User talk:IZAK/Archive 24

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 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 →

Contents

Barry Gurary

Since I was the first person to initialize the article, the deletion confuses me a lot. Thanks to G-d my article in Hebrew is still preserved. In reference to the article in English, I would like to know: What do you intend to do inorder to restore the article? How to prevent such vandalism in the future? I think that the best way to preserve the beloved article in wikipedia is to copy it to your on disk, if it would be deleted and you want to restore it, copy-past it directly. Do you have any suggestion how to restore the same article itself, that was deleted?Narshavs 11:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion as it asserted no notability other than him being related to the rebbes and having stolen books. You're making an awfully big deal out of it. Per WP:PROD, a prod deletion could be contested after the fact, and any admin will undelete it for you and submit it to a full AfD discussion. Just ask kungfuadam and he will happily do it, I am sure. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that he deserves an article as many pretenders to European crowns, even after several generations. Due to Rebbes death and being messiah controversy the personality of Barry deserves especial attention.Narshavs 14:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Dear IZAK! You can participate on the discussion of article deletion.Narshavs 19:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, not a chosid, if that is what you're implying there. Zero connection or interest in Chabad. Barry fails BIO and RS - as plain as that. Your theatrics to kungfuadam and in the box only strengthen that point. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What "theatrics" ? -- it's my normal speech pattern! IZAK 03:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Now I have a few problems with this entire episode. Firstly, do you know enough about the subject to have made that decision? Secondly, try as I may, why can I not find any listing of the nomination for the deletion and your imprimatur to delete the Barry Gurary article on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 6 log? Thirdly, why is there no history of your deletion of this article on your own "user contributions" page when I tried to find a link to your act of deleting this article on your history page that covers August 11, 2006 at [2] when I searched for it? Unless you simply treated this as a "quick delete."
That is SO rude. Is that your normal speech pattern? All you had to do was ask ANY sysop to undelete the article per WP:PROD. Have you even heard of Prod before today? Because "closing prod uncontested since 6 Aug" is a perfectly informative deletion summary for those of us who have been paying attention in the last 9 months or so. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And stop soliciting votes - FOR SHAME! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Crazy: Anyone is free to contact other editors within reason if those editors have no objections. What is the point of over-reacting? IZAK 04:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Crazy: And since you mention WP:PROD, take a look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Nominating a proposed deletion point number 3: Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}} Did you do that at least? If not, why not? IZAK 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Crazy: Also, according to the "PROD" guidelines, stated on all the PROD category pages: "Only uncontroversial articles may be deleted using proposed deletion" and it would have been fairly obvious to anyone familiar with the subject (except dyed-in-the-wool Lubavitchers who hate Barry Gurary) that anything to do with the subject of Barry Gurary being as related as it is to the subject of Chabad's development in modern times and the very basis of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe's accesssion and subsequent rulership over his minions is by any definition a controversial subject and thus did not qualify for a PROD-type of deletion but for a more formal WP:AFD which you then did. This episode also points to how WP:PROD can be both misused and abused when in the wrong hands. IZAK 05:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Living Torah Museum

attn. `'mikka (t) 00:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up mikka. I will have more to say about this topic in the future in any case. IZAK 07:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox Jewish communities

Shavua Tov! I seem to have gotten into an edit war regarding Cedarhurst, New York, with someone who has taken offense at the fact that it has been put into Category:Orthodox Jewish communities, as he feels that it is offensive to those who are non-Orthodox. I believe that the term means a municipality that HAS an Orthodox Jewish community; he seems to interpret it as IS an Orthodox Jewish community. I edited the category and added the text "These are areas that have within them an Orthodox Jewish community in which there is a sizable and cohesive population, which has its own community organizations, businesses, day schools, yeshivas and/or synagogues that serve the members of the local Orthodox community", which I believe, based on discussions we had back when the category was first created, to represent the intentions of the category. He added the text "and constitute the majority of a specific community." to put his spin on this subject. Any thoughts on this subject? What should be done with this category, and what constitutes an Orthodox community? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm

