User talk:IZAK/Archive 32

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 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 →

Contents

Anti semitism statements in AfDs

The comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Gafni and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Tendler for the nominations aren't helpful at all, and will only immediately poison discussion. Its not anti-Semitic for us to have such articles at all; no more than having articles on Christian priests convicted of rape are anti-Christian. Please don't do that again. • Lawrence Cohen 18:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Izak, I agree that it's not helpful to raise the drama or heat during such discussions. You are certainly entitled to your view about notability (etc), but please be more guarded about how you characterize (directly or by implication) editors who create/edit such articles or disagree on notability. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence: Thank you for contacting me about your concerns. While you are entitled to your views and conclusions, I am also entitled to mine, even though you may not like them. You choose one sentence from a longer AfD proposal and make a mountain out of a molehill. I should not be criticized for having the courage of my convictions when I see a string of abuses that are evidently motivated by ill-will, and quite often is is a form of antisemitism, or do you think that such things only exist in the "real" world but not on Wikipedia? I rarely mention the issue of antisemtism directly, but in the recent cases it was just too shocking. You may call Christian priests anything you want, but allegations of sexual misconduct in themselves do not make anyone notable, especially if not fully proven in courts of law and based on scandal articles in newspapers. IZAK (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Blau and anti-semeite? Lobojo (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, are you? IZAK (talk)
How nice of you to ask. I think you have made your mind up, am I wrong? Lobojo (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you an Uncle Leo? Oh and evidently motivated by ill-will, is that WP:EMBIW? Some kind of corollary to WP:AGF? Lobojo (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Lobojo: I have not made up my mind about you, but because you choose to live (that is, write) dangerously, you come across with a hugely negative and destructive attitude to Orthodox personalities. You seem to have a hate of Orthodoxy, am I wrong? I would like to understand you better. Oh, I don't know if I am Uncle Leo, how about if I told you I was the Baal Shem Tov, would that make me win your confidence? IZAK (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Izak, and thanks. It just seemed that the statements lacked good faith. I don't see a problem with articles on anyone of any religious background, Jew as myself, or otherwise. Obviously anti-Semetism is real, but so is wrong-minded hate towards Christians, and other religions. Implying it in an AfD just isn't really appropriate, but we'll just agree to disagree. I gave up on religious fights ages ago. • Lawrence Cohen 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Lawrence: I do not hate anyone and certainly not religions. Often, people confuse discussion and argumentation with other things and draw the wrong conclusions. If anyone has a specific gripe then they should be explicit, as I try to be, and if anything is wrong or seems wrong, then it shoulod be answered or refuted using logic, facts, and good language. Be well, IZAK (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oświęcim

Just to let you know, an anon IP has been revising the article, and lowering the Auschwitz death toll by half. I have reverted him, but he is now pushing on the admin notice board to have the Auschwitz article unprotected. Jeffpw (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Jeff: These kinds of abuses and revisionism (it's actually Holocaust denial at work) go on all the time. Keep up your struggle against lies and distortions! IZAK (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I said as much here. Perhaps you might want to weigh in as well. At least one admin thinks the article should lose its protection. Jeffpw (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

You make an offensive accusation against me in the AFD for Gil Student. It is offensive and is unwarranted. I don't see where you get off assuming that I would nominate someone for deletion just because I disagree with him. This is expecially true given that I have never nominated anyone for deletion, and there plenty of objectionalbe characters with articles dedicated to them here on Wikipedia. --Meshulam (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Meshulam: I made no "offensive accusation against (you)" anywhere. What I did say is that it is a bad faith nomination: "This is a bad-faith nomination by someone opposed to Gil Student's position" (how else to understand your words?) since you undercut, miscast and mischarectrize Gil Student as "he has a blog, and that's about it" when the fact of the matter is that Student is a key player in online discussions relating to Modern Orthodox Judaism in particular. Indeed he is a rarity, and stands out above any other bloggers about Judaism, very unusual in the relatively new age of the WWW and the Internet. See the rest of my response at [1]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it is a bad faith nomination, again by a partisan Chabad editor. If the article is deleted that is fine with me, as I will rebuild it from the scratch from the 30 of so newspaper cuttings I have relating to him. Then this game will stop. Lobojo (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you Lobojo, at least we agree on this one. IZAK (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

