia. These persons are important and notable to Jews and non-Jews alike who are interested in Hasidism (not a minor strange fanclub). jnothman ^talk 02:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a stub cat. People clear those out regularly. Kim Bruning 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

STOP!

Hello! I took a lot of trouble with Slimvirgin to sort out the situation yesterday. Please do not go around telling things that are not true on many many articles for deletion.

Please discuss with either Slimvirgin or myself before you spread around more misunderstandings yet. I am not very pleased. Kim Bruning 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Try be objective. jnothman ^talk 22:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing your answer at Slimvirgins page, the traditional internet response is to refuse to cooperate with you further on this matter, which I am now doing. Kim Bruning 23:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've gone too far with this. Kim Bruning 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom

Shalom IZAK. It's easy to think, when a number of people become upset over a turn of phrase that you have used, that either they're just being over-sensitive and missing the whole point, or they're being deliberately obtuse. But there is always the possibility of showing magnanimity by retracting words that others may find offensive. I ask you now if you would consider showing such magnanimity. This is an occasion on which, I assure you, a retraction would enhance the regard in which you are held without diminishing the strong and important message of what you are saying. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. HKT 00:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse the above. Best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hello: I am not a mind-reader. Whatever it is that is bothering any one of you I retract. IZAK 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiddush Club notice

Hi, thanks for the notice. My edits to this article were limited to some basic Manual of Style formatting tweaks; I don't have the specialist knowledge required to make an informed vote on this article and the related AFD discussions. I will do some research into the matter and cast a vote if I can reach a decision on the debate. Thanks again for the notice. Regards. --Muchness 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. IZAK 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yasher koach

• Good grief, what is this? I haven't seen this one before ?#:=) But thanks a lot anyway Yoda! IZAK 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

• Now Wikipedia:Deletion review#Christian views of Hanukkah.
• Was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah.

According to the history, you wrote most of the article. Any idea of some sources? There really isn't content other than religious quotes, but the reviewers claimed "Original Research".

--William Allen Simpson 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) -- watching here

• Hi William: I did not write the article, but I remember dealing with it. I have written a detailed response at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Christian views of Hanukkah which should clarify the origins of the article, its mutations over time, and my role in it's early development. Best wishes, IZAK 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you, IZAK, for taking the time!

  --William Allen Simpson 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Email

Did you see my email? It's urgent. Pecher ^Talk 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you're editing, so may I draw your attention once again to my comment above? Sorry for being intrusive. Pecher ^Talk 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pecher: I have sent you my reply via Email. Best wishes, IZAK 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PArtnership Minyan

As an FYI, I had put entries on the issue in both the article talk page and the editor's user talk page, although I may not have waited enough time. --Shirahadasha 22:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cain and Abel article

Hello IZAK, as I understand, Cain and Abel article is mainly yours. It possibly has a mistake. Jewish tradition suggests that Cain and Abel were born before the Fall of Man. I know this from rabbis but I have not a reference to support the fact. What's your mention about? If it's so, how should article be corrected in the best way? For wiki 19:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi For wiki: I do not recall the scope of my involvement with that article, it's been a while since then. I do not have time to look at it now. For help, please try posting a request at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Best wishes, IZAK 08:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

I appreciate it. BTW, are you OK with this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Solomon is a redir to Biblical account of King Solomon? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Have given my views already, thanks Humus. Best wishes, IZAK 08:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for helping out in saving the article Spanish and Portuguese Jews (seems to be safe for now) and the category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews (heading the right way, I hope). -- Olve 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Olve, my pleasure, IZAK 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD reform

Hi, IZAK.

Kudos on adding religion as a category in the proposal; I get the impression that it gets enough AfD listings to necessitate its own category. I am concerned that splitting religion up further would jeopardize the entire categorization proposal, as there's a lot of concern about splitting up into more specific categories (relative to the specificity of "History/Geography", for example). Very broad categorization (even if Religion is part of another category) would still be quite helpful for editors interested in AfDs about specific religions, as that categorization would drastically minimize the the amount of junk to sift through. It would thus encourage more participation in these AfDs. I think that it would be a good idea from the standpoint of achieving consensus to not include the specific sub-religion categories. What do you think? Kol tuv, HKT^Talk 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi HKT: I think it would help to split the religion articles,in some way or to some degree, because Christianity, especially articles about it English, are very numerous and may tend to overwhelm articles from other religions and there VfDs as well. I think that the Christianity sections do get a large amount of AFD's listed. After all, Christianity is the world's largest religion with about two billion adherents and the bulk of the English Wikipedia's contributors are in the USA and the UK where Christianity is the dominant religion which makes for comprehensive articles and consequent VfDS which would tend to swamp the smaller amout of entries on other religions. Thus, for example, in looking for Judaism VFD's, one would have to sift through hundreds of Christian nominations before one could find the relatively few connected to Judaism. By the way, there is another problem: How to keep tabs of articles relating to Jews or Jewish history or Israel that are not part of the subject of Judaism as such? There is still some debate and thinking needed here. IZAK 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points you bring up. Maybe you should address them on the proposal page and see how they're taken? HKT^Talk 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• HKT: For now it seems that the consensus of the discussion at this point, is to stick with very broad categories, so I don't want to rock the boat too much. There are plenty of other areas larger than the religion ones that are being classed together, so let's wait and see if anyone else wants to see smaller categories. IZAK 15:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Son of the Chofetz Chaim?

