User talk:IZAK/Archive 38

Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism
I saw your nomination to merge this article into Jewish views of marriage as well. I disagreed with you in this case on both points. About the merger, and about your objections to wording. The first is a strictly technical matter, but the second surprised me a little. After all, the article is well sourced and all the things you call pejorative are factually correct and neutrally worded, if you think about it, because no value is being given to the statements. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Debresser. Thanks for contacting me. I stand by my nomination, as explained over there. There was no reason to create an extra article in obvious violation of WP:CONTENTFORK when all the material (with pejoratives edited out) could fit perfectly well into Jewish views of marriage that is just for that kind of topic. Feel free to vote the way you wish. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Need someone with knowledge of Hebrew idioms to help
I saw a suspect removal of content on Pot calling the kettle black, specifically, removing one of two idioms in Hebrew that are supposed to be equivalent. I was wondering if you would please: I'm assuming you're a fluent speaker of Hebrew, but I acknowledge I could be totally off on that; even if you are fluent, that doesn't mean you're familiar with modern idioms, so if you know anyone better suited to confirming it please pass along my request. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Confirm if the initial removal was justified (and restore it if it's a valid phrase)
 * 2) Verify the remaining quote (online translators are nearly useless for linguistic idioms)
 * 3) Provide a transliteration for both (since Hebrew isn't readable by most English speakers; I can read it with the vowels, but I can't read the shorthand with consonants only without making a lot of mistakes)
 * Talk page stalker here. Transliterated and cited to Talmudic source. I am unsure of the provenance of the removed phrase. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of wanted the removed phrase to be real. It has a certain charm to it. :-) Oh well, thanks for helping out on the rest of the request. The translation of the Hebrew for the remaining phrase is odd though; without filling in words it doesn't seem to mean what I assume it to mean, which would be "All who disqualify [another] due to fault do so based on their own fault." Am I correct that the "another" is an assumed word there? I might add it in if so; otherwise it looks like a proverb that simply says "If you screw up, it's your own fault," which isn't in the spirit of the English idiom. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct; I have placed a more literal translation with helping brackets. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Google searches seem to bring up only the old wiki page: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9D+%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%97%D7%A7+%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A6%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%95%D7%90+%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%97%22&hl=en&filter=0&cts=1260226818920 -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Eve Frank and Felix Frankfurter
Nowhere in the article did I say that Felix Frankfurter was decended from Eve Frank. I said that he parents were decended from FOLLOWERS, and they had a picture of her.Ericl (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the Jewish Barnstar, and for the flattering mention in the Wikipedia Signpost. Happy Chanukah, Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome, you are most worthy! IZAK (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you, that was very thoughtful of you! Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You deserve only good things! IZAK (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

יישר כחך
Thank you for the very kind words! א פרייליכן און א ליכטיגע חנוכה!! -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Happy Chanuka! IZAK (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Chabad, POVFORKs, and alot of discussion
Dear IZAK, I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your contributions and for very legitimately bringing to peoples attention an editorial bias that is not in line with WP policy. Having articles that present a multi-faceted Jewish issue as if it is a chabad-perspectived monolith does harm.

I would just share a thought that we all catch more flies with honey than vinegar and a calm tone will help us all work together.

Much love, Joe407 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you brought Tefillin campaign to our attention. I looked at all the "campaign" article spin-offs and notice that they read exactly the same way, more like a press release than an encyclopedic entry. Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign and Noahide campaign follow the exact same format and have as their only references sichot by the Rebbe. I'm a bit intimidated to lodge an AfD, though, as Yehoishophot Oliver zinged me with his allegation of "POV pushing" on my comment on Articles for deletion/Public menorah. I think you express yourself much more eloquently and accurately; you could almost copy and paste your comment on Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I started the AFD process on those two, I am sure Izak can put his two cents in much better. Yossiea (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, keep me posted
Thank you everyone for keeping me posted. Please let me know when further issues like this come to anyone's attention. IZAK (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 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 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jewish seminary
Go rant at whoever pushed Beis Yaakov into Jewish seminary. I had to remove links to Beis Yaakov from a lot of articles where they didn't belong. A fine example of POV pushing. And no connection with Chabad. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't "rant" -- I edit. I will see when I can. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I will be glad to be of service as best I can. IZAK (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it now. What's the big deal? It's a regular disambiguation page, see Jewish seminary. IZAK (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to cause an edit conflict in Jewish seminary. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism for explanations to my edit. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Listcruft is not a policy
Re: Violates Wikipedia:Listcruft

Could you explain your reasoning above considering that WP:Listcruft is not a policy (and will never be)?
 * Hi, I have just clarified it . Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you please nominate List of Muslim astronomers for deletion because you said that the list of jewish engineers was deleted and so we should delete the lists of former Jews and so on. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I can' get global about this. I am not familiar with the subject of Muslim astronomers, so I cannot even really comment on that. IZAK (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt: See User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews where I have detailed my reasons for opposing lists and categories of Jews on Wikipedia. I cannot by extension apply the same reasoning to Muslims or any other group. Each ethnicity, nationality and religion and its representative editors must decide what works best for them and what guidelines they should follow within the parameters of Wikipedia's policies. Thanks for contacting me. IZAK (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One could make a similiar page detailing why we should delete lists and categories relating to Muslims. It looks strange that you would be asking for people to delete lists/categories for Jews but have no comments about pages relating to Muslims or Hindus or people from other religion and say that you leave other people to decide about that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Matt: You cannot equate what applies to a small group of people like the 13 million Jews of the world, with almost two billion Muslims and over a billion Hindus. There are different factors at work. Muslims and Hindus do not have to face the historical realities of antisemitism and genocide that Jews have suffered recenetly such as in the Holocaust when almost a third of the world's Jews were killed in Europe by Nazis wielding LISTS OF JEWS. Therefore lists and categories of living Jews works in the favor of Jew Watch and other Jew-haters and may lead to deaths at the hands of antisemites. I am not sure that two billion Muslims and a over a billion Hindus have the same issues. While some rules of Wikipedia can be generalized, nobody said you should toss your brains and common sense out the window and come up with false conclusions and false absurd claims that Wikipedia is a generic society, when it is not. As I said, I don't know the way the Muslim editors function just like I don't know how the medical or scientific editors function and my expertsise and interests are not in those areas. I try not to be a smart alek and stick my nose into subjects I know absolutely nothing about and I advise you to do the same. Gotta go now. Take care! IZAK (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I have finally posted you on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User :Hayesgenius
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. His user page has been blanked (again!), and much of his editing history have been oversighted. He's also been notified of the dangers of what he is doing. I hope it makes an impression. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint and discussion concerning your POV editing, violations of WP policy, and diff's
A complaint concerning your POV editing, and violations of WP policy has been posted at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Elazar Shach page
Lately there's been a lot of edit wars and discussion regarding the Rabbi Elazar Shach page (so much that the page was locked for a month). Have anything to contribute to the discussions on the talk page? Yonoson3 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Yonoson: Thanks for contacting me. Maybe it has to do with the heated discussions now ongoing at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. And yes, the Rabbi Elazar Shach article is always a hot topic because he was one of the biggest critics of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and of Chabad messianism, he is therefore a target of pro-Chabd edtors as well. For the time being I will stay away from that topic. IZAK (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Zsero has been involved in some of the recent Lubavitch related discussions there on the Rabbi Elazar Shach talk page. I see that Zsero is also one of the guys involved in the arbitration case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad_movement/Evidence) - Does that mean that for now Zsero shouldn't have any say on the Lubavitch related discussions on the Rabbi Elazar Shach page? If yes, can we knock him off?

