User talk:Humus sapiens/archive14

Template:NotJudaism
You honestly feel that template should be kept?? Anything that is not Judaism can be linked to it. A tree...a bike....a sandwich. C'mon...be reasonable. MetsFan76 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No need for a strawman. See Jews for Jesus, a Christian group that pretends that Christianity and Judaism are the same. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that is their belief and should be respected. But to actually have a NotJudaism template is ludicrous. People will link anything to it. MetsFan76 05:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Was this in response to my comment? (It's tabbed that way). --  tariq abjotu  05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may Humus- the template was at best redundant. Any article about Messianic Judaism that doesn't make clear in the initial introduction the fringe nature of what follows has issues. JoshuaZ 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hear you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The rest of this talk: . ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to apologize right before you posted "the rest of this talk," but I see no need for it now. I had every right to my opinion as I found that template incredibly insulting. MetsFan76 06:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus Arbitration
There is a Request for Arbitration for the Jews for Jesus article. Please provide your inputs.ParadoxTom 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Change username
Hi, I would like to change my username. Please can you change it to FrummerThanThou. Thanks Chavatshimshon 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Arb on J4J
Thanks for the headsup. Wasnt aware of it.--Mantanmoreland 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite IP blocks
What is the story with this? This looks like a RoadRunner cable modem address, which would be a dynamic IP that aside from naturally changing for whatever reason every few months, can simply be reset by the user. In general, never do indefinite IP blocks. Even certain "open proxies" should not be blocked for long lengths of time, as they do change too, causing collateral damage, and someone has to manually unblock them eventually. Only commercial open proxy services might warrant the idea of an indefinite block and even then some high value like 5 years is better than indefinite. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I've done the right thing. I posted a request for review. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses change. The person may be indefinitely banned, but he will not be the person using that IP in a month, or a week, or perhaps even now. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I have unblocked the IP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think that it has been the same person for the past several months based on the contribution history, then it makes sense to block for a longer period of time, but that would be more like a 6 month block or a 1 year block. Relatively static IPs may be the same person for a while, but they do end up changing. When they do, either some innocent is not going to be able to easily edit Wikipedia and will be confused or insulted, or an admin is going to spend effort evaluating the case and unblocking. —Centrx→talk &bull; 08:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood, thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

vfd?
Humus,

I am appealing to you because you ARE an administrator. I was curious. You posted a "support per nom" to VfD the Messianic Judaism articles Boaz Michael and FFOZ. According to the nom, you then agree "del nonnotable supervanity. Verifiability problem. Notability" - even though it had sources listed.

Perhaps then you can explain to me why you support the Jewish article History of the Marranos in England - when it has absolutely no sources listed at all? Perhaps I should submit a VfD for that page, and submit the VfD. I wonder, would you'd probably support "per the nom" and stick to a standard that you'd applied to Boaz Michael and FFOZ, for History of the Marranos in England?

I'm not into starting VfD wars. This is not a warning. This is a note to ask you for help. What you bite into can sometimes bite back, and I don't want to be involved in such. Next time someone decides to VfD one of the Messianic articles for the same reasons, and instead of responding as "per the nom" - and you feel compelled to jump on the bandwagon, please feel free to keep this in mind: are you helping wiki or detracting from it when by bandwagoning a vote you bring nothing else to the discussion, or even address the objections to the VfD? If the Wiki non Messianic Jewish community wants to push quick enforcement of Wikipolicy on Messianic Judaism articles, perhaps they should be reminded that the standard should work both ways. Please let me know what I should do. Should I submit some VfD's now for some Jewish articles I came across that qualify according "to the nom" as nonnotable supervanity and unverifiable per WP:N? I mean, I have no qualm about the Marranos - after all, I am descended from Sephardim in England (just not the Marranos), so I'd hate to see the article go down over VfD reasonings that brought down FFOZ and Boaz Michael...

So please consider this appeal on your talk page as an effort to find some sort of common ground to work from between us. I can play nice and quiet, and trust me, I don't want to see our differences lead to Wikilawyering. Feel free to share this appeal to some moderation, civility, and cooperation, with the others in your camp. Please ask them to engage in helping the Messianic Judaism articles as much as they would want us Messianics to help with their Judaism articles. Once they decide how involved they want to be in working together mutually on articles, we'll decide too how involved we should be as well in working with you mutually on articles.