You just don't like me and that's it, isn't it? Has it occurred to you for a moment that you have been harassing me from day 1? I know you've been arround a long time, and have made significant contributions, which I've been seeing since 2003. So now I am an editor, I have to flatter you for every choice of words you made and can't be bold myself? I do something you dont like, and every time without fail your dislike is made known to nearly every Jewish admin here? ..And the bottom line is always "his latest distruptions". And you bring up the sockpuppet thing AGAIN, as if its a bad thing. Izak, take a chill, I'm here to stay until I decide to leave. frummer 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Frummer: I have worked with hundreds of editors without problems. I do not know any of them personally, including you, so nothing is ever based on my personal "feelings" about editors because I simply do not know them. Editors are only known and judged by the editing they do and the quality of their work as well as how they can get along with everyone else, and unfortunately, I have concluded that you are not in sync enough with Wikipedia's editorial and writing culture. I will leave it up to the admins to judge you, but if it was up to me, I would have you and every one of your self-admitted sock-puppets blocked for a good period of time, not because "I don't like you" (if I were to meet you face to face I may even LOVE you a lot) but as a commited editor here I can only draw conclusions from your activities which have created many problems, and I will wager to say, that if not stopped, you still have many "tricks up your sleeve" that will only cause more problems on Wikipedia. I have asked you many times to moderate your EDITORIAL and WRITING behavior but you have simply ignored me. You think I am a "pest" and you foolishly personalize the situation, and very conveniently you overlook how you are contributing to your own difficulties with your EDITORIAL and WRITING disruptions that waste a lot of people's time around here. Sad but true.IZAK 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Once again, please stop mentioning my socks, read WP:SOCK. The way you keep repeating this and other issues illustrates your problem with me, and others of these editors, i.e. user:Jewish who you scared off some very serious contributions with one of your over cautious campaigns. Anyways I think its quite the opposite, you are personalising your approach to my edits, mistakes etc. The way you can correct/reprimand someone can make a difference. For example, look at how you deal with the NeshAir, clogging up an AFD, posting nurd alerts on 7 admin pages, and emailing others, it was a press release thousands got by email, but your nom is still correct since it still cannot be sourced sufficiently, something I couldn't have predicted, often the case with news scoops. You paint a picture of me being a continuous disruptor with lots of brush underlay in the form of conspiracy theories about my possible motives. p.s. by the way the preview button is useful. My bottom line is paranoia sometimes affects your good judgement, you should be able to take some criticism. frummer
      • Frummer: Amazing how you twist things around. It was agreed upon long ago that the name User:Jewish was not an appropriate name for an editor for obvious reasons which were discussed long ago (See User talk:Jewish#Problem with your user name -- all the admins there agreed with me.) Next point makes me laugh: Hahahahaha...you say how I (me, myself and I) "deal" with "NeshAir" -- what a joke, it's how you "dealt" with NeshAir and many other subjects! Thanks for making me laugh ROTFL! Next: I am in regular contact with about ten admins who have an interest in articles relating to Jews and Judaism, get over it! Next: I did not Email anyone about your case, I wouldn't waste my Email accounts on such obvious and stupendous mistakes on your part that any Wikipedian can see that you have blundered. Next: What "press release" ? Can you post it someplace, I am sure people would love to read it, after all a press release is a public document and you don't have to keep it all to yourself. Finally: The worst thing in my eyes, in the El Al article, is that you mixed in an endorsement of "NeshAir" by name in the declarations of the major rabbonim of the El Al boycott [1] and reporting it as a "fact" from the jpost.com link when there is nothing in the jpost.com article that mentions NeshAir! How do you explain that? Is that also my fault? That you twist the truth and insert false information into articles, and when I spot it and call it to the attention of other editors is that a sign of me being paranoid? Hahahahahahahahahaha! ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL !!! 06:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)~
Am working on the proposed Noahide Laws rewrite. User:FrummerThanThou/sandbox. frummer
Enjoy yourself, no doubt I will be forced to clean up after you over there as well. IZAK 06:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus

Hi Izak, I've been involved in a discussion with a christian editor at Judaism's view of Jesus who is holding to the fairly common christian interpretation that Judaism and christianity are pretty much the same thing and therefore the article should reflect christian views as well. I'm enjoying the conversation, since the editor (Just nigel) is more restrained than some, but I'll be away for a few days between now and the weekend. If you're interested, the discussion is at the bottom of the talk page. Dbratton 10:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (crossposted to Jon513)

  • Hi Db: I will let some others know as well. Thanks. IZAK 10:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion

Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" and by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historicgeographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern Stare of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 06:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, I think I've got it. I will be more careful about future articles. However, I have already added a few dozen articles over the past few months, and I don't have the patience to revisit all of them. If I stumble across them again, I will update them as appropriate. Thanks again. Nice talking to you. —Dfass 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Hi again Dfass: Fine, and keep up your good work. All the best and a happy Chanukah. IZAK 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ezra