Yonoson3 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, could you come over to the Elazar Shach talk page and make it clear that Debresser has no say on the Elazar Shach page since he's still embroiled in the Chabad controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad_movement/Evidence)? [BTW, sorry I couldn't help you out in the Newman Luke issue; I don't do much editing on Wikipedia so I'm not familiar with that issue at all]Yonoson3 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I have left a detailed comment here: . Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Civility
This is a general warning to all users involved in recent COIN and ANI discussions. Please stop talking about other users mental status, mental health or their person. As the WP:CIVILITY policy says, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and WP:NPA which states: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people". I am drawing a line under what has been said to this point so you all right now have a clean slate, but I intend to start blocking users on both sides of the dispute who continue engaging in violations of the behavioural policies so please accept this as a final warning. Thanks, Sarah 05:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, you are right, as you know I have been the primary target of these attacks. I have been trying to draw attention to the fact that a number of admins have also asked all parties involved to step back and allow the admins to review the case, but unfortunately, User and User  went ahead and escalated the situation by creating even more red herring attacks against me as distractions and smokescreens at the ANI and COI boards. I agree with you fully and I certainly hope it allows everyone to remain calm, rational and focused. Thank you for your input. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to the arbitration request
I see you keep tweaking it. Please note that the instructions say " This busy page is not the place to work up drafts.". The Arbs are voting now on whether to accept, and if it is accepted there will be an evidence page for you to add evidence, so I'm asking you (as an ArbCom clerk) to finish what you want to say and wait until it is accepted or rejected. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was listing others who may be involved in this case --now inactive-- and fixing the spellings and links. I am done for now. There will be much more to say once this gets going. What I posted is only meant in the spirit of who to include and who this involves. Thanks again for letting me know. Keep me posted please. IZAK (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yonasan David


The article Yonasan David has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: Yonasan David – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Abductive. I have now added 10 reliable references and sources to that article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi IZAK, just a quick note, you don't need to leave the word "Template" in when you copy the workshop templates. See here. Just to let you know in case you were considering raising any additional proposals.  Cheers, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Ok. Not knowing the rules of what to leave in and leave out, I was cautious. Feel free to correct my errors. Thanks for the input. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help you if you reworked your edits a bit. You need to organise your links better (eg sometimes they start a statement, other times they are within a statement) and be sure that your statements are supported with evidence, eg diffs. Let the diffs speak for themselves. Remember the Arbitrators will be looking at everything everyone writes, so you should avoid anything that looks inflammatory. If you try to be precise and specific without any emotional language your edits will be easier to review. On behalf of the Arbitration Committe, Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will see what I can do. Thanks for the feedback, IZAK (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you haven't done enough, it is just too difficult for the Arbs to read through your evidence, that huge chunk of blue is just unreadable, all of 1.2 should be removed, and I'm a bit worried about your bringing in other editors in that last section. If you don't remove 1.2 I will have to, and you really aren't doing your case justice if the Arbs can't read it, and believe me they are finding it hard. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you I take your guidance seriously. 1.2 is now removed. The case is presented through the other posts. Please let me have your ongoing feedback. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re some other discussions
We don't normally edit archives, but I took the liberty of fixing a link in a comment of yours here; I hope that's OK with you.

I'd like to clarify that my advice to Debresser at ANI was not intended as expressing either approval or disapproval of your editing. I'd also like to suggest being more considerate when talking about other editors, avoiding for example saying things like "hysteria". Remember to AGF. I'm also putting a comment on Debresser's talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

תודה
I certainly will. I've been on the road the past week with sporadic internet, but have been trying to keep up with everything. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a safe trip! IZAK (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vilna Gaon
You said "Chabad hates the Vilna Gaon because he excommunicated them". First of all you must have mistaken Chabad for an individual, because a religious movement can not hate or experience emotions. In addition, did you know the Vilna Gaon was excommunicated himself in response? This was in accordance with the halacha about inappropriate excommunications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
 * Nothing you quote me saying here is new or original. Yes, I do know about the counter-cherem. I'd love having more discussions with you, but given the present circumstances, I think we should confine or communications to the ArbCom case. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I considered that as well, but frankly, I have no intention of letting this disagreement get between two Jews. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which two Jews? IZAK (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You and me. :) Debresser (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever. IZAK (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Arbcom section
About, I think the clerk's recommendation was indeed to remove the whole section including the other parties' comments. Doug was actually saying he might be removing the whole thing himself. If the proposal is withdrawn, I don't really see why your comment on it should continue to be important – it's basically just as off-topic as the proposal was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Fut: Thanks for your feedback. The devil is in the details. I thought you wanted it restored. Let Doug or yourself feel free to do the right thing if that's what should be done. IZAK (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad movement evidence
Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug. I have now created a "Summary" section along the lines of Fritzpoll's request. However the rest must also be preserved because of the fact that there is wide-ranging evidence from me against the four Chabad editors that deals with them as individuals that a shorter Summary would not do complete justice to. This is very important and hopefully the ArbCom will see the wisdom of keeping both the longer and summarized evidence, as per WP:NOTPAPER. Thanks for your guidance, IZAK (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno what to say...
other than "huh?" enjoy Tomertalk  06:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Well, I deleted it. "Frescavenas" sounds kind of like "fresh oats", and "macedocians" looks kind of like a dyslexic version of "macedonians", but that's conjecture, and neither possibility makes the sentence make any more sense than it did before... Gone. Tomertalk 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well. IZAK (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was primarily talking about "Those who chose the rainbow colored tzitzit are known as "frescavenas" because this act was recognized as such be the macedocians who called them this around this new era." And again, I say "huh?" :-p  Tomertalk  16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think the entire section is ridiculous. It's just a marketing gimmick to sell religious items to people who are not that observant of those rituals. IZAK (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case - stop posting for a moment
Re: Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case - stop posting for a moment. It looks like spam I want to work it out. Reply here ASAP.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. I was trying to notify all the parties involved in this case. How is that "spam" -- how else to do it by keeping it in the open? In any case only about 3 or 4 more users to notify that would/should like to know/be informed. Obviously any motion to close benefits one side only, the Chabad editors who will walk away with not even a slap on the wrist. Thanks again. IZAK (talk)
 * I came across Help_talk:Contents which is not in the right place, do you agree? Then I saw you last 10 edits were the same message on other pages and I feared that they also were not appropriate. If you are done then I think there is no problem, but if you are going to post the message another 50 times I think it may not be good. I am not sure if you are meant to post to all interested parties, but it would help if you wrote "this has been posted to all interested parties" in the talk page message.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Commander: Nowhere near fifty. Not more than about 3 or 4 more or another 8 if you count the 4 active Chabad editors. The motion needs to be fair and balanced because just as when a case opens or a case is started all users involved need to be informed, similarly if there is any serious thought to closing a case all parties should be informed and allowed to have some decent input. So can I finish? and of course I will inform the relevant talk page at Evidence that parties were informed. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure you may as well finish, as long as everyone is notified to keep it fair :-) But why was Help_talk:Contents notified? That confuses me :P Next time maybe an ArbCom clerk can notify everyone if needed, it would seem more balanced that way.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again: I now placed the notice on Evidence talk page page as you requested. As for how it got to Help_talk:Contents I got there from clicking on the talk page of User  that redirects there. I assumed it's his talk page. He had given evidence at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am now looking at it again. Evidence by "JzG" at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence is signed by "Guy" but that redirects to User talk:JzG while "JzG's" talk page goes to User:JzG/help that then redirects to Help:Contents. So that's how I got there. Maybe I bumped into this blimp and I give you credit for spotting this problem. What going on here? IZAK (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That user was an admin previously. I think they are taking a break now. Their talk page works ok me now, they just don't have a userpage (which they deleted some time ago). They have that "(help)" link in the signature, just ignore that I suppose.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are reminded to keep in mind Wikipedia policies, and seek content-dispute resolution if collaboration between editors breaks down. Editors are also reminded to continue editing in good faith. No enforcement motions are included in the final decision, but a request may be made to reopen the case should the situation deteriorate.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