For no other reason I am posting this than to vent my fustration at the whole situation. Do I want to open a whole new can of worms, or is the can already open - and no matter what I do or don't do, the peace is already disturbed? Perhaps we can take this over email and keep it off wiki so you can give me some pointers as to what to do. Shalom inigmatus 09:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
I know I'm behind a couple of months, but what the heck? Better late than never. I want to thank you for helping me surf through the Cyberspace of Wikepedia when I was completely a Novice. And when you were mildly critical, I did not react like that Jack-the-Pumkin below: Yours truly,--Ludvikus 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I missed my Halloween celebration!!! [[Image:Jack-o-lantern.svg|300px|center]]

Hello again.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All's OK! --Ludvikus 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Arms shipments from CSR to Israel
Hi, of course I don't mind with listing the article where it may be useful. And thank you for welcome, as I'm quite new here. ja_62 Ja 62 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Username
Hey, man. I really like your username. I know it wasn't deliberate, but it's still genius. Look at genesis 2:7 in Latin or Hebrew. Here's the Latin: 7 tunc formavit Dominus Deus hominem pulverem de humo et inspiravit in nares eius spiraculum vitae, et factus est homo in animam viventem.. I presume that by now you know what humus is... (hebrew adamah). Avraham 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Gruber
Very interesting article! Sounds like a remarkable woman. -- Mwalcoff 05:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the pleasant surprise. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jewish partisan activity in Eastern Europe eeu75180.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jewish partisan activity in Eastern Europe eeu75180.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kristallnacht USSHM map.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kristallnacht USSHM map.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming and requesting help
Sorry I deleted a tag, I did not mean to do thus; in future I will never do anything like that.

I am trying to improve or create articles about those themes I am very well aware of. So I wrote for instance an article about the Monument of Lihula which I thought would be informative for English-speaking people. Soon I will write some similar articles describing the problems concerning mainly the history of World War II and especially the ones which are dicussed in Estonia. Many problems of Estonia are not well described to the English-speaking world because some Russians who hate Estonia are constantly making attemts to defame Estonia(ns). For example, the article on "Neo-Nazism in Estonia" is a total defamation and I strongly recommend to delete it from Wikipedia. Firstly, there does not exist any Neo-Nazi's political movement in Estonia; secondly, I do not think graffiti is a unical thing which exists in Estonia only, and to mention it as a problem is nonsense; thirdly, the naming of Tiit Madisson as a leader of Neo-Nazis is a gross defamation.

Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rannit (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

IDF Barnstar


--יהושועEric 21:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious significance of Jerusalem
Please help mediate on this page. We require your assistance. My argument is that user is adding much one-sided information and too much text to evoke emotions. Other material has almost nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. I am trying to maintain a fair and factual article. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Shamir1 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment on the discussion page. User:Bless sins had his version protected. I would just like you to see my comments and arguments to his reasons . Also, please take a look at my version in comparison with his (as protected by Husond) . He has added redundant info. With his edits, 17:1 from the Qur'an is written twice. He gave the rest of the quotation, unneeded but okay. The problem is that the second one is accompanied by the original text in Arabic. The Arabic text we have does not continue with the rest of the sentence, that is why his longer translation is not needed, especially not twice. He has also added POV. He uses his own sources while oblivious to others. That is why I try to leave it balanced, with all views represented.

As for the "Controversial claim" section, I am going to propose it be combined with the similar article section Al-Aqsa Mosque and possibly have its own article. If you have any suggestions or objections for me, I am glad to hear. I contacted you because I know you are pretty well respected among different circles. Thank you. --Shamir1 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Project/Portal Mainpages
Hi I've been working on a new design for the Judaism and Israel projects and portal's main pages. Please have a look. I could do with some help with the coding. I think its similarity to the main page will make these pages look more clear cut and will bring the participants together on sollected articles and issues more often. The featured article section will be much like the main page but hold its place for a week, yes yes i know there is a portal but like I, hardly anyone participates. I'm just making an effort to make a page we'll be up to date on relavent issues, much like a message board. Thanks FrummerThanThou 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so please can you refer me to someone here who is good with codes. As for when it comes to edditing, user need only to know where the templates are, no editing on the project main page will be needed, if you would want to add your name as a member, you would do so on the member's page, the same for "did you know"/"new articles" etc. Your help much appreciated. I expect to welcome a few hundred more members by making this community page. At the moment there are a few thousand anon Jewish users. I used and made edits to wiki for around 3 years until i discvered the community effort that's behind it. ta FrummerThanThou 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos
I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Village_pump_(proposals) and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 08:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * thank you, I will look for help, I just want to make sure you know im in good faith. please can you comment on the above wikilogo thing in its page. please also see this template i made, I dont see why it should be deleted, if its used well then its good. Todah rabba. FrummerThanThou 11:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American Businessmen
Hey there: Category:Jewish-American businesspeople was changed to Category:American businesspeople, so all the people in the category lost their Jewish identity. Do you think the category should be restored? It was originally created to break up the larger category Category:Jewish Americans into smaller chunks. The vote for deletion on the category was small. Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_14