follow-up

I am somewhat startled at your apparent attack upon the integrity of another WP editor, in this case Lobojo, during another AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Tendler. You make direct charges of anti-semitism against him for the introduction of an article, based upon no evidence that I can see, except that he wrote one or more article(s) about some few disgraced rabbis, along with his editing and article on other notable and estimable Jewish religious figures. I warn you about NPA, and if i see a repeat of this, I shall block you. DGG (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi DGG: You are correct that articles about "disgraced rabbis" were written but you do not appear to be concerned that it was not done in a WP:NPOV manner. A subject of any biography deserves fairness, especially if he is a living person who is in the midst of legal problems. Can you point to the "direct charges of anti-semitism against him"? As I do not recall addressing anything to him personally. I do not know him and I do not care what he is. But if an editor introduces a series of one-sided articles that only focus on serious allegations against people, in this case they happen to be Jews and rabbis, that are in no way real biographies, just muckraking & yellow journalism-type pieces that border on WP:LIBEL then I expressed "the hope" that it was not because of antisemitism. Can you tell me what is wrong with those worries and conclusions? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, DGG: You cannot be part of debates and dicussions we both are in and then threaten to "block me" because you disagree with me. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disputes: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators" and WP:COI. See also Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator abuse: "Administrators can be removed if they misuse their powers...." I am very disappointed that you can violate such basic rules and I hope that I will not have to commence proceedings against you. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't blocked you quite yet. At the time of my comment I did not think I would be much involved in discussing the articles, because I had not yet noticed the other similar deletions you had proposed. If you think I am too much involved, i will indeed let somebody else do it. If you continue to make accusations of anti-semitism such as: "There is an old saying that "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck" so when you create two articles in a row in order to primarily attack the subjects it is worrying. Think about it. There is surely a better and more positive way to create NPOV articles, and in this case the evidence is that you did it to attack the subject rather than deal with it in a fair NPOV fashion. How else do you think Der Stürmer attacked Jews?" I am sure any administrator here will do so. You would do well to avoid it by discussing the articles, and not the motives for writing them. DGG (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi DGG: Thanks for getting back to me. You obviously do not grasp how offensive and serious the subject matter of those controversial biographies about rabbis that "got caught with their pants down" are and how many people have and can get hurt from them in real life. I was very carefull not to call anyone an "antisemite" which is your charge and you still have not proven it in any way. I was using by way of description and explanation that if an editor engages in editorial behavior whereby he creates a seried of attack articles against rabbis and Orthodox Judaism, then that pattern of editorial behavior must be questioned and a conclusion about antisemitism at work may be drawn, just as one would take a closer look at the working of a troll or a "Bastard Operator From Hell" (see Category:Internet slang for more like this) and perhaps even cyber-bullying of Jews at work. Any editor who values their area of knowledge and expertise will not be amused by articles that constantly attack without adding anything useful. Wikipedia judges aricles and editors and has ways of dealing with problematic ones, is that not why you chose to contact me now? Again, I repeat, I am very careful with my words, and nowhere have I called anyone antisemites as such, what I have done in this case, and it is a rarity, is that I have brought the attention of the offending editor to the fact that the what he is writing about and the way he is presenting it, does look a lot like the way antisemitism rears its ugly head. Perhaps you need to read up on some history. See The "Untermensch" in Nazi propaganda and policy; Category:Antisemitic publications; Category:Antisemitic canards these are real concerns. IZAK (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not assume what I do or do not know, or what my background may be, and don't assume it for anyone else either. I agree the subject matter is serious, and what the rabbis are doing is offensive. That's why the subject is notable. To cover up crimes in the name of protecting from antisemitism is not my idea of objectivity. I hold with telling the full truth, even if it incidentally might help an enemy. I see no reason to protect members of one group from the consequence of their actions more than other people--if anything, such an approach fuels prejudice. At AfD, I do just judge articles not editors; doing otherwise might be incompatible with objectivity. We seem to disagree on that last point. DGG (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi DGG: I actually agree with everything you say here. But please note in order to "cover up crimes" there must first be serious proven crimes that have been certified as such in a court of law by judges or by juries, and if that happens then only the crimes that that person was convicted of should be the ones to be put up front and center. The Torah itself does not hide the failings and sins of people, so neither should we, but that does not mean that every local rabbi or priest or lady teacher who goes to bed with a congregant is now "notable" for a "biogarphy" on Wikipedia! In the cases of the recent AfD's three rabbis (Aron and Mordecai Tendler & Mordechai Gafni) they have not gone to trial and so far they have not faced any legal proceedings so that's why the articles violate WP:LIBEL as they stand, even though the rabbis have resigned their posts due to public demands, but it is not for Wikipedia or any editor writing articles to act as a "holier than thou" investigaor, prosecutor, judge, and executioner of matters that remain allegations and speculation in the media and have not gone to court, and there are always at least two sides to any story, especially if it is a matter of two consenting adults who decide to have (forbidden) sex together, if that indeed happened. Sleeping with underlings or bosses is rife everywhere, and these guys got caught and are being held to a "higher standard" because they are rabbis, but honestly they are small fry and their are much more notable sex scandals that were important to history. Who is to know the truth in such matters? Not unless there is an audio or video tape available (like the Nixon tapes) can anyone really know what happened in the middle of the night or behind closed doors. Fairness says, do not pass judgment and to repeat, we here at Wikipedia do not function as scandal mongers. In the case of Rabbi Lanner, he was convicted for allegedly touching the breasts of two of his students as he brushed by them. He did not rape them and he did not flash. By this standard, half of Italy's men and three quarters of French men would be liable for conviction and jail time for all the times they pinched the behinds or whatever else of passing females. Do you honestly believe that every time a clergyman or any person in what should be a relatively responsible position is denounced for commiting a sex act not condoned by society and it gets in the media and the media love anything to do with sex, because "sex sells," that that person automatically is "notable" for biographies on Wikipedia? I hope you will see the fallacy and futilty of such an approach. IZAK (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Surnames