File:BH3.JPG
Not sure what your problem is about this file. Looks like quite a normal commons-hosted, user-created free photograph to me. What warning about "unauthorised" creation do you get? If you mean the pink box saying "This image is on Wikimedia Commons—not on Wikipedia. Any descriptions should be placed there. This page should rarely be used ...", that's just the normal warning that appears when you try to create an image description page on the local wiki when the file itself is on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Fut. Perf: Thanks for the quick response. It's not what you say, I am trying to categorize the image into Category:Images of Jews and Judaism in the Netherlands and Category:Images of Jewish cemeteries, but instead I get the following long megila (Not the "pink box" that does not block access to any image page as far as I know), instead this is what comes up there, (in full):

"The file name you were trying to upload ("File:BH3.JPG") has been blacklisted because it is a very common or uninformative one. Please go back and choose a better file name. When uploading files to Wikipedia, please use a file name that describes the content of the image or media file you're uploading and is sufficiently distinctive that no-one else is likely to pick the same name by accident.

Examples of good file names:

"City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg" "KDE Kicker config screenshot.png" "1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg" "Polyhedron with no vertex visible from center.png" Examples of bad file names:

"Image01.png" "Joe.jpg" "DSC00001.JPG" "30996951316264l.jpg"

For more information, please see Wikipedia:Image file names. If you have a good reason for uploading a file with this name, or if you receive this message when attempting to upload a new version of an existing file, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact name of the file you are trying to upload. Thank you.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BH3.JPG" "

That's what comes up, what to make of it? IZAK (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I get it, a block against too short file names. As an admin I can override this, that's why I wasn't getting the same warning. I've added your categories now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. IZAK (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:EZLN
I have nominated ezln for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment
I saw Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq. When we were on ArbCon I also made a userpage to gather, sort and edit my replies before posting them on the ArbCom pages. I think that is normal, and within any user's rights. I didn't want to say this on the Mfd discussion, so that nobody should think I am trying to settle old scores with you, which I am obviously not (Torah also forbids it), but I really wanted to advice you to reconsider that Mfd proposal. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Debresser: Thanks for your feedback. As I have noted, that kind of work can be done privately but not on Wikipedia's open Public Domain web pages, because anything on Wikipedia, including "private" work pages, is there to be commented upon and is in the Public Domain and can even be published without any User's permission, so the moment a page like that is started it must be posted ASAP otherwise the fact that it is there and the longer it lingers makes it into an attack page. If such a page was intended for any official purpose it should have been used and the courtesy and protocol of informing the one it concerns must be followed in all instances. Besides, the basis of what was alleged about me was false and inaccurate. I was not aware of what you were doing so I cannot comment. But in the past I have seen all sorts of pages set up and "being prepared" against other users being deleted on sight without even going through a MfD process, so I am actually being very generous. Have a great Purim. IZAK (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you say so. I'll be having a happy Shushan Purim this year. :) Debresser (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (IZAK)
Hello, IZAK. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at    :Requests for comment/IZAK3, where you may want to participate. Newman Luke (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Ownership behaviour
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke (talk • contribs)

Orphaned non-free image File:Second Temple Destroyed.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Second Temple Destroyed.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol
Did you see this? :) People are, appearently, unfamiliar with the concept "machlokes lesheim shomayim". Debresser (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. IZAK (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Alter of Slabodka.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Alter of Slabodka.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Alter of Slabodka.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Living Torah
You're about the only editor who seemed interested in all it's years of questionable notability. Thought you might know if this's worth keeping or not? Thanx Misarxist (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Misarxist. It pertains to the Chabad Hasidic movement. Perhaps the expert Chabad editors, such as User:Debresser; User:Yehoishophot Oliver and User:Shlomke are in a better position to deal with this. Feel free to contact them. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Passover
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. The merge tag was added so that we might have a discussion about this. Please allow that discussion to continue. Thanks. StAnselm (talk)
 * Really now? In such cases, with such a serious subject, the discussion should precede the placing of misguided "merge" templates by random editors evidently not familiar with the subject and its significance if they think it should be merged with another religion's observances. You are being very comedic. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Alter of Slabodka
Hi,