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Targeted_killing&oldid=32833998

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801083.html

Admin opinion needed
Hi Humus: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Care to tell me why you changed this?
I don't think "Oh yes it is" is a proper reason to revert my edit. Please discuss this with me on the article's talk page [] .V. 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?
I don't think so... If the goal was to promote NPOV, wouldn't a UN barnstar be better? Why the IDF of all things? Khoikhoi 05:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with defending NPOV coverage of Israel. See WP:ANI. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said there was, but why pick an organization responsible for so many deaths? If I want to defend NPOV coverage of the Palestinians, there wouldn't be any problem if I create a PLO barnstar—right? Khoikhoi 22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am not that award's creator, and my understanding is that defending NPOV coverage of Israel should be encouraged, just as any other WP topic. As for "an organization responsible for so many deaths", you "forgot" that the IDF is responsible for unnumerably more lives saved. Unlike the UN, which consistently failed to prevent genocides from Sudan to Rwanda to Kosovo, etc. Regarding the PLO, you go ahead and do what you feel is right. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE!!!
This was completely uncalled for and a violation of WP:BITE. Quite clearly the user had no clue what a talk page was all about, he only once made an attempt to use one, nor did he know what the edit summary was; but was a very good contributor in a specialised topic. The actual allegation that his username is offencive should be reexamined as it was clearly the fruit of over cautiousness, meaning he did not fulfill any of the fears that where pronounced and cause controversy. Please unblock and find some way to apologise so he knows about it. Toda. frummer 02:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern. I choose to stand by my comment. Note that the user continued to contribute for many months after that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He continued to contribute but didnt know what was going on. I dont think he understood what a talk page was. I doubt he read his own talk page, which sounds weird, but he never responded to the suggestion, and is now blocked. It doesnt sound fair and his contributions were valuable. Allmost all the Yehuda Shomron articles are incomplete. frummer
 * I expressed my opinion, and I still hold it. The user can still appeal and change his username, correct? I suggest you take this to WP:ANI. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the general consensus of opinions expressed on the ANI where I posted it, we can conclude that in his case it was an act of over=cautiousness which resulted in a pointless block of username and perhaps contributor. Perhaps he thought it was a joke or wasn't serious enough about Wikipedia to respond to an irrational claim. Beats me. Kol tuv. frummer 05:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou
Hi Humus : Latest chutzpah at Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO.
Dear User:Humus sapiens
 * I OWN the original 1934 edition.
 * I also examined it at the NYPL.
 * There is NOTHING about this EDITION by ANYONE!!!
 * I suspect was a NAZI production - and another FRAUD against the JEWS.
 * But since this is merely speculation on my part at this time I cannot write that in the article.
 * But at least I can stick to the FACTS AS KNOWN:
 * (1) The UNINCORPORATED called itself by these ALL CAPS
 * (2) It claimed to originate out of CHICAGO.
 * (3) It operated out of a P.O. Box!!!
 * Please do not REVERT without a discussion.
 * Thanks! --Ludvikus 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood, but why is their 1934 POBox is so notable that we should list it in the article? And the CAPS are considered screaming. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus
Hi Humus: I received the following message, perhaps you can assist. Thanks. IZAK 10:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Category:Palestinian rabbis
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis
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" 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 historic geographic 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 State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Frummer creates User:Jesus
Hi Humus: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone's looking for attention and trying to make a WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thanks, IZAK 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:


 * 1) No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
 * 2) WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
 * 3) So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
 * 4) What will members of other projects, such as WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
 * 5) Note: WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
 * 6) It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
 * 7) Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi Humus: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

1912 Edition of the Protocols???
I cannot find in any major library a 1912 edition of The Protocols!!!
 * Where in Hell did you find that dambed cover image???
 * Pardon my English. --Ludvikus 17:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Confirmed with my photocopy. The date of my frontispiece is 1911.
 * And its from the 1911 imprint of The Protocols held by NYPL.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You still didn't answer my question! Maybe you forgot, but it was last February--2 months before I became a Wikipedian--that you Uploade the image! Here's your writing from the Commons image page:

(del) (cur) 09:02, 9 February 2006. . Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs). . 610×897  (196,635 bytes) Front page illustration from 1912 edition of Sergei Nilus' book that contained The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. )


 * So can you tell me where you found the 1912 book with the PEZ? --Ludvikus 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For your convenience, here's my response, pasted from the PEZ Page (--Ludvikus 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)):


 * No! I don't want to remove it! Its actually fascinating! The image is a very CLEAN image of what I've got from the WONDERFUL 42nd St. NYPL. But my dirty copy differs precisely in having the year if 1911. So I think we have an interesting story for OUR ENCYCLOPEDIA. As you can see, I already made changes on the CAPTION of your FRONTISPIECE. Now all we needed to do is to identify where you found/received the MYSTERIOUS 1912. I know that we are not supposed to be a Newspaper, or engage in so-called ORIGINAL RESEARCH! But here we have an exception! If we can authenticate the existence of a 1912 imprint - that belongs in WIKIPEDIA - even if Norman Cohn (or most other PEZ Scholars) didn't know of its existence! So please, please, do your best to find out where you got this 1912 FRONTISPIECE!
 * That's the second time I've discovered TIME TRAVEL regarding the Protocols! Remember how I pointed out that Victor E. Marsden died on October 28, 1920? So unless there was TIME TRAVEL he could NOT have written the things that occurred years later, as it appeared in that 1934 imprint (by [[THE PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO.)!!! Ludvikus 08:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Got your message, but whose BTW? And what French text are you talking about? Also, there really are not that many editions in the beginning years - certainly not available ones, or surviving ones! And I believe I know about ALL the mentioned ones!!! I'm going to respond more fully on the PEZ page because I think we should have EVERYTHING about the POZ on Wiki. So please go there. --Ludvikus 14:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

grace 1545
Hello! I am grace 1545 and I am trying to fix the spanish edition of the article, but I cannot find from what article was translated from.can you help?Cannot sign cannot find how

Request for Comment
Hi Humus sapiens,

An RfC case involving you has been opened here. --Aminz 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Roger Lamberlin - 1925 - Frontispiece
Humus sapiens, Magician.

So now you produced yet another image, with that notorious name, bearing the date of 1925.
 * How can you trust these antisemtic sources?
 * You still didn't do what I ask - IDENTIFY THE BOOK, OR BOOKS, from which you copied

these frontispieces?!?! We have to be ACCURATE & PRECISE. Otherwise our credibility is open to attacked.
 * And you don't bother explaining the difference between the TWO images you pull out -- like a magician -- from a hat -- containing frontispices -- and they're not crumpled!!!
 * --Ludvikus 23:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Take It Easy, Humus sapiens, My Mensch
I am just very curious about finding the 1912 edition.
 * And now I am curious about this edition you found.
 * Let me know when, or if, you discover your source.
 * In the mean time I'll let the image stay.
 * Its already got my warning - I changed the caption, remember?
 * The image appears to be the one that's in the 1911 book - its the caption that's different.
 * So when I get/make a clean copy, I'll post it!
 * In the mean time, keep cool, and Season's Greetings.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming
Hi, i often go on a welcoming spree on Judaism related articles when i see allot of redlinked talk pages of users actually contributing. I don't always check their contribs so mistakes happen. Welcoming sprees are encouraged by some and discourage by others, it seems to be a point of contention on which no consensus has been reached. About the wikiproject Judaism template, i think the new look is better, and I can reinclude the portal and Todo. Do you mind? frummer 04:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Frummer: I would very much mind if you messed around and messed up Portal:Judaism which works just fine. Remember the saying: "If it's not broken, don't fix it!" IZAK 04:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I Don't Think So
Sorry "Humus", but just because you disagree with something, does not make it vandalism. Nice try, though. 68.5.96.201 06:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism
User:Humus, I am going to go ahead and get the vandalism complaint process started against you, since you seem to believe that you have the right to revert and modify another User's page at your own will. 68.5.96.201 06:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC) You might be interested in this: Administrators' noticeboard Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem Humus. Khoikhoi 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring at Chabad-Lubavitch and...
Hi Humus, would you be able to take a look at Chabad-Lubavitch, Menachem Mendel Shneerson and Yechi. Theres a relativly new editor  who's been making some major edits and deletions to these articles. He has been asked a number of times by numerous editor to use the talk pages before changing the articles. But he keeps on reverting back to his own version. This is causing an edit war. would you be able to take a look? Things look a bit calm for the moment, but perhaps you can keep your eyes on the watch and weigh in when needed? thanks allot for your help. Shlomke 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"What AFD?"
Ironically, you yourself voted for Apartheid wall to redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.69.104 (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
 * OK, thanks for the reminder. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
Please see Yisroel Dovid Weiss and Moshe Aryeh Friedman per the rvrts to my changes. Does calling oneself a rabbi constitute smicha? frummer 11:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Birobidzhan coa.gif, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mala Zimetbaum
Hi Humus: How notable is this person Mala Zimetbaum, and does she deserve an article of her own? There were millions of Holocaust so should they all get their own articles now? Doesn't that trivialize the event? Seems that if someone gets to write a book or gets mentioned somewhere, they then "automatically" become notable. What do you think? IZAK 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year
Hello Humus, have a very happy new year... I only wish that I could be as dedicated to editing and reverting anti-semitism as you are! - Abscissa 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Robert Satloff, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  22:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism
Dear User:Humus Sapiens First, Happy New Year
 * 2nd: It's not mine, I did not start it.