I have started a discussion at Category talk:Surnames about Category:Surnames which I hope will be able to address the issues in common to the surnames category tree, without implicating issues particular to any one group of surnames. I'm posting this notice to all participants of the 11/11 CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Aron Tendler

I've brought this to the BLP noticeboard, as it seems a clear violation of policy to report mere rumors about a living person. Since nobody listened at the AFD discussion, I figured I would take it to a page where people do give a damn about such things. Jeffpw (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to update you, the defamatory text has now been removed per WP:BLP. Jeffpw (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff: If any article that is just a negative amd libelous attack piece survives as a "biography" then it must be re-written in a totally WP:NPOV way to include as many positive and real accomplishments of the subject, based on sources and citations, and any allegations may be placed in very summarized form in "Controversy" sections. Wikipedia is not a court of law and it is certainly not a pillory nor a place to conduct vedettas of any sort against anyone, not just Jewish subjects. Thanks for your watchfulness in this regard and hoping that others will follow your positive example. IZAK (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Centuries by period

Several 'centuries by period'-type categories that you created have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 24. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Black Falcon: Thank you for having the courtesy and taking the time to let me know. IZAK (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

problematic editor

Hello, after some problem with a contributor, I found that he re-created on 23/11 an article you had asked for deletion : [2], commenting "redirect, for now" and I assume it had been deleted here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish subversion. Ceedjee (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I marked that page for PROD and it looks like it's gone, for now. Yossiea (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Yossiea: Thanks for contacting me. It looks like it's been taken care of, at least for now. IZAK (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Attacking me instead of discussing the sourcing issues for Relationships_between_American_Jewish_religious_movements is not constructive. In light of your latest post here and past history, I have come to conclusion that you are simply incapable of acting in a civil manner towards me. I have expressed my concerns over on the Wikiquette alert page[3]. I am tired of being treated this way merely for making good faith suggestions about how we can improve the quality of articles or reduce the research burden on ourselves by working with others. Egfrank (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I'm a volunteer at WP:WQA, and I responded to User:Egfrank's alert. I have to agree that the comments of your he/she posted there are beyond what is permissible by under WP:CIVIL. You obviously have little regard for progressive Judaism, which is your right, but it should be possible to debate Wikipedia content issues without denigrating it (in fact, it is possible, because you seem to do so quite often). Obviously I'm in no position to make any demands or impose any sanctions, but as a disinterested editor I do think that some of your comments are over the line; I hope you'll take this under advisement.
If you want to discuss this, please respond at WP:WQA. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi all: I have rebutted User:Egfrank's unfounded attack against me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Response from IZAK. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi IZAK - I just wanted to apologize for my absence from the Wikiquette alert over the last few days. Unfortunately, something came up off-Wiki, and I didn't have the time to do a proper job. I'm also sorry that the alert didn't end more productively than it did. Best of lukc in resolving your disputes, and please let me know if I can be of any assistance in the future. Sarcasticidealist 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sarcasticidealist: I was wondering what happened to you and I sorely missed your sage input. I am positive about the alert because it allowed for some airing of grievances and expression of views and all sorts of issues that are zinging around. I am letting matters stand where they are right now. Thanks again for all your efforts and concern. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Aron Tendler redux

Do you happen to read Hebrew? I think Aron Tendler's article on that Wikipedia may need some attention.[4] According to my crappy online translation, the word "rapist" appears in it, which would be totally inappropriate because this individual hasn't even been charged. I think it might need to be deleted there, especially since user is arguing that its existence somehow bolsters the case for an article here. I only looked into it when reviewing user's Tendler image upload, which user incorrectly tagged as self-created GFDL. Cool Hand Luke 08:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Cool Hand Luke: Thank you for contacting me. I do know how to read Hebrew and Yiddish, but unfortunately I am not active on the Hebrew or Yiddish Wikipedias. By the way, the link you cite is from the Yiddish Wikipedia not Hebrew. I suggest you contact User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) (one of the most active editors on the Yiddish Wikipedia) who seems to have been the one to have uploaded the photo there as well as making a lot of the edits over the last year to that article. (By the way, I read the article in Yiddish, and there does not seem to be any usage of a word that means "rape" or "rapist" -- געטשעפעט is an ambiguous word that basically means "bothered" and in this context it implies that he was "bothering" girls and women in a sexual way, nothing to do with rape as such. אימאיידעלע אויפיראכץ means "ungentle[manly] behavior" again not a direct description of "raping" but implying that he behaved in a manner unbecoming a rabbi.) Everyone has to have their limits, and I have mine. So I leave it up to other NPOV and sane editors to do their work on other Wikipedias. BTW, neither Aron nor Mordecai Tendler have been charged with any crimes. They were forced to quit their posts by colleagues and congregants who require a high and irreproachable standard. It is certainly not the job of Wikipedia to act as a (kangaroo) court of law nor is Wikipedia a sex offender registry of any kind. Until such time that a charge is brought, or an allegation is proven in a formal court of law, then any aspersions cast against anyone is a violation of WP:LIBEL and I would not be surprised if the offended parties would get angry enough to sue, but evidently some editors and admins do not realize this, so they allow yellow journalism and muckraking to exist and pretend that it's a legitimate "biography" when it is not. Reports in newspapers are not much more than hearsay when it comes to such legal situations, so everyone concerned needs to be very cautious before creating more of these articles which are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to go off. I am keeping watch here at the English Wikipedia as best I can. I wish I could help some more. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been watching and reverting the potentially libelous material on this article, and discussing it on the talk pages. I have posted this on both the WP:BLP noticeboard, and on ANI. Perhaps you might want to give your opinion there. Jeffpw (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, I have posted part of my comments above at those two places. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. IZAK (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Gil Student Article

IZAK: I would like to thank you for your help in fixing my Wikipedia article. I see that you put in a good deal of effort and want to acknowledge that.