Excuse me for bugging you about this again, but could you please make the licensing status of File:Alter of Slabodka.jpg a bit clearer? The subject may have passed away in 1927, but the author of the photo may have lived many years after that. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The author of the photo is unknown. The photo was probably from a passport picture of some sort, like many such photos from those days, and was probably touched up a few times. I am guessing, but in those days, issues of "copyright" in impoverished Lithuania were unknown and insignificant. IZAK (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some articles for deletion
See WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism. Chag Kosher V'Sameach--רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian observances of Jewish holidays
I commend you for trying to solve this issue. I reverted your edits in Yom Kippur, for most of it did not relate to modern Christian observance. I'm not sure about your article yet - it does look a bit like a content fork. StAnselm (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think your new article is a neat solution to the problem.
 * Did you notice the section about Easter in Passover? I deleted it and it came back the next day. Another editor has opened a discussion at Talk:Passover. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi StAnselm. It is far-fetched to claim that when describing tow different religions that by differentiating between the way they practice and innovate their religions that it's somehow a "content fork" to keep the content separate. Like saying that keeping articles about "apples" out of articles about "oranges" is a "content fork "because" both are fruits and therefore all articles about similra fruits should be kept welded together. Facts, reality, logic and reason are paramount here to avoid a mishmash and hodgepodge. IZAK (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Copying text
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied or moved text from into. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you carrying on about? Please be specific and avoid roundabout gobbledigook. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Countenance divine
I have opened an AfD for Countenance divine at WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine if you are interested. Tb (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of B'nai B'rith Youth Organization(BBYO)
Hello IZAK, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, B'nai B'rith Youth Organization(BBYO), has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Mblumber. This has been done because the page is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add " " to the page text, and edit the to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Mblumber. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 08:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation
I may have come off as hard nosed or cranky, but i want to honor and respect your efforts at Articles for deletion/List of LGBT Jews (3rd nomination). Let me know if my inclusion of your opinion piece was appropriate. if you feel this was unfair or disingenuous for any reason, i will acknowledge that at the afd, but i honestly believe that its appropriate for you to be as forward as possible in stating where you come from. For my part, I will also try to respect your position as potentially valid and instructive, though i have some problems with it, and will be glad to discuss it if you want me to. you have obviously put a lot of thought into it, and have an editing history to support bold ideas. wikipeace?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mercurywoodrose. Quite honestly I harbor no hard feelings against anyone and I thrive on open and honest discussions. LGBT issues in all their complexity are legitimate and I do not interfere with that topic at all, but when a LGBT agenda is super-imposed on Judaism tendentiously to create the false impression and have the world believe that classical historical Judaism as expressed in the Hebrew Bible and reliable rabbinic commentaries is somehow a "branch" of or "blesses" the LGBT movement is very far fetched and downright silly. So I try to state my case, I take others seriously and hopefully others take what I say as a serious, albeit lively at times, response. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Vet.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Vet.gif. 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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jews is correct
Hi Good ol: Kindly refrain from making the correctly-named Category:Jews into your'' totally arbitrary wishy-washy Category:Jewish people. The term "Jews" is not offensive and Jews ARE Jewish "people" -- what else could "Jews" mean? You are also flouting the correct English proper noun and 100% correct translation for the Hebrew word and proper noun for the word Jews = יְהוּדִים Yehudim (singular: Yehudi) and the Yiddish word for Jews = Yidden יידן (singular: Yid). And I believe that in Arabic Jews are called "Yahud" and no doubt in all languages Jews are called Jews and not Jewish "people" to appease some silly sensitivities of a minority of somewhere who don't like the word "Jew/s" for some irrational reason that defies logic, history, facts, reality, truth and much more. Sure, at times Jews or things connected with them are described in adjectival terms as being "Jewish" meaning "of the Jews" or "about the Jews" or "concerning the Jews" but the main subject is always "Jew/s". The usage of the term or phrase "Jewish" this-and-that is sometimes helpful and sometimes just wasteful circumlocution, but the correct name for the Jews is the Jews! Indeed in the bulk of the sub-categories in Category:Jews the term "Jews" predominates and correctly so. It would also seriously mess up the fact that Category:Jews is the first half of the key parent category Category:Jews and Judaism. This system of categorization has worked excellently since comprehensive categorization was introduced about six years ago on Wikipedia and it makes no sense for you to come along and mess it up because of you don't like it. Please refrain from making such sweeping changes in the future. Thank you most sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)''
 * The above message was placed on my talkpage, but I think it was misplaced, or at least misguided. I had nothing to do with proposing that this change should be made, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I have participated in some discussions where changes of this nature have been proposed and I have expressed opinions, but I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I also (helped) carried out an administrative function of renaming to  because this decision was made here by consensus. If that's what you're upset about, then pursue getting that decision reversed, but do your research first and don't assume that it's my or anyone else's own unilateral decision. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Good ol: I was trying to be thorough. I have since placed this message on the talk page of User talk:Koavf. The discussion you refer to cannot possibly refer to Jews simply because Jews are not an ethnicity as such. Wikipedia cannot take on itself to decide serious matters of theology and peoplehood and dump topics relating to "Jews" into categories that are totally incorrect and wasteful. Jews are members of a religion, known as Judaism, and they are also part of a "nation" or as some would have it an "ethnicity" but they cannot be split, unlike Christians who are only part of a religion called Christianity and do not belong to an ethnicity unlike Jews who by definition are both part of a religious group as well as a national/ethnic/cultural group. I have done my research, these issues are long-established and the above discussion in no way applies to Category:Jews and Judaism. For this kind of serious discussion there should have been long and serious input requested from learned and highly experienced Judaic editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism many of whom are highly skilled editors some are admins, fully aware of this subject matter. Thanks for caring, IZAK (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's nothing to edit war about. I don't think Koavf was the original nominator either—he looks like he's just trying to maintain what was decided in the discussion. I've had to temporarily lock the page to avoid disruption. You need to go about this the right way, not just assume that people in the discussion had no clue what they were doing. We can't unilaterally turn back a change like this. That's what WP:DRV is for—alternately, you could simply nominate it for renaming back. Telling me your arguments can't really accomplish anything alone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will take it WP:DRV. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IZAK, I agree with you entirely regarding this silly change of the name of category from "Jews to "Jewish people", with the ultimate intention of replacing the word "Jews" through the Wiki-categories. As a first step to reversing the trend I have opened a full CFD here on reverting the category Category:American Jewish people back to Category:American Jews. Davshul (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review: Jewish people
There is now an official WP:DRV at Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3. Please centralize comments there. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jews/Jewish people
Okay I don't really care about the deletion review—although I appreciate your invitation and it is reasonable to think that I might be interested—nor do I have any other agenda than completing this CfD. The consensus was "rename all... [including] Category:Jews to Category:Jewish people (technically a merge, over a redirect; likely a reverse redirect is in order here)." Consequently, your etymology on my user talk—while nice—was unnecessary. Furthermore, I did not change it because I don't like it (where did you get that idea?), but because of consensus, which you know to be an operating principle on Wikipedia. As I stated before, I have no horse in this race, so if the deletion review goes through, that's great and I would be happy to help you move articles and categories back. Please respond on my talk if you would like to continue this discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Koavf: Thanks for responding. Not sure what "consensus" you are referring to? I count a grand total of 4 users voting at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 10, including the nominator and one who has now reversed himself at Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3 where already more than 14 users (within 24 hours) are alarmed and oppose the proposed changes by requesting and voting for a Relisting and Overturning of Category:Jewish people back to Category:Jews. It highly alarming that with a so-called "consensus" of 4 editors only, without consulting and seeking serious input from so many other groups, religions and ethnicities many of which have their own Wikiprojects and talk pages and were not brought in to share their views, that essentially hundreds of editors who have toiled over these topics should be bumped aside in what is in essence a "midnight putsch" and it's outrageous to think that 4 editors can perform such an outrage essentially violating WP:OWN in the name of misapplying policies that in the end twist and deform correct nomenclature and labels. This should go before WP:ANI for more input and discussion. IZAK (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay The CfD closed to rename "Jews" to "Jewish people." I honestly don't care either way. If the deletion review closes the other way, that's fine too. If you think the closure was premature or in error, I suggest you take it up with the admin who closed it. I'm not sure what exactly you're planning to bring before AN/I and it seems like the deletion review should solve any problems here, but if you want me to comment at that, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also It appears that you alerted several persons to this deletion and inadvertently wrote out rather than Category:Jewish people, adding those talk pages to the category. I would like to gently admonish you to be more careful about this in the future if you choose to alert more users. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Koav old buddy: It was very late, I was working with a lot of categories and issues, and it was an obvious oversight and unintended error. Sorry if it caused a problem to anyone and had anyone pointed it out to me of course I would have changed it pronto. I apologize. I have been working with categories for many long years, from the time they were introduced, and I hardly make mistakes like this, but it can happen to the best of us. Your "rebuke" is rejected and you are violating WP:AGF. Let's not miss the point of this entire serious discussion tho. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? How am I violating AGF by writing pointing out an inadvertent error on your part? This should be interesting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV comments
Re: your response to what I said at this DRV—I believe you either misinterpreted my meaning or misrepresented it. The editor who closed the DRV essentially adopted the position I was advancing. I have claimed not to have a strong opinion one way or the other on the substantive issue, but that doesn't prevent me from making comments about the issue on substantive issues or procedural issues involved, which is what I did. Despite what you suggested, I am not required to abide by your scheduling preferences for when I make comments about the DRV nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tzvi Berkowitz
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tzvi Berkowitz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Tzvi Berkowitz. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The result was Keep. IZAK (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly good hyphen taken out
You redirected the category Category:Jewish-American military personnel to Category:Jewish American military personnel for only one apparent purpose: to take out the hyphen. This may be news to you, but the hyphen is correct usage for an adjectival pairing modifying another noun. In this case, the category Jewish-American military personnel has the pair 'Jewish-American' modifying 'personnel', requiring the hyphen. In the category Category:Jewish Americans, there is no need for the hyphen. Same with African Americans, and every other such construct, where you can write "I am an African American" or you can write "I am an African-American writer".