In fact, I think it's probably started by Antisemites. It's antisemitic, like calling Jazz "negro music". Or it's like calling gangsterism an Italian phenomena. I would be inclined to think that it should be DELETED. It was an expressed use by the White Russian. As a matter of fact, why don't we start an article called Ruski Bolshevism.
 * What I'm more concerned, however, is a totally different, more mosern issue. I'll write you about it separately.--Ludvikus 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing I edited is an expansion as follows: Significant Jewish involvement in all Russian Revolutionary movements had complex social roots. For centuries Jews had been an oppressed and despised minority in the Russian Empire, but this oppression of Jews increased drastically when Poland was dismembered and millions of Jews became thereby subjects of the Tsar. They had thereby to endure a form of physical segregation in the Pale of Settlement as well as persecutions supported by Tsarist governments. That dismemberment resulted in the acquision of former Polish lands by Prussia and Austro-Hungary. But in these lands the Jewish population was much smaller, and their condition of subjugation far superior than that which they inherited by becoming conquered subjects of the relatively backward Russian Empire.
 * Do you not agree that Jews became the victims of distinctly Russian antisemtism when Holy Mother Russia "inherited" them after the partition of Poland? --Ludvikus 17:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And how do you like my "Ruski" article linked to the following modification: The term Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism, as opposed to Ruski commie, or simply commie, is an expression used primarily by White Russians or White Emigres who maintained it was a Jewish phenomenon,. ..
 * Yours truly, Ludvikus 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Mother Russia
I've also added - again - the following expansion: While masses of Russian Jews emigrated in response to the pogroms inflicted on them (in the period from 1881 to 1920, more than two million Jews left the Russian Empire), many chose to engage in political activism just like the fomer Russian orthodox endentured peasants who had been virtual slaves prior to their emancipation. However, very quickly thereafter, antisemitism set in and Jews were viewed as different, foreign, and less justified in engaging in political activity in Orthodox Mother Russia, Holy Russia. Hol Sorry: Signature: --Ludvikus 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
You might find it useful that the majority of Europe's Jews lived in the above entity - for a very long time, and that the Russians, in the 19th century, after Poland's Partition/dismemberment, acquired these Jews by their conquest - in war. So the foreigner, aliens, there, were not Jews but Russians. --Ludvikus 04:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupied territories
This is a more important an issue to Jews.
 * User:Jpgordan has crticised me on my view:
 * that the West Bank and Gaza Strip never were and are not now territories "occupied" by Israel.
 * I've proceeded with an analysis and the ONLY citation in the Article to show my point.
 * So what's your take on this Gordan person?
 * --Ludvikus 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ruski, White Russian, White Emigre
The above three need cleanup and development.
 * It's your key to unraveling the Jewish Bolshevism antisemitism issue.
 * --Ludvikus 18:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jabotinsky Medal
That's what I started (just one item), and I'm proud of having done so.
 * But it's still a mere STUB.
 * Can you get me help to develop it?
 * --Ludvikus 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people
Hi Humus: Have you ever had a close look at this strange article: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. The heading stinks. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? I doubt that the originators of this article and those who worked on it have rational objectives. It should be merged with something else involving Adolf Hitler or even deleted for its stupidity. (If not, how about Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 01:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Zionism and racism
Hi Humus: Shouldn't the Zionism and racism article be renamed to Allegations of Zionism and racism as with Allegations of Israeli apartheid? What are your thoughts? IZAK 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Do some reading"
Your condescention is uncalled for.
 * You are writing about a political epithet, a concept I suspect you are unfamiliar with, or that there is also a listing under this term in Wikipedia. It important that you know it exists.
 * You are dealing with a particularly antisemitic one at that, and I am amazed that you are unaware of the context in which it occurred. Do you truly not know that the same Ruski antisemites who hated the Jews and inflicted upon them the Pograms were also the ones who fled Russian, as White Emigres, or White Russians??? And that all this was done in the name of mother Russia, or Holy Mother Russia? --Ludvikus 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I've just put at the top of Jewish Bolshevism:
 * It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into list of political epithets.
 * Please read carefully, before you revert, or what you comment on. --Ludvikus 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet accusation
Humus, some guy named "Stbalbach" has labeled me a "sock puppet". I only have one account and I don't understand why this person is accusing me of this. Can you help me? I'm going to try and revert my page but I would appreciate your help and/or guidance in this matter. Thank you. Jtpaladin 21:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RfM
Hi Humus, we've been discussing the possibility of mediation on the JfJ page. Would you be willing to do this? We're waiting for your response on the page. Thanks, Mackan79 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny Swastika
Hi Humus: Take a look at these templates: with the displayed prominently. Honestly, of all of Hinduism's symbols' did this one have to get "headline" billing on these templates? Alternatives are aplenty if one were to look around on articles listed on Hindu Deities and Texts where there are dozens of less offensive symbols that could be chosen for the same purpose. While the swastika may be ok with some Hindus, it should not be flashed around "in all innocence" because for the rest of the world that was caught up in World War II it was the symbol of literal EVIL, DEATH and DESTRUCTION emanating from the Nazis. It was Hitler's personal diabolical "symbol of choice" and for that reason it is VERY far from neutral, no matter in what context it is used. It violates Civility to have it displayed in such an "in your face" fashion on these Hindu templates, giving it a dubious "place of pride" it does not deserve. Need one say more? IZAK 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hindu Links (top left)
 * Hinduism small (bottom)
 * HinduFestivals (top right)
 * Hindu Deities and Texts (top right)
 * User WikiProject Hindu mythology (left)