If I may may one small point that I hope you don't feel reflects any significant criticism. The Haaretz article misquoted me (or manufactured a quote and put it in my name). I posted about this after I read it and then updated it after the reporter told me that there must have been a misunderstanding: http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/04/haaretz-on-slifkin-clarification.html I prefer, and think that it is best, if it is removed from the Wikipedia entry entirely. Thank you.

Feel free to contact me. Thank you,

Gil Student

  • Hi Gil, thank you for contacting me. As you know, we do not know each other, but I am well-aware of your work and, even though probably I do not agree with you on all issues, I believe that you are a pioneer and legitimate scholar, especially on the internet, and you are more than qualified by Wikipedia' standards of notability. Having given such a long-winded hello, may I say that I think it would be wonderful if you formally joined Wikipedia and started to learn its methodology and that would be another great avenue to expand your work on the web. You may choose to work under your real name or under an anonymous name, the choice is yours, there are no rules about this, and then you will have credibility as a Wikipedia editor. One can also edit articles without choosing an identity. So what I am saying is, you can feel free to edit any article yourself, even if it is about you, and if you have any concerns, like the one you mention above, you can explain it on the article's talk pages. I look forward to having you join the Judaic editors at Wikipedia soon. You can join our joint group and see the variety of topics and discussions we have at WP:JUDAISM and I am absolutely certain that Wikipedia could only gain from your involvement. Best wishes with all that you do. Sincerely, IZAK 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
There might be a conflict on interest if he edits his own article. See WP:COI. Regarding the Haaretz article, just make sure that it fits with WP:V which is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Chocolatepizza 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Choc buddy: Is there any substance to the assumption that you are a sockpuppet of User:PinchasC? A few people around here feel that that may be both verifiable and true. See ya. Oh yeah, get another hobby will ya instead of being paranoid about people who are objective about Chabad subjects. Thanks again, IZAK 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
IZAK, false accusations like this in an attempt to intimidate and harass me are violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and any further attempts to attack me like this will lead to you being reported. Chocolatepizza 20:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Choco: Just for your information, the reason I was asking you was that someone had brought this possibility to my attention and I thought that what better way than to ask you straight out. I do not like to beat around the bush, so you may as well be warned that you are being watched, by other users who are concerned about this matter, for this possibility of being a sock of User:PinchasC. You don't have to be upset and shouldn't have been angry. A normal user would say "sorry, definitely not, I am not a sock and never have been" -- as I have been asked on those rare occasions when someone has accused me of having "socks" and I have had to laugh at them, but never react with the kind of "shock," let alone anger, you have shown here -- and then that would be the end of that and I would say, fine, sorry for asking, let's move on. Instead you react in a defensive manner that makes me even more suspicious. Furthemore, it is the height of chutzpah for you as a KNOWN, verified, and open pro-Chabad POV edit warrior whose major focus and interests are only Chabad on Wikipedia, such as in the way you "watched" my talk page and attacked the real Gil Student (a known critic of Chabad messianism) who has not even made a single edit as far as is known. It is you who comes here to intimidate a high calibre writer, who does not hide behind aliases, and then when I question you, you say that "I" am trying to "intimidate and harass...to attack...like this" -- why don't you take your own advice -- do not come to my talk page to "intimidate and harass...to attack" an editor who is seeking my help. I warn you that I will have no hesitation in undertaking a full review and examination of every single one of your edits and the way you have coordinated them with User:PinchasC, including getting those who oppose the two of you blocked on technicalities, to look deeper and understand what is really going on. I hope you will not force me to do this and will prove me wrong for your and PinchasC's sake/s. Warnings can work in all directions. IZAK 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my tone, I took your 'See ya. Oh yeah, get another hobby' right after your question, like you were trying to get rid of me. Chocolatepizza 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Choco: Please assume good faith. I do not try "to get rid" of anyone, and I like your contributions. As proof, we have had very few differences over time. A freilichen Chanukah! IZAK (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its reasonable in this circumstance to have mentioned WP:COI. But it seems that GS understands very well the principle that if he wants to correct or expand information in an article about him, he would best do it on the talk page--whether or not he chooses to use a pseudonym. DGG (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi DGG: Ok, fine I am not arguing, I was also trying to be welcoming, but what gets me is that User Chocolatepizza (talk · contribs) is essentially a one-issue editor, he is a pro-Chabad POV warrior, as proven by all his edits, and he has the temerity to come here and accuse someone of "COI" before anything has even happened when he is himself in violation of COI (with regards to Chabad issues and controversies) as a pro-Lubavitcher coming to fight Gil Student, one of the loudest voices against Chabad messianism, on my talk page, which I resent. I hope you understand the greater theological context of what is transpiring here. Thanks a lot for caring, IZAK 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
yes, the alignment of various editors on issues like this is rather clear. All the more reason to avoid discussing each other. DGG (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WQA in WT:Jews