Hi IZAK, take a look at this. I found this short biography of this Rov in the 1961 edition of the American Jewish Yearbook in the obituaries section (it's all online). I have a strong hunch that he was related in some way to the Chofetz Chaim. This is because:

• His surname was "Poupko" - the same as the Chofetz Chaim
• He was born in Radin

He also received positions in the Agudas HaRabbonim. If you know anything or can investigate his link with the Chofetz Chaim, I'd be grateful. Many thanks, Nesher 11:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I found your question most intriguing, so I did some research in the volumnious Artscroll biography about the Chafetz Chaim. I did not find any evidence of a link between him and Rabbi Eliezer Poupko. For one thing, there is no mention of Yisrael Meir Kagan's name being Poupko, and for another, the Chafetz Chaim had two sons and two daughters by his first wife. The youngest of these sons was born in 1869. (Eliezer Poupko was born in 1886.) From his second marriage the Chafetz Chaim only had one daughter, who married Rabbi Menachem Mendel Zaks and from whom all the living descendants of the Chafetz Chaim sprang. Yoninah 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid

Hi IZAK. Could you please restore the article to its original state? The move is considered unilateral and many contributors would argue against that. If you believe that the article should use the (phrase) than please discuss it. Let me know about your thoughts. Thanks in advance. CHeers -- Szvest 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

• Hi Faysall: The move was actually fine editing because the article itself begins with that EXACT self-description that it is a PHRASE, so it's 100% part of the article's definition of itself and its subsequent content -- a discussion about a phrase, nothing more and nothing less. Knowing that it's only a phrase helps keep perspective on its subject-matter and the discussion. Sincerely, IZAK 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whengoogling this phrase the google results are most direting to aparhide in "". The name of the article should include those as well. Zeq 05:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"justice"

Look at user:Zeq 85.65.56.28 09:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Anonymous: What should I "see" when I "look"? IZAK 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AZeq&diff=55860422&oldid=55150344

Reconsider

I urge you to reconsider your vote. Not because the phrase does not exist it does but the problem is how it is used in wikipedia. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV are clear but there is inability today in wikipedia to implemnet them. (this article is one example out of many). To describe the term/phrase does not mean giving free license to quote all the ridiculus allegations against israel and turn wikipedia into an internet discussion board (this is what this article is now).

If in an article about the iarnina president his holocause denial statements are only described " controversial statements" the article about "Israeli aprthide" could just say that this is a phrase used in the propeganda against israel right to exist and refer the reader to articls about the Palestinian territories, israel, Israeli arabs, palestinians etc....no reason to keep this article as it is now . Zeq 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Zeq: I agree with your sentiments, but we must deal with this subject, whether we like it or not. You could include all these points in the article itself but you have pushed too strong and now you have put yourself in a tough position (by being banned from it). The article can also be put into Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Ethnic slurs, which I will do in fact, but we cannot run away from it. I think you are over-reacting. I share your devotion to Israel, but we cannot function like the Taliban if we want to be respected. Best wishes, IZAK 05:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I disgree. This article include content from a source (global exchnage) which clearly does not conform with WP:RS - such content need to be removed. Zeq 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, so you could discuss all those valid points and put them into the article, that is how Wikipedia articles are built. This is not the first controversial article about the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian struggle and it will not be the last, believe me I have fought some tough battles myself, so go ahead and find good sources that are good critiques of this name and include them in the article, but you have still not convinced me why this article should be destroyed. Even many Israeli leftsists use this label, another reason it cannot be ignored. IZAK 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: By the way, even though I wish that the false book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion did not exist and was never invented, but it must have an article about it on Wikipedia because of its notability and notoriety. We cannot wish these things away and we cannot expect to impose mind control to get positive views accepted. I have faith in the power of truth and that a lie will not stand up to scrutiny. IZAK 05:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not the same thing. In nay case, listen to what I say: I would support having this article if it could describe the phrase and it's use correctly. Instead the article has become an intenet news group debating "is israel an aparhide state or nor" ? It is not an issue of what i "pushed too far". It is an issue of WP:RS, WP:NOT . that is all. Zeq 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Zeq: If "that is all" then you have a very good case and argument but who is to blame that you do not know how to deal with so-called "ANGLO-SAXON" (meaning English language) speakers and writers and editors who go by manners and decorum that most Israelis have never heard about? That is why they love to quote Wikipedia:Civility! (I know it's easy to preach...) Imagine that you are part of a team of editors and not part of a mission to annihilate people you disagree with. That is why I say, calm down and learn to speak in a way that will help you provide good information for articles instead of getting into useless fights and then being banned. I am hoping that you will get there quickly because your energy and knowledge are important and are needed. IZAK 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tzniut

