User talk:IZAK/Archive 39

FYI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)


 * NOTE: The case at ANI, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637 was closed with the result that the thread name "Smurf Shach" was changed and removed. IZAK (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Closure
IZAK, please don't post any new edits to the ANI in a closed topic. You might have wanted to get in the last word, but it's closed, and we need to respect that. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ishdarian: I only made a couple of tiny typo corrections and did not add any new comments. I assure you I have no interest in having the last word. It has also been hard to be up to date with the on-again, off-again, on-again openings and closings of the last few days, but I appreciate your efforts to let me know. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa! I was brushing through it and I guess I read it wrong. Sorry! Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, I just some of your edits today, particularly this one. That thread was archived and I already spoke to you almost a week ago about not getting the last word. Consider this a warning. Now, please, put down the stick and let the horse be. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ishidarian: You requested that no more edits be placed were regarding the ANI discussion, and I have not added anything per your request. You mentioned nothing about the article's talk page, and the only thing that I did there was to add a link to the place where the discussions are archived because otherwise the previous reference to them on the article's talk page links to nowhere, where all I added was this: "NOTE: The case at ANI, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637 was closed with the result that the thread name "Smurf Shach" was changed and removed". There is nothing wrong with creating a link at the article's talk page to where the discussions ended off at ANI. Unfortunately, there is still ongoing disruption, and certainly threats of disruption and editing warring, at the article's talk page, that both preceded and followed the ANI discussion and it would be very helpful if you could look into that to keep the pot from boiling over yet again. Thanks again for your head's up. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, but it does come off as a violation of WP:STICK. It's over and done, and the issue has been settled. Please don't touch it anymore. If someone starts harassing you about it, leave me a note on my talk page or contact an admin. We don't need this issue getting inflamed again. I know it's tough, but you can be the bigger man; just walk away. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 04:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Ishdarian, and I have not been involved with the old ANI debate. But I am within all rights to simply place a NPOV link to where the ANI discussion took place so that editors on the article's talk page can find it, since the old link was de-linked once the discussion was archived at ANI, and old topics on ANI archives are almost impossible to locate since there are hundreds of pages of ANI archives on each ANI section. And editors of the article should be aware of where they can locate the discussions that touched on key aspects on how this article has been handled, so I have just put in a separate sub-header on the article's talk page a purely NPOV link to the related ANI discussion, which I hope you will approve of. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC's
שלום אליכם, גמר טוב!

Weapon is not retired, he is back under a new name, and the closures occurred prior to the account's being compromised. -- Avi (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Avi: How can anyone be sure when this all happened in the same month he was compromised and his account was blocked? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is his new user name so that he can be contacted about his changes and the comments he made. IZAK (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am one of the checkusers who handled that disaster; the account was locked the day of the compromise, this happened earlier. He is now known as User:ResidentAnthropologist. -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for that information. It does look like it was huge mess. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Great Synagogue of Rome.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Great Synagogue of Rome.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) 16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was not the creator or the poster of this image. Perhaps I may have categorized it at one time when I came across it on WP. IZAK (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)
Would you please comment on Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppetry suspicions
For the record, this was my full post to at User talk:Malik Shabazz as well as to User talk:Avraham in their capacities as admins:


 * "Hi Malik: I just saw that you left a warning about vandalism here, so I am also posting the message for you as I did for User:Avraham in your capacities as admins: Ok, so here's the problem, there is definitely a user who goes by the name "User:JacobFrank" and he has a clear history of posting under that name of JacobFrank, a big problem is that his User page at User redirects to the key Jacob Frank article, which makes it impossible to contact this user on his "JacobFrank" talk page, since that redirects  to User talk:La comadreja (is La comadreja being abused by User JacobFrank?) that makes things even more confusing (who is the real user, "JacobFrank" or "La comadreja"?), and to let him know in no uncertain terms that he is in violation of WP:BADNAME and probably more policies of vandalism. Then on the "User contributions" page of user JacobFrank  it's evident that user JacobFrank was started by a BANNED user SOCK PUPPETEER, that was started by another user User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010, because: (1) when you click on the "contributions" page of "JacobFrank"  and then (2) go to the bottom and click on User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 it (3) "redirects" from User:ChildofMidnight to User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 and (4) User:ChildofMidnight has been BLOCKED, and therefore (5) User  and User  are also puppets of banned user User:ChildofMidnight and should be blocked. It is a tangle meant to cover up and deceive. So it's sock puppeteering, avoiding a block, and I picked it up noticing choosing the name of a known and controversial (Jewish) historical person, and that some people might find it offensive and very confusing, as he has also posted comments on the WP:TALKJUDAISM page under the "JacobFrank" user name creating some serious confusion. Can you somehow help to contact this user and convince him to change his user name or that it will be dealt with. Thank you for your help, IZAK (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You should file a request at WP:SPI; I am not really available just yet, unfortunately. If it isn't handled in the next couple of days, I should have time to look into it after that. -- Avi (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Avi: Thanks for responding. I am still trying to unravle the knot of names and the puzzle here, Feel free to pursue this matter further as you deem fit. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JacobFrank
Hi IZAK. I don't think there's anything suspicious going on with the JacobFrank. My understanding is that, who has since been renamed , started the JacobFrank account as a prank. (In her first edit, she declares bacon to be kosher.) I gave JacobFrank a vandalism warning when she repeatedly posted a "joke" I thought was in bad taste to WT:JUDAISM. Since User talk:JacobFrank redirects to User talk:La comadreja, I don't think you can say she's hiding her identity. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Malik: Thanks for responding but you have still not answered how a blocked sock puppet in the middle of this fits in??? Did you read what I wrote you? It is serious:
 * "(1) when you click on the "contributions" page of "JacobFrank" and then (2) go to the bottom and click on User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 it (3) "redirects" from User:ChildofMidnight to User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 and (4) User:ChildofMidnight has been BLOCKED, and therefore (5) User  and User  are also puppets of banned user User:ChildofMidnight and should be blocked."

Therefore you need to clarify how a user with at least four user names, i.e. "Users": ; ; ; is functioning with a fifth blocked user name  acting as a redirect in the middle of them as explained above, as when you go to Special:Contributions/JacobFrank and at the bottom click on User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 it ONLY redirects to User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 by way of the blocked sock puppet User:ChildofMidnight. Which means that something is very wrong here since how can User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010/User:JacobFrank/User:La comadreja/User:AFriedman be tolerated if a blocked sockpuppet User:ChildofMidnight (i.e. the fifth user name) is smack dab in the middle of this set of the four other user names used by one user? By the way, for any user to have or have had four (or five) user names in so short a time is also very problematic so that unused user names should be blanked and red-linked. Please look into it. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The plot thickens: By clicking on (presumably) current user there is more troubling supposed self-disclosure, namely:


 * (1) "I am a custodian on the English Wikiversity, a Wikimedia project that hosts open, wiki-based research and courseware." (Question: Should any user in a responsible position on WP be allowed to claim "newbie" privileges and make egregious obvious mistakes tantamount to controversy?); (2) "In the past, I have been involved with other areas of the encyclopedia, including WikiProject Judaism articles and attempts at dispute resolution." (Question: What identity was the user user using then and how can it be certain that he/she was not blocked or what the real circumstances were of the so-called "wikibreak"?); (3) "Occasionally I use an alternate account,  Jacob Frank  purification through transgression. The account, named after a person in Jewish history who actually promoted said doctrine, was created in response to a particularly egregious incident of "ethical breaching experiments" on Wikiversity." (Question: What was the particularly egregious incident of "ethical breaching experiments" on Wikiversity? And to compound the problem how can such an evidently experienced user use such a name (of Jacob Frank) when WP policies warn against taking and abusing names of famous people, dead or alive. Also, why is this allowed on Wikiversity when the the "User:JacobFrank" user ID account on WP was changed and stopped for just such reasons, among others?); (4) Advice "For New Users" proves that this user is not a newbie, after all by self-admission This user says: "From Fall 2008 to Summer 2010, my primary account was User:AFriedman." (Question: How can such an experienced user start "pranks" and be let off so easily?); (5) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:La_comadreja is the current page at Wikiversity, it seems quite calm, but there are worries expressed about how the switch to more than one user name was made even there, see http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:La_comadreja#Account_name.