Hi Izak. Noticed that you put the Wikiquette discussion into the wpp-Judaism Talk page. That isn't necessary because the WQA folks can be relied upon to archive such discussions properly. So, it would be better to give the latest diff now (if you so choose) and then the link/diff for the archive later. For this reason, I'd like to you (or me or another) to undo those very long additions to WT:Jew. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi HG, ok, I leave it up to you to do the best for now. IZAK (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI I posted the link on the WT page. Ciao, HG | Talk 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Samson

I have done several edits to the Samson article see [5] and nominated it for GA Review people who recently edited an article are not allowed to rate it, So I was wondering can you rate it for me it would be much appreciated. --Java7837 (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Java, thanks for contacting me. Knowing your superb work from past experience, I am sure you did an excellent job. However, I do not "rate" articles -- as personally prefer on working on articles. It's like becoming a better person, it's a life-long undertaking. IZAK 12:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baruch Lanner

IZAK, I had to delete some of the statements you made on this talk page. The reason is these statements are potentially defamatory and weren't sourced to what Wikipedia would consider to be reliable sources. Wikipedia's libel policy (and for that matter the law) is much stricter about potentially defamatory statements about living people than it is about matters such as religious beliefs. I suggest you limit your argument to statements that either aren't potentially defamatory or can be reliably sourced, or both. Hope you're having a channukah sameach. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm involved in the article I've asked another admin to double-check this. See WP:ANI#Talk:Baruch Lanner. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shira: Thank you for contacting me, but in this case I made sure to source my comments from where I read them as well as from Wikipedia articles. I will look into it. Chag Sameach. IZAK (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have gone over it with a fine tooth comb and I have reverted you. I have also posted a detailed response at Talk:Baruch Lanner#Vicki Polin & Oprah comments and edits, and I welcome your input. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sources you are citing for these claims, such as http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm and http://www.usajewish.com/archive/VICKI_IS_BOTH_RACHEL_AND_JWB.htm, don't come close to meeting Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources generally, let alone the heightened sourcing requirements that WP:LIBEL requires. Although I know you are an experienced editor who has made many contributions to Wikipedia, if you persist with making these kinds of claims based on these kinds of sources, an admin may have no choice but to block you. Please reconsider your course of action. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC). Note: Please consider this a block warning. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Shira, I see that you have issues here, and I will let matters stand as they are for now so as not to raise your blood-pressure. Can you explain how it is "libel" to replay and read the actual words of a person, and not libelous commenst about them? Thanks. IZAK 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Shira: What I cited was very clear. It's backed up in many places. See the New York Times (May 6, 1989): Winfrey Show Evokes Protests: "Hundreds of television viewers and the leaders of several Jewish and civil-liberties organizations have protested allegations on a popular talk show this week that some Jews practice ritual killing of children. Hundreds of television viewers and the leaders of several Jewish and civil-liberties organizations have protested allegations on a popular talk show this week that some Jews practice ritual killing of children. The allegations were made by a guest using the pseudonym Rachel on The Oprah Winfrey Show, the fifth most widely viewed syndicated talk show in the country...Early in the interview Ms. Winfrey said, "This is the first time I heard of any Jewish people sacrificing babies, but anyway - so you witnessed the sacrifice?" The woman responded: "Right. When I was very young, I was forced to participate in that, and which I had to sacrifice an infant." And there are more like this. IZAK 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
IZAK, The sources in the Baruch Lanner article are reliable. He was convicted by a court and this was reported in newspapers. (I agreed that The Awareness Center is not a reliable source for purposes of WP:LIBEL] for that article). But the sources you are using with respect to Vicki Polin are not. The person on the Oprah Winfrey show is identified only as "Rachel". It is particularly significant that the New York Times article you cited here [6] refers only to "a guest using the pseudonym Rachel" and never makes a claim about who "Rachel" was. When reliable sources like the New York Times are unwilling to publish a potentially defamatory claim, The WP:LIBEL policy requires that Wikipedia not publish it either. The sources you are using to claim "Rachel" is someone else consist solely of personal web pages and blogs. Luke Ford, for example, describes himself as a "pornography gossip columninst", not a journalist. Wikipidia does not reprint "gossip", pornographic or otherwise. That is the difference. If you had a reliable source that actually claimed who "Rachel" was, I would accept it. There is no issue of personal POV here. I have asked other administrators to review this and so far all have agreed. The matter has been posted at WP:ANI#Talk:Baruch Lanner. You are welcome to comment there. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shira: Thank you for this highly lucid and logical response which I greatly appreciate. I understand the problems you cite well. This is a complicated and complex situation. The purpose of going to elaborate lengths about Vicki Polin is that she and her Awareness Center are not neutral parties on issues of rabbinical sex abuse cases (because, among other reasons, she is not bound by anyone or any standard and will publish any and all allegations at the drop of a hat, and has expressed highly-charged personal points of view on these matters) and so therefore neither she nor her Awareness Center's web site should be cited as references, sources, or as an external link (as User:Meshulam had wanted, which was the bone of the dispute really) in any Wikipedia article except the one about the Awareness Center itself and hopefully in an article about her too that should be created. That is about it. Thank you for your understanding thus far, and as I see it, we do have a certain degree of commonality of understanding. Shavua Tov and Happy Chanukah. IZAK (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, the article in question isn't about the lady in question but about Baruch Lanner which makes it much harder to understand why you persist in this. The sources quoted are not reliable by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, I wouldn't even think these would be ok sources for an article about a subject that wasn't BLP relevant. They appear to be personal webpages of no special reliability. Whether the two people in question are in fact the same person. are the same person is irrelevant to that. If you can find a reliable source that mentions the accusation then give that. But if you persist in this fashion you will be heading for a block. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Joshua, thanks for your feedback. I understand perfectly well that "the article in question isn't about the lady in question" and that is not what I am disputing. I am focusing on one minor point, that it is "the lady in question's" website ("Awareness Center") that is cited as an an external link in the article, and my point is that because she and her organization are not neutral on the Lanner question, the link should not be part of this article. Sometimes it takes alot to prove a little. IZAK 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Yarrow