IZAK, my last edit was strictly editorial -- I had noticed that text about dress was in the hair covering section and vice versa, and moved text to its proper location. I linkified Berakhot and tidied up a bit. Most of the matters you complain of, including the reference to "Ultra-Orthodox", were not added by me. As to kol Isha, perhaps it might be useful to add the Seridei Eish responsum on Zemirot. --Shirahadasha 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK

Hi IZAK, I'm slightly befuddled as to why you haven't responded to my last two messages:

• Why don't you come over and vote at the Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week? You can also help edit the curent collaboration, Rabbi Hershel Schachter.
• Do you know anything of Rabbi Eliezer Poupko?

Your expertise and assistance in any of these matters would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Nesher 12:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Hi Nesher: Often, I just don't have the time for things so it's nothing deliberate, and believe it or not, also quite often, when it appears that some things are doing well, I don't get involved, since I abide by the rule of "If it's not broken don't fix it"! Best wishes, IZAK 07:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

--Bhadani 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Bhadani, IZAK 07:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Head's Up

Izak I had no idea there was an admin with a similar name as mine! That's alright tho, as I am more comfortable with being called Rivka than anything else. I am certainly not very experienced at all (I should probably take a few journalism classes) so I doubt, once my and her content is compared, that there will be any mistake as to who is writing what, lol. Woe for her, if my writing is mistaken for hers, lol. Thanks again, Rivka 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Rivka: Enjoy Wikipedia. Take care, IZAK 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jericho

I saw your name on the Talk page, and hoped that you could evaluate the last few edits. I twice reverted a poorly written claim inserted in the wrong section, and which was already noted in the correct section. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Tewfik: I don't have enough time to deal with this issue. Please post your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Best wishes. IZAK 08:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message

Shalom Aleichem IZAK, thanks for your welcome message. I was just wondering: this seems to be a standard message posted to new users on the part of putative "mentors". Is this so? If so, how are the "mentors" assigned/how do they choose the newbie they post to? --Batamtig 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Batamtig: From time to time, when I see new users posting to articles, usually falling into either Category:Jews and Judaism or Category:Israel and Zionism that are on "my watchlist" I check to see if they have been welcomed. The influx of new users to Wikipedia is far too great for any group to welcome all of them, let alone "mentor" them. Sometimes I find that new users have not been welcomed for months and even for over a year! Any Wikipedians may welcome any new users they wish, whenever they wish, if they so desire. There is nothing stopping two or three established users from welcoming new users. There are no rules about this beyond "be nice and don't bite the newbies"... which I hope comes across when I take the trouble to go over to a newbie's never-before-used talk page and post the {{welcome}} (Template:Welcome). Why are you so curious about this and how can I be of help to you? Take care, IZAK 08:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I certainly appreciate the welcome. I was curious since I found it kind of "spooky" that your WP contributions were so similar to my interests. Almost as if someone was spying on my browsing! (Obviously I don't mean that seriously). No help needed right now. I'll let you know if I do. Be Well, Batamtig 10:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Batamtig: Please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism based on your interests. No-one can "spy" on your browsing! But, for the record, whenever you edit anything on Wikipedia any other Wikipedian can view your typed edits if they so desire by going to your user page and clicking on its "User contributions" button in the "toolbox" on the left side of the page. This helps ensure that people take responsibility for what they write and also ensures that there is a record of everything if any future questions or discussions arise. Feel free to call on me here if you need help (or go to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism as people there can help out too.) Take care, IZAK 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish articles

I note that you are the gatekeeper for all Jewish related articles. Do I or anyone else have to seek your approval in order to make a change to or introduce a new Jewish article, or category? Wallie 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Wallie: You're joking, right? This is Wikipedia where anyone can edit any article. No permission is required of anyone as long as one abides by the rules of Wikipedia. There are many editors who are involved with Judaism-related articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for example. Feel free to ask. Just out of curiosity, what Jewish articles or categories did you want to introduce? Maybe I can help out? Take care, IZAK 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the greetings IZAK! Albert Cheng 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• My pleasure Albert! IZAK 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm a little surprised that you even pay attention to the Kaifeng Jews web page on Wikipedia. They are an obscure group. Thanks again for getting in touch with me. Albert Cheng 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian view of Nazarite

Hi IZAK! Noticed that the section on Nazarites has an extensive Christian section, at least some of which seems like original research, the speculative parts should be at least sourced, seems out of place (Judaism as precursor to Christianiity). Perhaps there should be two articles. Good luck with the bird tzitzit (those wing fringes you're so fond of ;) --Shirahadasha 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome!