Martin Luther Article Edit Not Blanking
Dear Humus:

The new editor reduced the size of the section in an attempt to meet Summary style. It was not blanking. Just thought you'd like to know. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindu swastika

 * Hi: NOTE: Talk about this is now centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. Thanks. IZAK 02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome thanks and Happy New Year
A tardy thanks for the welcome, and best wishes for the new year

Protocols of Zion - Plagiarism, Hoax, Fake, Lie
I know you're dedicated to keeping the POZ article in good style.
 * So please try to avoid using forgery and [[fraud] in the opening paragraph.
 * The original manuscript, whatever that is or was, is apparently lost.
 * It is this which was or may have been a forgery had it been presented (for example) as actually the recording by an official Jew (a secretary, lets say) who took down the minutes of the meeting of the so-called Elders of Zion. However, that's not the story we get.The story (one story) is that some agent copied it down. But the authenticity of that copy of a copy has not been possible,or made, because it vanished. So what we have is the content of an originalthat has disappeared. And that is not a forgery - but it is a plagiarism. We know very little about the physical object, and the claims made for it. Whatever was presented to the Tsar, as an authentic original document - that would have been a forgery. But it has not been made available.
 * Similarly, fraud has very specific implications. Who has been defrauded by the Protocols? Can you describe the specific crime of fraud? What exactly is meant by using it in this context?

Yours truly --Ludvikus 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

hi
There is a discussion over the use of swastika. A Jewish user seems to have gone ballistic after a Hindu user welcomed him to join WP:HINDU. As you may have guessed the welcome template has the Hindu swastika on it. I would like to tell you that there was no bad-faith on our part and that the welcomer did not mean any harm. You also may want to check the discussion at WT:HNB and do look at the two pages: Swastika and sauwastika. Baka man  23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism
I think you must be confusing me with someone else.
 * The above expression is inherently antisemitic (no original reseach here).
 * The advocates of the Protocols of Zion support the above notion (no original research).
 * Holy mother Russia is the expression the antisemites liked to use for their beloved Russia (no original research).
 * I really think you're confusing me with somebody else?
 * Do you really believe that there were too many Jews who supported Bolshevism for which you have some authority, like the antisemite Solzhelitsyn?
 * What thick book page number is that on (your point of view, that is)?
 * --Ludvikus 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)