Please revert your change to the members of this category, and undo the redirect. Restore it the way it was. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Binksternet: Thanks for contacting me, but while there may be some very minor grammatical justification of sorts, the fact remains that this stood out like big sore thumb at the parent category Category:American Jews by occupation where none of the other sub-categories like it have hyphens, such as Category:Jewish American artists; Category:Jewish American film directors; Category:Jewish American musicians; Category:Jewish American politicians; Category:Jewish American scientists; Category:Jewish American sportspeople etc etc etc all "Jewish American" without hyphens as agreed upon by multiple other users over many years. So it's a no-brainer, an open and shut case, in my favor. There needs to be as much consistency as possible. You are wrong in this instance. And please do not create confusion when I am streamlining the categories. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No citations on 'Isabella I of Castile' page
Hello Zak, I was reading the 'Isabella I of Castile' page, saw your name in the edit history and couldn't help but notice that there was not one single citation on the page...Not even a 'references/' tag in the markup! -- Nice article but it needs citations, throughout. Regards, GWillHickers (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi GW: Thanks for contacting me. Honestly I have no recollection of when I edited that article. As I skim over its edit history I see that dozens of editors have written it over many years with literally thousands of edits. The core of your question really revolves around tow poles: ONE: The way articles were written when Wikipedia was starting out about ten years ago and continued for the next five years and that was a period when any content was welcomed as long as it was acceptable to the WP:CONSENSUS of editors who seemed very familiar with each subject. And TWO: Then about five years ago there started the push for WP:CITE and now it's become that a Wikipedia article is expected to look like a well-written term paper with as many footnotes and citations that can be splashed on a page. And there has been a dynamic tension between the two approaches ever since. ONE: Writers who are creative and knowledgeable need freedom to write while TWO: writers who are researchers and librarians need references and sources. I suppose there needs to be a balance between the two. On one thing everyone can agree, that this queen existed. I hope you will not nominate her for "deletion" based on latter-day deletionist Wikirules only, but somehow get others to add references. Since it's such a tiring job and you were interested in the topic, you may want to do it yourself. Stay in touch. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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 (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Baseless accusations: consider this your only warning
IZAK, this is the only warning you will be receiving for making persistent, baseless accusations towards users Mayumashu, Good Olfactory and Cyde. I have observed that you have made several baseless hyperbolic accusations and snide comments throughout the American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent DRV, and they have continued all the way down to the current American Jews by national origin CFD. I stood by the sidelines far too long and it's time for me to intervene; your behavior is atrocious and is bordering incivility and personal attacks. If you continue with your current behavior, you will find yourself in a temporary blocked for your continue disruptive behavior throughout these venues. — ξ xplicit  23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Explicit, as usual, there are two sides to every story. You say, "I stood by the sidelines far too long." Perhaps you could have helped matters by intervening before now. You were mentioned in that discussion. I don't think the other participants were as forthcoming in untangling this mess as they might have been. Nor have they always spoken in a collegial fashion: "Instead, all you're getting is us laughing at you and leaving us unsure of whether we should take you seriously, because the things you say are so preposterous." (That was said by Cyde Weys.) Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Explicit: Ever heard of WP:BEBOLD???!!! Sorry that you do not like my writing style. You obviously misunderstand what I try to convey. Even Cyde and Good Olfactory have a good chuckle with me, so your allegations are preposterous. In addition you are definitely not a neutral or an uninvolved party because you have been part of these discussions, as you reveal from how you have evidently been WP:STALKing me and therefore you do NOT fit the role of a neutral observer and you are certainly not the "master" of these discussions by any means. Try making constructive suggestions to the actual discussions focusing on content and facts rather than coming over here to my talk page to threaten me and throw curve balls that will not yield anything positive in the long run for anyone concerned. It seems obvious that the only reason you are "choosing" to "intervene" now is because you are taking sides -- against me -- and you seek cover under false accusations. You would be well advised to let a more neutral and uninvolved admin make the kind of wild accusations you are making against me and please do not comment on situations when you are involved in the discussions and making posts about them. Keep your cool, keep your eye on the ball, and thanks so much. IZAK (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, baseless accusations, now towards me. I am by no means stalking you. You notified me of the DRV, so naturally, I read through it. I'm the user who left the CFD notification at WT:JEW about the current nominations, and, as I work plenty at WP:CFD, I skim over all the nominations of everyday. To my surprise, I found your continued baseless accusations once more at the CFD regarding the Jew categories, especially after being asked at DRV to stop making these same accusations. If you honestly consider that stalking, then I don't know what to tell you. It's even pointed out by the same users that you're making baseless accusations in the current CFD, so they obviously have a problem when you refer to them as conspiring to rename categories that best suits their opinions. I find it odd that you would advise me of making "constructive suggestions to the actual discussions focusing on content and facts", when your comments do the exact opposite. I'm hardly taking sides, as I am indifferent towards these categories, the problem is your behavior. The only comment I've ever made regarding these categories was at the DRV, and all I did was simply link to Mayumashu's speedy requests, and the only action I took was deleting a category that Cydebot had failed to do. Hardly "involved". Because you believe otherwise, I've initiate a discussion at ANI here to let other administrators to weigh in. — ξ xplicit  03:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Explicit, you are jumping in in the middle of a very long, protracted and difficult series of discussions about a very complex and bedeviling topic to many people, and instead of letting the discussions go forth as they have been until now, no one here is a baby, and everyone is talking openly, you choose to intervene against.... me. How about you stay clear and let the debate go on as it has quite nicely. If you have been following as closely as you claim, then you should know quite well that Users Mayumashu, Good Olfactory and Cyde (his tyrannical bot) were making massive changes/deletions to Jews' categories as "speedies" without even explaining what they were doing or on what basis. It took a lot of the kind of prodding on my part that you don't like to get them to admit and open up and be more specific about what they were up to. I had to institute a SUCCESSFUL a CfD and a DRV to stop them and reverse their unilateral acts, something they obviously don't like, that they lost. So here we are with you now jumping in like a self-appointed referee at the last round who sees his side losing so he jumps in and tries to come up with "reasons" to stop the successful arguments that have gone my way in the CfD and DRV regarding Jews' categories. You should be staying clear and not choosing sides nor creating side distractions at ANI, I could just as easily have gone to ANI to explain the questionable methods that Mayumashu and Good Olfactory had arrived at to change the names of Jews' categories without consensus, and the dangers of the Cyde bot, and then you would understand why I have good grounds to be fearful and to be peeved as well. Given the situation I think I am staying pretty focused and trying to make the various AfDs and CfDs I am involved with move along and not become one-sided railroaded shows. It's now the heat of the moment and you are choosing to mis-characterize what is going on. You are defending those who can take care of themselves without your input. They are conducting massive changes and I am giving them reason to pause and answer why they are making such massive near-arbitrary changes. I may use more words than most users, but I am definitely focused on what is going on. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The categories and outcome of these discussions—which are not even remotely being derailed, as you claim—are not the basis of my warning or the ANI complaint—and I'll stress it again—the problem is your behavior. The speedy renames were made in good faith and were reversed shortly after, and are nominated once again to be renamed in a full CFD discussion in good faith. Whether these renames are correct or not, they were nominated and deleted with good intentions in mind. Your comments, on the other hand, show that you've done nothing but assume bad faith with all the accusations flying out of who knows where. As Good Olfactory explained at the time of the DRV, the nominator's intentions were as clear to him as it was to you. Not a single user was trying to hide any information from you or anyone else, we just gave the information we knew about, and that information could have been searched and found by anyone else had they gone through the history of WP:CFDS. The deletions were made in response to Cydebot not doing it itself. This, among several things, were explained to you, but you're either ignoring the fact that the deleting admins had absolutely nothing more to do with the categories than Cydebot had to do with them, or not understanding the explanations. Up to the current CFD, it has become pretty clear that your accusations are being made without any substantial evidence, your presumptions notwithstanding, and they are not appreciated and will not be tolerated, hence the ANI report, where you continue to name me as "going against you". It's like you're ignoring the fact that your behavior is problematic. I would have given the same warning to any other user who made so many accusations without supporting evidence (which constitutes as a personal attack) and incivility, yet you continue to assume that I'm against you, again, without supporting evidence. If you could acknowledge your behavior was and continues to be out of line without bringing blaming others in your argument, we can start from there. — ξ xplicit  04:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not beat around the bush and let's see what comes of the discussions at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that you initiated. I am afraid you will find that you have tripped upon a huge problem that will be revealed as more focus is put upon what exactly Mayumashu, Good Olfactory and Cyde have been up to, that will astound you and many others. I will be more than happy to research all their edits, but given their reliance on bots it will be murder. So let's keep all the discussions in one place, make that two because there is also the CfD that is still on the go. Don't worry, I can take it, hope you can too. Cheers. IZAK (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misuse RfC/U
Hello IZAK. Templates are posted on RfC/Us that fail to meet minimum requirements within 48 hours; this is to prevent users, like yourself, who misuse RfC/U either unintentionally or intentionally. The RfC/U that you filed has been deleted accordingly. In other words, instead of posting nonsense, I suggest you refrain from misusing RfC/U in the future. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ncm: Kindly do not violate WP:AGF even if you think you are "right" and others are "wrong". Your accusation is totally baseless and I reject it comprehensively. The RFC was legitimate and was backed by other users, who both certified and supported it. You placed your "delete" template before the expiration of the minimum 48 hours wait period before a RFC can be considered for deletion. That's why there is a Wiki-clock placed on each RFC page to help us all keep time when the RFC started and when it ends, to the hour and to the minute. The deletion is actually disputable because two users certified it and their reasons were explicitly given. So it was far from "nonsense" for me to advise you of your blatant mistake and arbitrary misuses and misapplication of policies by pasting the "speedy delete" template on the RFC and then criticizing me to suit yourself, as it seems you were in a rush to hurry the RFC along and avoid it moving to the next stage. IZAK (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your E-mail to me
Please note that your e-mail to nme, regarding Requests for comment/Mayumashu, was not exactly appropriate. According to WP:CANVASS, "the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications". Please also note that some Wikipedians may use separate e-mail accounts for their Wikipedia activities, and keep a less close eye on it than on their user talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Od Mishehu: I am puzzled that if you do not wish to be contacted by Wikipedia Email, why do you maintain an Email address in your "Toolbox: E-mail this user" if you do not wish to be contacted? Active Wikipedians communicate with other Wikipedians in a variety of ways, and the Wiki Email service provided by Wikipedia itself is one of them otherwise it would not be there, especially in matters that one assumes would interest them. Take care, IZAK (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are situtions where e-mail is appropriate; these mostly involve potential private information, or likely WP:BEANS situations. Please also note my comment about Canvassing, specificly this section. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please define "potential private information", I have never heard of this type of Wikipedia Email communication content or purpose. Where is this rule stated? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tower of David P8040016.JPG
A tag has been placed on File:Tower of David P8040016.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Image created and uploaded by User:Deror_avi, not me. IZAK (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * F2 Deletion because it was COMMONS already - Apparently I forget to switch of the notification. Apologies :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, no problem. IZAK (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jersualem-CBS.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Jersualem-CBS.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Image created and uploaded by User, not me. IZAK (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * F2 Deletion because it was already COMMONS - Forgot to turn of notifcations - Apologies Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, no problem. IZAK (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hello, IZAK. I need some help with understanding what I have done wrong by adding the section Anthropotheism to Sefer_ha-Temunah. I deleted it, but you could still see it in the history After I added it I got an angry email from a friend, who said that I do not understand that Anthropotheism  is used in Christian Kabbalah, but is it? I used this source: Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you.