Please note request to comment. Your input would be appreciated, Thank you--Jkp212 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, I have added my comments, although this is somewhat outside the range of my usual Judaica interests. Hope all goes well. IZAK (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is becoming more heated. I've asked everyone who's participated in the RfC to revisit the Peter Yarrow discussion page for more input. We don't agree on this one, but it hardly seemed fair to alert only those I agreed with. (The only participant I haven't notified is one Jkp identifies as an SPA.) Thanks. David in DC (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Norway and its new category

Hi IZAK. Thanks for explaining the category edit to me. I now understand the intention and apologize for the revert. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Manxruler: Thanks for your feedback. Sincerely, IZAK 12:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kook color.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kook color.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 09:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment ratings

Hi, IZAK. Since I've been away, Wikiproject Judaism has introduced an assessment system on the discussion pages. I just upgraded and expanded the article on Shalom Zachar, which was rated Stub-class and has no importance rating. This article does not appear on the long list of articles that WikiProject Judaism would like to improve, but it did need improvement! How do I go about getting the editors to change the quality rating and add an importance rating now that I upgraded it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Yoninah: Good to hear from you. A Freilichen Chanukah! You can do this on your own, see all the details and criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Assessment. The so-called "ratings" to articles are added by a "bot" -- not a human, and if you have any doubts, you can always click on the "history" button at the top of the page of any article and you can see who has been involved in rating any article. I have not been involved with the "assessment" project. I think that User:Java7837 was involved with the project, and perhaps also User:Shirahadasha. You can also ask around and leave a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism there is always someone there who knows things and will get back to you. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; I saw your original post on this page. I put in a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and am still waiting for an answer... Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request, be briefer in your AfD comments

Sorry about that, for some who are Jewish it's a strong personal issue, for others it's concern for attempt at censorship of the views of one particular religious group on Wikipedia. That's why we're getting long-winded about it, it's kind of a big deal for different reasons. But I'll watch that in the future, I know I for one was going overboard. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

in the context of this particular AfD discussion, I do not think that the request to be brief was a reasonable criticism. I don;t think its causing disruption, but rather that the issues are difficult. Some of this has not been discussed previously, and we need to work it out. I have just suggested that the best way to do so would be a no-consensus close, and a relist in a month. DGG (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Rabbi Meir Kahane.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Rabbi Meir Kahane.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Images of rabbis categories

I've nominated a number of categories you recently created for deletion here. --Eliyak T·C 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Eliyak: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have responded in detail. IZAK (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rebes.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rebes.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanoch Teller

Yes, Hanoch Teller is an extremely popular author and speaker both in Israel and abroad, known for his engaging storytelling abilities (funny that his name is "Teller"). The article, though, is really a stub and does no justice to his stature in the Haredi world. I'll try to work on it. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Try to find reliable WP:SOURCES for this WP:BLP. Greatly appreciated. IZAK (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


IZAK, Happy holidays, and Happy New Year See you next year.
Yahel Guhan 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure, thanks, and by the way, this year is still not over with a good two weeks to go! IZAK (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jews in Apostasy

I have nominated Jews in Apostasy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in Apostasy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. AvruchTalk 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

Yeshivish Jews

IZAK, you nominated the article for deletion and didn't get consensus to delete or redirect. If you want to try and get it redirected, nominate it again. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Since you seem to like this dumb word I have fixed up the article. When are you going to drop the "suffix" "Best" to all your messages especially when you often leave nasty and hostile notes? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for adding your valid comments. IZAK (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

photograph

My father was the photographer of that great picture of R' Ahron Schechter. WHere did you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.44.138 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It came as a creation in conjunction with several others from the late Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Burton A"H about 30 years ago. Feel free to contact me via Email here [7]. IZAK (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Col Marcus in Israel 1948.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Col Marcus in Israel 1948.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on various discussions

wow, you sure are doing a good job of doubting my whole approach to editing. thanks a lot. I also like the way you left absolutely no room for me to communicate with you positively. gee it sure is encouraging to see the way you take evrery positiuve expression of mine and find a way to rebuff it. I assume you will treat this comment of mine as a further reason to subject me to further crticism, anger and outrage? If you read very carefully, you will note that I have not said a single thing about you which is even slightly disrespectful. Is it possible I am genuinely trying to communicate here? Maybe you could try to read the content of my attempt to communicate with you amicably, and not treat this comment as a provocation.

