User talk:FDuffy/Archive May 2007

Aaronids
Hi! I have nominated this article for the regular deletion process (WP:AfD) as a POV fork or Kohen. See Articles for deletion/Aaronids. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Maaser Rishon, Maaser Sheni, Maaser Ani
Hi! I've had to revert your edits and I'm gradually adding some of your material back in. Nobody objects to your adding in the viewpoint of Richard Elliott Friedman or the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia. What gets other editors upset is when you rewrite the whole article to present only these viewpoints and present them as fact, and what really gets other editors upset is when you erase perfectly well sourced content representing other viewpoints and angles. I've also noticed a tendency to go beyond what the sources say and add in personal viewpoints. You could be a well-respected contributor to the encyclopedia; you often add useful information; and yet you seem to do it in a way that gets other editors angry at you and keeps running afoul of Wikipedia policies. All you have to do is just leave other material in place -- even if you don't like it -- and add your material in a separate section, and people wouldn't be reverting your edits (It would be nice and appreciated if you added attribution language like "According to Richard Elliott Friedman..."). You can challenge any existing material if you think it isn't properly sourced, just add a tag to request a citation. Just please, please don't remove existing material just because you happen to disagree with it. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

82.36.26.229
You have my consent--User talk:FDuffy 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Levite Tithe
I have added a "" template to the article Levite Tithe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jeepday 12:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw your comment on my talk page User talk:Jeepday gave a brief response and will go make a couple notes on the Levite Tithe talk page.

Hi! Understanding that the proposed deletion process is contested, I have nominated the article for the regular deletion process (WP:AfD) as a POV fork of Maaser Sheni. See Articles for deletion/Levite Tithe. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand you actually started the Levite Tithe article shortly before I started the Maaser Rishon article. I have suggested the matter be resolved through a merge and suggested closing both AfDs as premature. At this point, since there's both an AfD and a merge request going on for both articles, I suggest we wait until a course of action results from both procedures and then we attempt to discuss how to handle the surviving article(s) before doing massive edits. I believe both POVs will need to be accommodated in a single article. My principle problem with your edits, once again, is not the content you added, but (1) your elimination of all existing content representing the traditional Jewish religious point of view and the role of this tithe in contemporary traditional Judaism; and (2) presenting a view characterizing the tithe as "folklore" as fact (it's considered a mainstream traditional Jewish religious belief). You're entitled to present both theological and historical criticism and alternative views, as long as you don't erase other views and as long as you attribute the views you present. I suggest we present the different content in different sections. Although I don't object to incorporating material from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, this material cannot be the only source for the article. The Jewish Encyclopedia represents only one point of view among others. Moreover, it is simply out of date and therefore partially unreliable, particularly on matters concerning the role of the Land of Israel and religious obligations and practices peculiar to it. This topic is a notable example of its archaicness. The religious-law decisions that resulted in this tithe being considered a notable contemporary religious issue came after 1906, so the Jewish Encyclopedia's failure to say anything about the tithe's role in contemporary religious Judaism makes it particularly out of date and unreliable here. (As a comparison, the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions the existence of contemporary issues regarding Shmita, because notable religious-law decisions on that subject began being made in the latter part of the 19th century, although notable developments occurred after the Jewish Encyclopdia was written.) Best, --Shirahadasha 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maaser Rishon
Hi FDuffy: You recently added to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, however as requested at the top of the page ("tag discussions...") you did not complete the process fully. You should have placed the Judaism -- ~ on the Articles for deletion/Maaser Rishon page. I have done so now, please remember to do so in the future. Thanks. IZAK 07:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --User talk:FDuffy 07:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)