Hi Mbz: Thank you for contacting me. This question should be placed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for the attention of Judaic editors who may know something about the subject. To my way of thinking there is no such animal as "Christian Kabbalah" because I have never heard of any reliable and notable Torah scholar or source that refers to any Christians as being "Kabbalists" so that just like in pure logical, historical and theological terms there can't really be "Christian Kosher" or "Christian Judaism" there thus cannot be "Christian Kabbalah" and that is why Hebrew Christians or Jews for Jesus are not part of Judaism but they are Christian groups that take on Jewish or Judaism's outward nomenclature. Maybe you could get some help from some of the Chabad editors, such as Users, : and that are evidently rabbis and study Hasidic mysticism to help you out here. IZAK (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

CfD Israeli people by ethnic or national origin
Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 19 You have experience in these wordings and I'm undecided so far. Please add your two cents. --Shuki (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Shuki: In truth the words "Israeli people" means all Israelis and that includes both Jews and non-Jews who are Israeli citizens. Of course to Jews, the word "Israeli/s" generally or colloquially means "Jewish Israeli/s" but the fact of the matter is that as far as Israeli law and the State of Israel is concerned its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens are all "Israelis" therefore this CFD rename equals "six of one and half a dozen of the other" and makes no difference at all. However if the question would be about Jews or using the term Israeli to mean "Israeli Jews" only, there might be some need for a closer look, but at this time nothing is happening at all, it's just the same furniture being moved from one side of the room to the other. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Temple (Judaism)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Second Temple (Judaism), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/HISTORY-+The+Second+Temple.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I only performed a redirect as per the general consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism not relating to matters of content. In any case are you sure the material cannot be used? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut and Paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff: You are right. Sorry about that. I realized that technical mistake only after I logged off. It has been a while since I moved a page that I forgot I could have done it that way quite easily. I hope that any residual issues can be solved. Thanks for your concern and for your reminder. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD Biblical wedding
Hi. Just notifying you that I bundled additional articles to Articles for deletion/Biblical wedding (2nd nomination). Maashatra11 (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Never let the sun go down before
Izak, it's late, but some clarification is required. In using the phrase ‘to persist in an untruth’

I by no means meant to call you a liar. If anything my impression has been that you are profoundly sincere in pursuing what you believe is a proper course, as in our preceding encounters. By that term I meant you stuck me as persisting in a position which is demonstrably false, if one steps out of the specific milieu in which that position is widely held to be a truism. People can in all sincerity believe Shakespeare is Edward de Vere: they persist in an untruth, but they are not liars. Their belief system doesn’t allow them to see that their article of faith in no way corresponds to the objective facts consensually ascertained.