All kidding aside, I would tentatively suggest we both slow down take a deep breath, and perhaps read more closely the content of my submissions and comments, instead of necessarily reacting contentiously. perhaps that would assist in allowing some degree of positive communications, i hope. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Sm8900, sure I agree. In the course of the CfDs there were some things that troubled me. I preface my following remarks with an acknowledgement that everyone may edit freely as long as they strive to follow good faith policies. However, I took a little time to review your edits and it seems to me that you tend to adopt a somewhat critical POV of Israel and the USA in the "human rights" arenas. Am I wrong? I am not saying that Israel and the USA are "saints" don't get me wrong, they have made serious mistakes and they should face criticism for wrongs, but in an objective framework and not one that seeks to slash and burn them down. I would gladly like to learn more how you view Wikipedia should present these contentious subjects, when in fact, Israel is the most humane nation in the Middle East, and were it not for the USA, the world would have long ago succumbed to the totalitarian tyrranies of Fascism and Communism, and now the war against the West being waged by radical Islam. Am I going wrong somewhere here? Please help me understand and that in turn will give me a sense of your approach to editing articles. Thanks for the opportunity to have a discussion. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
ok, thanks for your reply. ummm, re my editing approach, you happen to be wrong about this, basically in regard to the facts and also in regards to my general approach. Sorry. perhaps new concepts of right and wrong need to be utilized here at Wikipedia for cases involving editors. to repeat: you are basically wrong about this, in re factually, and the overall context.
I'm anti-Israel? I'm anti-Israel. this does not accurately fit any edits I have been doing. this does not indicate a correct aspect of my editing content, philosphy or approach has been. i was nearly banned from Wikipedia for a month for being overly pro-Israel. i once led a negotiation at Israeli-Palestinain conflict where I nearly tore a guy's head off for continually quoting UN rulings against Israel. (By the way, I told him, if you want to escribe Israel's actions fine., but enough with the darned UN resolutions.)
this is about one of the biggest well-meaning though misguided errors I've ever heard anyone make here. As I mentioned before, I have absolutely nothing against you, and I look forward to many positive, helpful discussions between us. But if you could think that about me, perhaps both of us really do need, maybe, if I could make a small suggestion, to slow down, take a deep breath, give this all a little more time, and take a little more time to review thing when making these statements. I'm not trying to be in any way hyper-critical or judgmenetal or anything else here, as I find that frequently the same advice could be given to me. however, I did want to mention that as a friendly tactful suggestion. I do apprecoate your reply, and look forward to further communications. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, if I may, I'd like to add one more comment, if i could; it seems to me that it is rather inappropriate for you to respiond to another editor's well-intentioned comment with any comments whatsoever on their political beliefs. why are you raising that? how do they have any connection whatsoever with any topic here? What if were a leftist jew (which I'm not)? What if i were a pro-Arab editor? Why are you raising political differences here at Wikipedia. They have absolutely no relevance or role here. when someone approaches you to discuss some well-meaning issues, you really should not be subjecting them to a condescending concise statement of your political views.
anyway, i actually do hope to have a more positive relationship, and any terseness here is only because I had to write this comment quickly. i do appreciate all your replies. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Izak. At Steve's suggestion, I'm chiming in to encourage you all to work together. Steve strikes me as an earnest and thoughtful editor who is quite responsive to feedback from others. I don't know his political views but I don't see the relevance here. The IP "issues" category isn't a POV problem, esp since articles on any issue could easily be assigned. (As you may know, I voted against the IP issues category and I altered the "political status" category so as to make it sufficiently well defined so as to be a useful contribution to our project.) Merry 5th anniversay again, HG | Talk 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, Sm8900: Thanks for responding. I am sorry for any misunderstandings. Please do not misread me. I have a good regard for your work, it is just that I am first now coming across it and if one does not ask then one can never learn. Be in touch. (By the way, even though HG follows me around, he is not my official chaperon...) Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I appreciate your reply. thanks very much for your response. I completely understand. I think i may have overreacted slightly; it may be that you may have misintepreted some of my edits, but I think now that you were still trying to be extremely open and positive. i appreciate it, and sorry for any over-stridency on my part. thanks for your answer. your answer is extremely positive and helpful. I understandnow that you weren't trying to cast aspersions on my editing, just trying to put some issues on the table. so thanks. i may have been slightly taken aback by your slightly unexpected take on my edits, but it's really no big deal. thanks very much again for your helpful response. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Steve, Sm8900: Ok, I am sure we can live with each other. I am an up-front sort of person and I do not like beating around the bush, but at the same time I don't hold grudges and my wish is always to have open lines of communication. Keep up your good work, you have done a lot to help Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great. Thank you! Appreciate the kind words. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Tzvi Hersh Weinreb