I've left it in, see Allah, third para, we believe Ezra was/is the son of GD? Whats the story on that one??? frummer 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, it's at 9:27, p.136 in the Penguin Classic edition: "The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, and the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are the words they utter with their mouths, by which they emulate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are." You'd probably need to check a commentary to see what the reference is. —Dfass 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion banner

I have responded to what struck me as being your almost hysterical comments on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism page. Please try to be less emotional in the future, and less quick to cast aspersions on the unknown intentions of others. Badbilltucker 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello: Thanks for getting back to me. What may appear to you as "hysterical" is to others very ALARMING, when you have a group of editors setting themselves up as some sort of "supreme religious council" to pass judgment on any and all articles about any and all religion, which is what we call chutzpah. I hope this matter can be clarified in the very near future. IZAK 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a principle of wikipedia about which you seem to be unfamiliar, based on your statements to date: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Once again, in your above comment, you seem to decide that you yourself are in a position to decide the motives of others. Also, if you note the terms of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, it is already the case that there are a rather limited number of editors who are engaged in assessing all the articles in wikipedia. I, clearly, am one of them. This is no different than the people who assess good article and featured article candidates. Personally, I think that the only person who has displayed chutzpah here is yourself, by your attempting to decide the motivations of the actions of others with no clear and direct knowledge of them. Badbilltucker 16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • My dear chap: No-one has worked harder than myself over the past four years to edit thousands of articles relating to Jews, Judaism, and Israel and to build up their contents, style, syntax, spelling, layout, you name it, and now along comes little old you, a member of some committee or other (you seem to forget that Wikipedia is made up of tens of thousands of editors and that they are the ones who carry the heaviest burdens and not one or two priviliged "committee" members who appear out of nowhere backrooms.) You see, many of us don't have time to keep up with all the backroom decisions by glory boys because we are too damn busy editing the stuff that you want to "improve" with tags or whatnot. Let me tell you, it won't work, people will still do as they have always done. But the real problem and danger is that the tags will attract the wrong kind of people, like how on Earth are you going to have ATHEISTS and "Messianic Jews" edit Jewish contents articles? That would be like having strippers come and do physiotherapy on patients. I am just trying to make this clear to you, that you need to enlist first and foremost the reliable Judaism-oriented editors and not create a situation where total unknown editors will invade articles about Jews, Judaism and Israel and destroy them in the name of "improving" them. This is not personal, it's perfectly logical. Are you getting my point? IZAK 16:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Again, please read WP:OWN. I gratefully acknowledge your contributions to the articles, and thank you for it. However, your own actions have been far from logical. I myself have stated elsewhere that I was a major in the history of religion in college, in preparation for becoming a Dominican monk. Had I completed college (I went on a National Merit Scholarship to the University of Southern California and flunked calculus, causing me to lose the scholarship and leaving me without sufficient funds to continue in college), it was my intention to become an archaeologist in the Middle East. Also, please cease your own ill-informed accusations against me. At no point did I ever see myself as a "back rooms glory boy", but simply someone trying to enhance wikipedia by making it easier to see where articles currently stand and trying to help others improve them. Frankly, given your own irrational responses, and those of others, I am now actually considering leaving wikipedia altogether, as it seems to me that several individuals, perhaps including you yourself, are more in it for personal glory than I myself have ever been. I have tried to make articles more visible and to help people know their contents. I have never sought out any personal acclaim myself. Badbilltucker 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your own actions have probably been offensive enough