When Debresser correctly noted that the first temple is better known in English as 'Solomon's Temple', you replied that nonetheless [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=next&oldid=373401144 'it belongs. . to Judaism’]. It was this 'appropriative' sense of the past that worried me, apart from what I take to be the false claim you back by googling. I live among Catholics, and since my wife is very devout, accompanied them to their 'Holy Land' last year, accepted among them though I am known to be completely unreligious. The group leader was extremely devout: they often went to mass twice a day (I sat that part out reading or simply watching the birdlife, insects and plants wavering in the breeze in those cool horti conclusi (pardes) which are one of the joys of the Middle East). The Old Testament is an intimate part of their life, but they had little detailed knowledge of Judaism. The centrepiece of their visit was to Bethlehem, then The Holy Sepulchre, and then the Temple Mount. In the exposition (I remember much of this because I frequently had to correct the guide's explanation) at this last place, reference was made to Solomon's Temple. Throughout today's argument, I have been thinking: 'Izak really and sincerely appears not to know how intensely many of those Christians feel and experience the narratives of the Old Testament, - these people sang their way across the songlines of that desert landscape -recalling Kings, and Isaiah and psalms like Hashem roei lo echsar sung in Italian - and the places where much of its history and story took place. That 'it's ours' doesn't offend me. What it tells me is that you appear in all sincerity not to understand that people outside your own community can experience and feel with great empathy the story of Esther, Moses, Joseph, pray in Jericho, kneel in Jerusalem. These Christians certainly would be surprised, perhaps even offended, if someone told them, on the Temple Mount, as they thought of Solomon, and David, and the destructions, that this is not 'theirs' in the deepest sense of spiritual attachment. I wrote for them, and, I suppose for my own childhood and youth, when the Old Testamental books were thorough parts of a daily curriculum, so thorough I am now a-religious. But everytime I read anything from Chaucer (a Catholic), to Shakespeare (?), Donne (converted Anglican) down to Hemingway, I can feel the resonance of the English bible in phrasing, allusion, and the rhythms of the King James version, and literate people widely share this fact of life. 'First Temple' has no ring to it in English for a non-Jewish native speaker. Solomon as a name is extremely evocative, as you must know. 'Solomon's Temple' is highly evocative, and in the environments I have lived in, from Germany, France, Italy etc and the English speaking world broadly, is the preferred term among Protestants and Catholics, and this fact has absolutely nothing 'appropriative' about it. 'Our'(Christian, post-Christian, Western, atheistical) tradition in large part imbricates over a good part of originative world of early Judaism, and well, I am sorry to see how frequently this fails to come over to many interlocutors, who give some the impression that, in evoking their own intimate memories of instructed faith they are somehow perceived to be treading on ground already occupied by the true owners, and indeed my own scholarly interest in the origins of the world I was raised in, when focusing on this, can be read suspiciously as disguising some furtive ethnic enmity. You don't need to take my word on this, but I owe you a frank explanation to clarify why I would think such a perception unfair, following my father's dictum that one should never retire before settling the day's disagreements in a comradely spirit. Best regards and good night Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there Nishidani: Nice of you to contact me. You are wrong on the Solomon Temple thing 1,000% or shall we say 1,500% or maybe even close to 2,000% or even 3,000% How so? The First Temple was built about 1,000 BCE, before the dawn of Western Civilization and well before the earliest stirrings of Christianity. It took Christianity another 500 years at least, from the time that Jesus reputedly lived at the time of the end of the Second Temple at around 70 CE, to start becoming what it has become today. See Council of Nicea, until then almost all Christinas were basically Jews, many of them converts to Judaism, of another persuasion. During all that time, no one and no nation ever claimed the absurdities that you are claiming here, that somehow the First Temple was not the province or provenance of the Jews. But most people don't know that and would rather huff and puff and speak rubbish while ignoring world and Jewish history. As far as knowledgeable Jews and classical Judaism is concerned, what was true 3,000 years ago, and continuing consistently throughout time, continues, and absolutely nothing has changed, except that now there are about 2 billion Christians in world who imagine that they "created" their "own" ideas and gave "birth" to themselves as Christians "ex nihilo" forgetting their Jewish and in fact Torah parentage. So be it. They go further, and in effect you are acting as a POV foot-soldier for Christianity by claiming that Supersessionism is now the "official policy" of Wikipedia when it is definitely not. WP is an encyclopedia devoted to objective facts and truth. And the first, longest and most absolute truth about the First Temple was that it was the Temple of the Jews only and so it remains, no other religion worshiped there when it stood as a functioning temple, the House of the Jewish God. It is sacred to Judaism only. It is central to Judaism only. That's true now and it's been true for 3,000 years and counting. Now you are coming along and claiming that because more people call it something else that it somehow changes the identity or the truth about the First Temple when it does not. It's poor logic and terrible argumentation on your part. Let's say my name is IZAK belonging to Judaism and then 2 billion Christians decide to call me Jackie Robinson, does that mean that I have "no right" to insist that my name and my true identity is IZAK and that I have to give in to being called "Jackie Robinson" simply because 2 billion people are wrong? Will you force or induce IZAK to somehow renounce being IZAK and become a fake "Jackie Robinson"? If so that would be an act of proselytization or worse, of forced conversion to believing something that is not true on your part and if I would willingly give in to being called not by my true name and identity I am guilty of apostasy plain and simple according to Judaism. Is it WP's business to get into this futile, pointless and degrading struggle and process? or should it keep to NPOV and record all sides and start with the correct roots and beginnings by describing and explaining the truth and facts in this case and not just what some folks are saying, even if it's 2 billion versus one. That is why Abraham is called ivri, ("[the one who] crossed over") he was on one side and the rest of the world was on the other. Guess who wins in the end? Yup, Abraham not the rest of the world who are welcome to their willful ignorance (in the sense of "ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise") and false ideas. Anyhow, I am sure you catch my drift. Always nice chatting with you on serious topics of the day. By the way, Nishidani, remind me where we last inter-acted on Wikipedia. I've been on for over 7 years and I can't recall everyone I come across. And then, as for my question, why do you have "RETIRED" on your user page yet you seem to be the opposite of that right now with me? Did something or someone bring you out of "retirement" to debate me with long digressions? Take care, IZAK (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I am mistaken, after a rather hectic dispute, you signed off saying I was, (despite my nudnik/shlemiel way of thinking?) a mensch. I.e., if it was you, you paid me the highest yiddish compliment, by accepting my dissidence as an expression of integrity, not malice. +
 * I'm not wrong on 'Solomon's Temple'. People in my area now look quizzically at me because like Coleridge's mariner I have been buttonholing them with 'first temple' and 'Solomon's temple' and no one instinctively recognizes what the first term refers to. Try this on any native anglophonic goy and you will get the same result. You overruled Debresser by talking of the site 'belonging' to Judaism. Nothing in the past belongs exclusively to anyone. To assert the contrary is to read history in proprietorial terms.
 * I found my natural world when I learnt classical Greek, which took me 3 months to read with relative ease only because of this latent affinity. So I am a pagan, despite my Judeo-Christian roots. Whenever the European constitution is raised, and voices press for mention of its 'Judeo-Christian roots', I bristle because I feel left out, since Homer and Sappho, Plato and Aeschylus, Aristotle are being ignored. I don't think of myself as Christian. I do know that much of the world in which I move, physically or mentally, still lives within the Judeo-Christian template, and that the primary literature of my youth, English, is incomprehensible without a thorough knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. Everything you say here expresses what you believe, but it doesn't constitute a dialogue with someone who thinks differently from you. It reads as a proclamation of faith, with a touch of bunker resentment (we've always been frank, I hope you don't mind this). I find myself enriched by absorption in different cultural worlds. You are immensely enriched by absorption in your own. To state that does not mean cosmopolitanism is intrinsically 'superior' to an entrenched absorption in the world of one's natural origins. Often, in practice, the former is superficial, and so relativistic all meaning is lost, while the latter can produce monuments of enduring value. I see not an iota of recognition in your reply of the fact that people from a non-Jewish milieu can have emotional liens to the Old Testament as powerful as those you feel. A cultured Westerner must be committed to Judaism's heritage, because if (s)he is not, (s)he will prove tone-deaf and blind to much that is exquisite, enchanting and beautiful in English literature. Suffice it to glance through David L. Jeffrey's A Dictionary of biblical tradition in English literature, (1992) to appreciate that everything from Gower to Donne and Shakespeare through to our day presupposes intimacy and emotional attachment to that heritage. You refuse to recognize this, or seem to think it is somehow poaching. I'm not forcing you to be anything other than yourself. The move is, to the contrary, asking that I and every other reader, think of the millenial 'Solomon's Temple' of standard English usage, in Judaic terms. I understand your pride, I think you ignore the cultural and sensitivies of people from a different background. +