Thanks for the question about the Tzvi Hersh Weinreb AfD. When I first prod' the article some weeks back [8] it was a questionable stub. DGG tagged it as inuse and I waited for improvement beyond the stub. On the article talk page you'll see my initial comments. From my google search and google news search, he did not appear notable, being more of a commentator than a subject. Today, when I AfD' it, the article looked like this [9] and had not been touched in over 8 days. Further, the title of EVP led me to think he was not a notable individual in the OU hierarchy, of which I admit that I know nothing about. I would've contacted some specialist group, if there appeared to be more than an unsourced stub, as I've done with NEOPUP weapons article higher up on my talk page. Feel free to ask any other questions, I'm always open improving my style. Mbisanz (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Mbisanz: Thanks for your quick response. (a) Google searches can be a mixed blessing and should never be used alone without reliance upon other yardsticks. Trying to read Google can be akin to the witches in Macbeth trying to convey the future and Macbeth trying to understand them. The key word that bedevils that effort is equivocation and the same can be applied to your attemtps here that have yielded equivocal results for you. (b) There is obviously a culture gap here that you are missing. In the Jewish communal work sphere in the USA, the title of "Executive Vice-President" is given to the person chosen to run the entire organization. He/she are NOT named "President" because that title is usually of an honorary nature in organizations (although not always in Jewish schools in the USA) and it's given to the leading lay leader who does not run the day-to-day operation. (c) The other point is that the world of Orthodox Judaism is very difficult to read, let alone understand, from the outside. (d) It requires great experience and essentially inside information from reading books, papers and magazines circulating in the Orthodox communities, to really grasp who the really notable people are. (e) So my advice is that in the future proceed with caution and if you have any questions relating to Judaic topics, take them to WP:JUDAISM first where there are always a few editors lurking and they would give you some sense of how to proceed. They may even agree with you, but at any rate you could avoid obvious blunders as the one now with your AfD of the Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb article. (f) Feel free to contact me here regarding Jewish topics as well at any time. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not having had time to expand the article. DGG (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
As do I, I forgot about it. At least the AfD forced me to actually make it better. Lobojo (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Will do in the future re: WP:JUDAISM. I just find some of the projects I've contacted to be dead or to have little interest outside of getting FAs and GAs processed. And I can't fault Logojo or DGG, AfD shouldnt "force" an editor to work on an article, a nominator should make sure its not notable before noming. Mbisanz (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Today is my 5th birthday on Wikipedia!

Mazel Tov to me! And so starts my 6th year on Wikipedia [10], funny it still feels the same. Always lots of hard work to do. Never a let up. Love it. It's so much FUN!!! Spoken like a true Wikiholic. (Wow, I am even talking to myself, I really must relate to this place.) IZAK (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yom huvikpedet same'akh! Mazel tov! HG | Talk 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks HG, no need for the red links, the thought is greatly appreciated. IZAK (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

IZAK the messiah

IZAK was born, 'Twas one cold frosty morn, at 3.54 on Christmas Day in the year of Lord two-thousand and two. Five years on wikipedia is quite an achievement, I commend you, your years of service and your wisdom of Solomon, your patience of Job. From hereon today shall be known as Izakmass, in celebration of the birth of our saviour, King of the Jews (on wikipedia). Lobojo (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Uhum Lobo, take a look at the time of my first edit [11], it was officially on "23:44, 24 December 2002" even though I had made a few anonymous edits before I had registered officially. So anyhow, since when is Christmas on the 24th of December? On the calendar I got from one of my local pharmacies it definitely says that "25th December is Christmas Day" so I am puzzled. Anyhow I am glad to know that you think I am up to competing with my fellow Jew Yoshke whom we Jews hope will see the wrong of his ways, and yes, perhaps by a miracle, will come back to Earth and tell his followers that the Jews were right all along not to believe in him. If they want to pick me as a substitute I will give it some thought, but I am allergic to nails and thorns, and Mel Gibson might be upset to remake the movie with me speaking Yiddish. Thanks for your confidence though. P.S. My real birthday is in January, but don't let that bother you. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Ha ha, sorry my edits display the universal time! You should note though that your first edit occured at sunrise on the 25th Bethlehem time! Lobojo (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No problem, I get the drift. I see that you have also linked me up with Yud Aleph Nissan above so that is another feather in my cap, but I am still alive so I could never get the job of Lubavitcher Moshiach (yet). IZAK (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your 5th anniversary as a Wikipedian! Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Where have you been Jay? I've truly missed you. IZAK (talk)

Pieds noir article

Hi, I noticed you had edited on the pied-noir article and I wanted to let you know that I added references to the article and added some more info as well as all refs....anyway, I wanted to see what you thought of my revisions since you'd contributed in the past. Article: [12]. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Lazulilasher:The only work I did with the Pieds noir article was to add the Category:Jewish Algerian history to it, since the notion of "Pieds noir" had also been applied to the Jews of Algeria by some sources (even though many segments of the Jewish community in Algeria had as long a connection and history within it as any other latter day group.) Thanks for asking, IZAK (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, ok....well, I made the Jews in Algeria their own section in this article and added an image. Hopefully their role in group is clearer now. Thx! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. What you did is important. IZAK (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)