Please note that the image is not in fact an idol of a god, but simply a man engaging in meditation. Meditation struck me as being the least offensive image that could be used. Also, please refrain from casting ill-informed aspersions on my character, as you have now repeatedly done. And, lastly, please read WP:OWN, which clearly implies that no one, including YOU, own anything. Also please note, that, given your own overreaction to the simple acts of assessments I have been engaging in, I am now only adding the banner to those articles which are central to a religion, and to those not covered within the scope of any other religion. Also, please cease your own offensive name-calling toward myself, and try to learn something about a subject before you jump to criticize it, particularly considering that you yourself just falsely criticized me for doing something regarding something about which I actually do know something. And, try to at least be a bit more civil than you have been recently. Manners play better than attacks in general. Badbilltucker 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure, that's my point exactly: That you don't WP:OWN Wikipedia to have the temerity stick graven images of a near-naked man meditating to who knows what type of deity, equally forbidden by the Ten Commandments. You must see that you are stepping on toes big time, and it's only going to get worse, if you keep up your attitide. Wikipedia is a collection of thousands of editors from all walks of life, including some very religious ones, who will not appreciate your tampering. Trying to improve articles is what we are all striving for, but no-one will take kindly to the sense that you are going to shape the direction of Judaism articles (feel free to take on all the Islamic, Hindu, Christian, and pagan editors...places I do not go to.) It's a job that no human can really ever accomplish, for it is Godly wisdom, and as humans we don't check in our brains and beliefs as we log onto the Internet and replace them with the dictates of "committee meetings and decisions" decreed from "Mt. Wikipedia" because after all WP:NOR applies to Wikipedia's philosophies about itself too when they counter reality. IZAK 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
    • This is a debate and opinions are being expressed, there is no intention of anything personal, and if I am being misunderstood, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Please get yourself a user name to be taken seriously. IZAK 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor do you own wikipedia, or any pages within it, which your own actions have made it clear is something which you yourself do not actually believe. And it is your attitude, specifically contrary to wikipedia guidelines regarding ownership, which is I think most clearly at fault. Nor did I ever say I was going to shape the direction of articles, as you accused me of above. I was simply indicating how the articles stood. Your own attempts to define wikipedia from your own perspective, which is dare I say clearly biased, show that you are probably the least qualified person to be passing judgments, particularly ill-informed judgements, on the actions of others. Had you bothered to read the Scope section of the Religion Project page, you would have noted that beyond assessment and possibly peer review and collaboration, it is the clear objective of the project to leave pages which are within the scope of any of the other religion projects alone. However, it clearly didn't matter to you that you didn't know what you're talking about. Good day and goodbye. Finally note that your original claim, about the picture being that of an idol, was found to be fallacious, so, out of your own apparent wish to be contrarian, you found some other cause to object to it, making it clear that all you want to do is argue, not try to be willing to work together on anything. Your own clear claims to ownership of a kind of the Jewish content is what is at fault here, not anything I have done. Badbilltucker 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not concerned with ownership as I know it's impossible, I am only concerned with responsibility, accountability, reality and truth, I think that's enough to chew on, and please don't leave Wikipidia because I admire User:Kirill Lokshin as much as you do and I like what he has done with military articles, but there is no way that you can assume that people will react the same way when it comes to religion-based articles. IZAK 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down

Hi IZAK. Please calm down. You have a valid point to make, but undermine yourself in the way that you make it. I'm off now to set up a bunch of overly runny candles. My windowsill is a mess. Take my well-intentioned advice and have a doughnut/latke and chill a little before returning to the issue. --Dweller 17:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Dweller: Thanks for the feedback, enjoy your latkes etc, I haven't had enough so far, which should make my cardiologist happy! Be well. IZAK 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawl from WikiProject Religion

Based on your often ill-informed, frankly emotional, and dare I say prejudiced statements, and your frankly illogical assumption that against all the evidence you are still right, I have concluded that it is at the very least in the best interests of wikipedia to leave frankly prejudicial subjects in the hands of the small-minded individuals who somehow assume that everything has to agree with their own prejudices, such as yourself, I am now officially withdrawing from the Religion project, and very possibly from wikipedia altogether, leaving those individuals who place their own preconceptions over reality in charge of those articles. Badbilltucker 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Badbill, you are over-reacting and making no sense. Please calm down and join the debate. Have you ever been inside a yeshiva? it's always like that. So sit back and try to enjoy, the night is young. IZAK 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Lol, poor fellow, he's obviously never stepped on your foot before. I'll give him a little solace. frummer 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yaa, thanks. IZAK 12:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ezra

I've left it in, see Allah, third para, we believe Ezra was/is the son of GD? Whats the story on that one??? frummer 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, it's at 9:27, p.136 in the Penguin Classic edition: "The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, and the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are the words they utter with their mouths, by which they emulate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are." You'd probably need to check a commentary to see what the reference is. —Dfass 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I still dont know how it gets into the LEAD of an article like that, but then again, it looks like that LEAD needs a comlete rewrite, its not the only irrelevent remark in there. frummer

Hi

Hi IZAK - this is Bellbird. I have just read your comment on what used to be my talk page.