So, if I goof up on wiki-editing, can I ask you for help?

Oops

Oh. Speaking of goofing up, it appears that I somehow missed signing that last post. Let me try again.

Jmhudlow 14:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Radbaz

Shavua` tov, Izak... When you get a chance, I could use some help at David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra... most specifically with ascertaining when he actually lived, as well as any other pertinent information. The JE article and a minority of websites indicate that he lived 1479-1589 (110 years) (relevant google search), while a greater number of websites quote a more believable 1479-1573 (94 years) (relevant google search). Thanks for your time, Tomer^talk 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Kugel(disambiguation)

Hi Izak,

I'm having a bit of a problem with a user who insists on adding irrelevant material to the Kugel (disambiguation) page. Most of the material is German language compound words, and German surnames containing "kugel", and I don't see the relevance to the English language page. I've tried to reason with the user, first on his talk page, then on the articles, but I don't seem to be getting anything coherent from him. He just says that he's "listed the article for translation". Any suggestions what to do? Regards, -Batamtig 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Batamtig: Yes he does have a tendency to get involved in that type of word research stuff from my past interactions with him, especially with Jewish naming conventions of all sorts. He is very scholarly and reasonable and you can and should keep up a dialogue with him. I suggest also that you place a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism about the situation. I have also left my comments on the kugel disambig talk page. Be well, IZAK 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks a lot for the advice! I'll make the request on the WProject. Zay gezunt Batamtig 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• • So far, he's just ignored any attempts to engage him in dialogue.-Batamtig 07:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Batamtig: I am sorry to hear it, and I am not surprised because he is very determined when he works on his projects to do with names and naming... The next step is to request a neutral mediator. The first thing to try is the less formal Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal which should get his attention. If that does not help then please read Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (all this over "kugel"? :-} ) IZAK 07:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please read our brief discussion of this user over at User talk:Batamtig? Batamtig is concerned this user might physically harm himself. Thanks. Ideogram 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rav Hutner

Hi IZAK, thanks for backing up that claim in Rav Hutner's article. Also, I'm slightly concerned with your new cats, as you don't seem to ever bring the matter to open debate before you perform these controversial actions. As you warned me, I would advise you to STOP making new cats without prior discussion, for example the Roshei Yeshiva cats just today. Rav Hutner now has 4 jewish/rabbi cats - all of your invention. What a duplication and impractical arrangement.

PS: In my humble opinion, you came down way too hard on Czalex. Your language was exclusionist and smacked of emotional overtones laced with evident anger. Oversensational emboldment is wholly unecessary. Please be more careful in future not to cause even the slightest semblance of a Chillul Hashem.

PS:PS: please don't take this as a personal attack and come out with both guns blazing. Many thanks, Nesher 13:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nesher: Oh don't worry, I don't panic from any attacks, only anti-Semites concern me and many of those I have confronted have all been banned over the years and not because of me, I just have a good "nose" for them via the words and meanings they convey. Regarding categories: I am not "inventing" anything, it is all accurate and true, sorry that you don't see it that way. Not all Haredi rabbis are rosh yeshivas so we need both categories ultimately. Regarding Czalex, no problem, and actually I thought I was being very nice and clear with him. You know we have had this problem on a recurring basis for years with Eastern European editors who do not respect the manner in which Jews and Judaism name/d things in Eastern Europe for HUNDREDS of years and continue to do so, and instead they come up with Cyrillic alphabet words as the only versions of names and places in Jewish-related topics yet! Imagine the opposite, if Judaism editors go into their articles about Eastern European topics and stick in and change all kinds of information not to their liking according to Hebrew or Yiddish spelling/s, or according to Jewish history, since millions of Jews dwelled in those lands for hundreds of years (actually thousands of years in some cases.) That never happens you see because Jewish editors are ever-so-polite as they tippy-toe to make the world "happy" yet it's always Polish, or Ukrainian, or Russian or now Belorasian editors that feel they have the right to tamper with the articles related to Jews in conncetion with Eastern Europe, usually of Hasidim or rabbonim or something of that nature. If they are not informed quickly and clearly then they will simply cause a ton of damage -- unwittingly we assume and pray -- and that usually takes a long, long time to undo. I appreciate your feedback, it always help me keep perspective when no-one is around as I "whistle while I work" at Wikipedia... And now I must really sign off to get some sleep eventually... IZAK 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)