 * "Retired" expresses the disappointment I feel in not being able to edit freely where I can be useful. I'm a content man, and don't like having my days wasted by arguing with people who entertain suspicions about my motives, and rather than improve articles, keep challenging my edits to them on pettifogging grounds in order to turn the pleasure of actually building a page into a Sisyphean torment of pushing shit uphill with slippery fingers. As before, we will never agree. I feel very strongly about anything I edit, and argue to that end. This does not mean I have some ethnic hangup, or feel 'emotional' though it seems to be taken that way. At primary school I adopted all the foreigners, and had no friends from my own natural constituency. It is in my nature, therefore, to step outside whatever milieu chance threw me into, and probe elsewhere for a completer sense of in-der-Welt-sein. I hope at least you will understand this.(of course, nearly all pristine Christians were Jews. I have never been able to tolerate reading (St) Paul precisely because he twisted Judaism and Greek thought out of all shape, and created a mishmash that leaves me perplexed. My studies are intensive on both these issues, because I wish to understand how that innovation influenced me as a child. But if I edit on wiki on these issues, I invariably get beaten down, I suspect by people who entertain odd ideas about my motives, rather than examining the quality of the research I adduce from secondary sources.:)Cheers pal. Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever. IZAK (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Temple discussion
Hello IZAK. Would you please consider re-editing comments you made earlier today in the Temple discussion. As I have already told you, I am not a Christian. My comments in the thread are also not, as you have suggested, motivated by anti-semitism, and I see no evidence that this is the case with anyone else who has participated in the discussion. Neither I nor any other editor has suggested "that Jews and Judaism must be 'monitored' by Christian editors". Please could you re-edit the relevant post accordingly. --FormerIP (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know something FormerIP, I think you have not been reading every last comment that's been made in the discussions, go back and take a look at what User Nishidani stated that a monitoring role be given to Christian editors and more such things. No one, not you objected !!! This has all snowballed because you began this process. You will share in the anger and bitterness that will come out of this sordid mess. You could have taken this matter up with me on this talk page right here, or gone to complain to the editors at WP:JUDAISM some are good admins but you made the choice to run to ANI and make this into a serious case. You stuck pins into real people and now you wonder why they cry out. As I said please re-read every last comment that has resulted, often very ignorant and biased as a result of your ANI request. Just how far do you want to take it when you had the chance to join the original discussion but went crying to ANI instead, destroying much good will along the way. I don't care what religion or belief you or any editor may have, it does not concern me, but you must take responsibility for what you unleashed. Thanks for understanding. IZAK (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough with the melodrama, IZAK. Are you minded to re-edit the post or not? --FormerIP (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "User Nishidani stated that a monitoring role be given to Christian editors and more such things."
 * Please provide a link. Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See latter part of Nishidani's ridiculous peroration, in violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, at Revision as of 03:44, 3 August 2010: "If you want this, fine, but if you wish to use wikipedia for these ends, you'd better ask, on each occasion, people who are native speakers, or who are Christians and share much of your biblical heritage, for their views." His exact words, and no one but myself objected. IZAK (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. 'Monitoring' implies surveillance by a higher power, as in a school 'monitor'. Since the question concerns (a) English use (b) and Christian tradition, but neither of these constituencies were specifically requested for input, you excluded potentially interested parties from your consensus-building. Peers are not superiors, IZAK. Interested parties are not intruders, and if you use the same approach on other pages, of rapid niche 'consensus' converted to page transformations that undermine customary English usage, you would be repeating an procedural error. So don't caricature arguments, and play the antisemitic card, which is what suggesting I was advocating Jewish editors be 'monitored' by 'Christians' did, grossly.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not being able to refute what I prove from your own words you now typically fall back on meaningless meanderings about the English language when you should well know by now that for that there is Wiktionary, as distinct from Wikipedia, and you are barking up the wrong tree. You know Nishidani, if you will agree to make brief, clear, succinct and humanly comprehensible statements, then I will try to reciprocate in kind, until then I don't really have much to say to you at this time. Adios amigo. IZAK (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. For brevity and comprehension, Yiddish is as good as any Der mensch trakht un Gott lahkht. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which are you, "der mentsch" or "der Got", or, both of the above or none of the above? IZAK (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the possibility you or anyone else might read it that way. Contextually, you once made my day, after a long dispute, by telling me I was a mensch. In recalling that, I recalled this Yiddish proverb, and hoped you would see the irony. The only fing I got, guv'ner, is mesewf, a shambles of meat wif no 'ope of goen upstairs when I kicks the bucket. You're therefore authorized to, in reading this, murmur under your breath (bref):'Pah! Nishidani, pishidani. A shtik fleish mit tzvei eigen. (ps. I said I would withdraw from voting if the revert occurred, and I will maintain the promise. However I would note that on the Third Temple RfC, I would have endorsed your vote that Third Temple(Judaism) is the proper diction. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nishidani: Remind me again where we last dialogued before this recent tete-a-tete. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no idea, and have no way of finding or confirming these things by searches. I rely on my memory, and it was sometime in 2008 I believe, in one of the talkpages related to a subject I must not mention.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Kabbalah template
Thanks for the compliment regarding Template:Teshuva and Template:Jewish philosophy. I also worked on Template:Kabbalah, to its previous full format, but notice it has recently been collapsed and redesigned. What is your opinion of these last changes? I'm not necessarily fully against the collapsed format, especially if that is wikipedia policy, but have the following concerns: Alternatively, if you think the non-collapsed format was better in principle, then tell me. I am automatically open to that view - a similar format, for example, to the Chabad template. If one can get away with it, I would actually far prefer it - I mainly go along with collapsing it, as I guess it's unlikely others would leave it like that, in view of likely wikipedia policy. However, I do wonder why the wikipedia community (rightly) leaves the Chabad template uncollapsed!
 * 1) I designed the Jewish philosophy template to be the same dimensions as the Kabbalah template, in order to hilight the alternative parallel between the two tradition systems of Mysticism and Rationalism in Judaism. If Kabbalah template is to be collapsed, then it would be preferable for Jewish philosophy template to also be collapsed - without compromising its present design.
 * 2) I think the additional redesign of the Kabbalah template does greatly compromise its ease of use and appeal: The text in the collapsed sections has been reformatted to extend down over a greater length, with only one or two items per line. Compare this with the previous continual text sections, and I think it is clearly harder to scan and absorb the information, and less appealing. Also, I think the small images could be reinstated within each collapsed section. Therefore, it's less informatively-visually helpfull, potentially longer, and less attractive.

Whether or not all the entries merit inclusion within the template is a separate issue, but I notice that the Jewish philosophy template has a similar number of direct and contextualising entries. With best wishes April8 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll send a copy of this also to the ever watchfull eye of User talk:Debresser, to see his opinion! NB. If you immediately read this post as I sent it, then read it again, as I've now added extra points! April8 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)