As you can see, I am writing from a new account I have just created for the purpose of leaving you a reply; I thought it would be rude of me not to answer. The climate here became too much at some point, and I decided to leave en.wikipedia entirely. In particular, I managed to forget my Bellbird password.

Perhaps I shall be able to achieve something in other venues. In the meantime, I would have to agree with Pjacobi that this entire thing has become hopeless. In so far as we can see here a reflection of the extent to which "blood-based" classification has become acceptable in the US (or rather, has always been acceptable), I am saddened and worried. If this is, instead, a reflection of trends characteristic of certain individuals who claim to be "Jewish" (and who believe that the proper exercise of the duties contingent upon this label consists in dividing humanity by caste, religion and bloodlines in the common public discourse) I am more than worried. I do not know whether, as you fear, this might lead to an opposition to Judaism in general; however, this kind of activity certainly makes me dislike these particular individuals, no matter what their actual "origin" (for any plausible definition of "origin").

Do not give up. I, myself, will have to direct my efforts to areas where they might be more fruitful. Perhaps we shall talk again. In the meantime, have a happy Hannukah, Eid, Kwanzaa, Yule, Christmas (not a good reason not to be happy!), Solar New Year, Winter Solstice, Generic Pagan Holiday with Beautiful Russian Damsels in the Woods, etc. Bellbird2 13:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Bellbird: Good to hear from you after such an absence. Let me say, that I only celebrate Hanukkah (what the heck is "Beautiful Russian Damsels in the Woods" do they have a "holiday" for that?) Any time you can come back and contribute to the discussions would be great. People make the mistake of wanting to be perfectionists and get upset when Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Remember, Wikipedia is a "work of art in motion and creation" so that all serious discussions and good faith opinions matter and will inevetibaly yield the best results. Take care and come back soon. IZAK 12:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your clearly and explicitly unaccepable conduct

You have in the past compared wikipedia to a yeshiva. In fact, directly above, you even spoke of trying to "enjoy" having someone clearly and explicitly violate the standards of behavior of wikipedia, yourself being that person. On that basis, I think that it is probably best that someone ensure that you be made aware of some of the rules and policies of wikipedia:

  • (1) Wikipedia: Assume good faith - only a guideline, but one which you clearly and explicitly violated. Rather than seeking to approach the person whom you had, in a rush to judgement, taken offense at, you chose instead start a campaign against him, based on at best faulty, if not in fact completely absent, reasoning. Even worse, you had not even bothered to look over some of the data that had already been made available, showing a lack of regard for the facts which is, at best, certainly unfortunate in someone seeking to contribute to what is an encyclopedia.\
  • (2) Wikipedia: Civility - Your beloved NOTICE and OBJECTIONS sent to all and sundry, again, without having even seemed to try to contact the specific person whose actions you so vocally had OBJECTIONS to, were in and of themselves probably in violation of this official policy. In fact, they might be sufficient for disciplinary proceedings against you, up to and including being blocked from editing. Also, several of your actions since then, particularly your taking "offense" at the picture, were very likely in and of themselves more directly and intentionally offensive than the action you were objecting to.
  • (3) Wikipedia: No personal attacks - another official policy which your beloved glory boy phrasing, among others, was again in clear and explicit violation of. Again, on the basis of the last two above, I would clearly have more than sufficient cause to request that you be considered for discipline, possibly including being at least temporarily banned from editing. I, however, having rather better manners than you have to date demonstrated, will not do so.
Now, on a completely unrelated note, but to advise you as to why I took such serious umbrage at what you would no doubt call your "little errors", which others would call "officially unacceptable behavior". The quick biography of the person you attacked, as it were. I have genetically deformed vocal apparatus such that I was not able to speak coherently until the fifth grade. It requires more than regular effort and concentration for me to talk in any circumstances, and the amount of effort and concentration required increases exponentially on those occasions when the degree of neuromuscular tension I have falls outside of what is a very thin range. As an example, I once was put in a situation to take on the leading role in a play in school for the first three nights of shows when the person who had been set for the role was in police custody. I allegedly did a more than creditable job under the circumstances, but literally passed out only a minute or two after the final curtain call on opening night from the exertion, and was allegedly not a lot of fun after either of the next two shows. As such, being subject to the kind of behavior you seem to "enjoy" is something I object to more than most. This was made worse some years ago when, after discussing some of the unfortunate beliefs of a now largely discredited sect around someone who I did not know still adhered to that sect, I received what was a clear and obvious death threat from that person in the presence of several coworkers. This occurred at work, but, given the quality of the lawyers that group has had over the years, the employer would not terminate her, for fear of the negative publicity which would almost certainly arise. I continued in the position for several months myself, but was forced to ultimately resign because the extra effort required for me to engage in even minimal speech at work was such that my immune system deteriorated to a degree that I have only recently, about five years later, more or less recovered from. In the event that you were to at some point in the future call into question why I choose to use an alias, it is because I do not want to give the homicidal coworker any cause to try to find me after the fact. However, I refuse to allow any such harrassment and insults to stand in my way again.
In conclusion, I regret to say that my personal opinion of you as an individual after our contact is that you inspire in me a degree of contempt and disgust which I personally seek to avoid having in regard to anyone, including the likes of Hitler. I acknowledge that this in some degree as a result of a failure of my own, and will take responsibility for that. However, in the event that we ever have cause to have contact with each other, something I dearly hope will not be the case, it is my sincerest hope that you remember the policies and guidelines I have referred you to above then. Badbilltucker 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Badbill: Thank you for your personal story, I can see that you are a brave person, but I am sorry that you have compared me to Hitler, a very unfortunate and gravely serious thing for you to have done and I will not forget! I don't wish to dwell on that obvious heinous personal attack (not just by Wikipedian standards) at this time, but I do wish to give you some feedback. Please, don't twist my words, I have never compared Wikipedia to a yeshiva, nor will I ever, I assure you! Gosh! But I do, from time to time like to ask of editors who write on topics of great importance to Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism, if they have any familiarity with a "yeshiva" because that is where historically Jews have and still do, for the past two thousand years, studied their religion in depth -- and not having this familiarity usually indicates a lack of serious credentials in Torah study, rabbinic literature, Talmud, Halakha, and much more. You know, you have written about your Roman Catholic and Christian education and I would greatly respect your expertise in those fields based on your stated background. I would never dream of editing articles and offering opinions in or about them because I would asssume your academic background and probably even wider personal reading gives you greater ability to write accurately about those topics. All this would be no different than wanting to establish if a writer about medical and scientific topics has a background in medicine and science, which very often they do, that in turn raises their credibility in those specific fields. After all, Wikipedia is not here to foster shallow and false knowledge as it desires to convey the correct information and the truth. So kindly stop creating smokescreens and making "me" into the issue and face up to the fact that you overstepped your bounds in this instance. Better to say, oops I'm sorry, and move on with the job of editing articles in subjects we can be proud of, rather than set ourselves up as "judges of the unknown" and indulging in heated policy debates. IZAK 12:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No comparison between you and Hitler was intended, and in fact, if you read the statement, was even made. I simply compared opinions I have of two different people, and indicated the one which I myself see as being probably the lowest I have in all the world, that of the somewhat psychologically damaged, but still atrocious and abominable, individual that Hitler was. I see that you are perhaps yourself trying to create a "smokescreen" here to obscure what is in fact what I see as being the most basic issue here, which is I believe your own failure to abide by good faith and even show the barest minimum regard for other editors; specifically, you are the one who made yourself the issue, by your own at best incompletely, and at worst uncaring, attempt to "Notify" all and sundry of various accusations which are not supported by any evidence, and were in fact clearly found to be faulty, and to attempt to create yet another smokescreen by somehow implying that I made a direct comparison of you to one of history's most notable monsters when no such comparison was in fact ever made. Also, you once again make a completely unfounded assumption that there was ever any attempt to say that I or the project had "greater" ability, something that I know full well I never even implied or would imply, it seems to me once again that you are yourself constructing yet another smokescreen, to perhaps obscure to yourself that your choosing to contact a number of people regarding what, I think, even you now realize is a false accusation without ever having contacted or even attempting to contact those individuals whom you raised such unfounded accusations against, and which you still continued in above, is probably the single greatest impediment to our ever being able to realize the truth in our content. Specifically, I have not and never would say that I have "greater" knowledge than anyone else about anything of substance, except, perhaps, some of the minutiae of Arthurian literature and perhaps of some of the old and now moribund sects of the old world, such as Mandaeanism and some of the old legends of the Babylonian world. Even there, I am willing to do something which you yourself have clearly and demonstrably failed to do, and that is in fact peruse the sources. I note once again your abject failure to even attempt to contact anyone before you made your accusations. You will also note, if you can be bothered to pay attention to any of the facts, that I only placed the banners on the pages of the main articles of all of the existing religions, and of the various types of beliefs (Monotheism, Dualism, etc.). You once again display your own seemingly unfounded belief that somehow your unconsidered, unverified, frankly unacceptable behavior was in some way justified, and attempt to impugn the unknown motives and activities of others rather than even attempt to grasp the truth here. In closing, I regret to say that by your attempt at what I personally consider to be pathetic self-justification above, you have only sought to make my opinion of you, and on your ability yourself to even recognize the truth, that much lower. Good day and I sincerely hope goodbye. And please refrain from further spurious accusations, as they are universally regarded as the greatest impediment to ever being able to realize the truth. Badbilltucker 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Whatever. Bye for now. IZAK 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal

Yes, i've seen you been very busy with the portal lately, which is good. It would be very cool if our portal had the same flare as some of the main portals featured on the homepage, we may participate more. But then again, its hard getting every line of coding right and i still haven't worked out wiki's alignment configurations yet. Very not htmL/X like but interesting. frummer 05:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I was just busy with Portal:Judaism yesterday to keep it current with the next set of major Jewish holidays. Please note that it took a while for a number of editors to set up the portal originally and it would not be advisable to mess it up or to mess around with and to make it hard to work with. IZAK 12:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • sure thing. frummer 06:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew

Thanks for the reminder. It seems that "Hebrew" actually does link to "Hebrew language", which is why I've been using it. (Anything to save time!) I'll try to remember about "Jerusalem Talmud". Feel free to make corrections that I forget to make. —Dfass 20:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Dfass, I realized after I wrote that to you. But at one time "Hebrew" was actually a disambiguation page I seem to recall, goes to show how things change around here and it's hard to know, even if you edit Wikipedia a lot. IZAK 17:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, changing it to a redirect was a completely undiscussed and mildly lame move, IMHO, although I can understand the rationale (back when I was diligently fixing links to almost anything that pointed to it, at least 90% of the links were meant to point to the language article). Tomertalk 06:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kavod HaBriyot

Hi IZAK. The source for this concept is a very specific Gemarrah in Berachot 19b that specifically identifies the concept by name, and specifically states that Kavod HaBriyot can override a negative injunction. Pirkei Avot simply has nothing to do with this specific Talmudic concept, saying it's the origin or is even connected appears to me to be simply WP:OR. No authority I know of who discusses the concept begins there, all begin with Berachot 19b. Would you agree to changing accordingly? Best, --Shirahadasha 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC

See WP:FAR#Names_of_God_in_Judaism. This FA is about to lose its status unless some people do some prompt and very serious work on it. I've just helped apparently save Chess from a similar fate - it's difficult but possible. --Dweller 22:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Dweller: You must be joking, God is about to be in trouble on Wikipedia? Do you think He really cares what Wikipedia thinks of Him? This has to be the ultimate Wikipedian joke of the year or something... IZAK 17:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I save God, when I need Him to save me? IZAK 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A gem

"Badbill: Thank you for your personal story, I can see that you are a brave person, but I am sorry that you have compared me to Hitler ..." LOL!! And so polite! SlimVirgin (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I am trying my best to be a good boy.IZAK 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's easy to try to be polite to avoid facing the clearly off basis and unacceptable conduct you had earlier. And maybe if SlimVirgin had herself actually read the content of the Atheism article before categorically misrepresenting the subject, she wouldn't be as quick to join your side. Am I the only one who sees a possible collusion between two parties who have both been metaphorically caught with their pants down? LOL. Badbilltucker 21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd stick to the Hitler comparisons, if I were you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I wrong in thinking that you categorically stated that Atheism was something which is specifically contradicted by the content of the article, specifically, that there is no believe in a god, when in fact that is not the only definition of atheism? And I do find it amusing that an admin, such as yourself, sees fit to overlook what are specifically detailed violations of policy, and even support the person who made them. Badbilltucker 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Badbill, to be quite honest at this point in time I have totally lost you, and I haven't the foggiest what you are carrying on about. You like Atheisim? I don't. That's life, vive la difference.IZAK 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to the support from an administator for someone with whom she only seemed to have one thing in common: specifically, being caught in a mistake that they were unable to admit. for what little it's worth, due to your position in the Judaism project, please note that I have resigned my own membership in that project earlier today. Badbilltucker 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Mazel Tov IZAK 19:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)