The upshot of all this is that there are more questions than answers about this user who has used multiple names, has admitted to serious problems in the past, and continues to function both at WP and at Wikiversity referring to Jacob Frank and that sits with another group of her/his former/present user IDs that are connected to a blocked user accused of puppeteering. IZAK (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * IZAK, I don't understand what you think User:ChildofMidnight has to do with this. User:JacobFrank made her first edit to User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010, which is a subpage of ChildofMidnight, not an editor. That's the only connection between JacobFrank and ChildofMidnight.
 * I don't know anything about Wikiversity. If you have questions about why User:AFriedman chose to change her username to User:La comadreja (privacy concerns, perhaps?), why don't you ask her?
 * I'm afraid you're making a mountain out of this molehill. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Malik, but things just don't don't add up in this case of multiple user IDs. Just look at some time lines:
 * 1) (My first sighting of this problem): On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism user " Jacob Frank  purification through transgression" makes a very provocative edit prior to Yom Kippur on WP:JUDAISM dated 12 September 2010 controversially (mis-)using the name of a famous historical figure Jacob Frank violating WP:SOAPBOX and more, that clearly says that the edit was made by User:JacobFrank !!! on Revision as of 00:40, 12 September 2010!!! When on the User:JacobFrank page it clearly says that User:JacobFrank  page was redirected by User:JacobFrank himself to the Jacob Frank article on 03:19, 26 January 2010  so why and how is User:La comadreja/AFriedman still using the User:JacobFrank ID???
 * 2) (Now we know it's the same) the user makes another comment under another user name also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism using the " La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH " ALSO dated 12 September 2010 first combining with the "Jacob Frank" sig and then changing it  to the User:La comadreja/formerly AFriedman sig??? creating even more confusion and seemingly to cover up for the use of the controversial User:JacobFrank ID on the same day.
 * 3) If as you say, that "User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 is a subpage of User:ChildofMidnight" one with the same "agenda" it would seem of the real Jacob Frank which User:JacobFrank wishes to make a kind of cause to push for reasons best known to himself, then it must also follows that User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 should also be blocked, together with all the other subpages.
 * 4) The question of what the user admits to on Wikiversity that happened on Wikipedia needs to be clarified. There is a troubling over-lap between the various IDs here.

Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the fuss. JacobFrank made a prank edit to WT:JUDAISM and signed it La Comadreja or vice versa. There's no rule against having multiple accounts. (I have one, User:MShabazz.)
 * With respect to the Bacon Challenge page, Wikipedia pages don't get blocked, editors do. If you'd like to delete the Bacon Challenge page, please start an WP:MfD.
 * I'm sorry I can't be of any help, but I just don't see the problem here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I don't get it, on some pages, going back to January 2010 you warn a user about vandalism, the user should learn not to do that, then the user, after having changed their user IDs at least twice more returns to perform a "prank" in September of 2010 with the original prankish/vandal user name, and you refuse to condemn both the use of the controversial user name User:JacobFrank connected to the Jacob Frank article in violation of WP:USERNAME guidelines, let alone worry about possible sockpuppetry. No user would be allowed to call themselves User:Napoleon and be allowed to have that redirect to the Napoleon article, be warned not to play pranks and be accused of vandalism in January 2010 and then go ahead and play a prank in September of 2010 at WP:FRANCE, and at the same time switch around with at least two other user names and sow confusion, while admitting on Wikiversity that they had had serious issues with WP:FRANCE along the way and hinted at even more problems in the past on WP. Such a situation would be clarified very quickly on WP by admins concerned with WP policies and WP:FRANCE. IZAK (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying user names
Hi IZAK. What we have is a person (User:La comadreja) who changed her username once probably for privacy reasons, and also briefly used a joke account to do nothing significant. I can assure you that this has less than nothing to do with User:ChildofMidnight— I've met User:La comadreja multiple times at meetups etc and she's definitely her own person.--Pharos (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Hi IZAK,
 * Hi Pharos: Thanks for contacting me. This matter has certain complexities. Let's see what transpires from our other communications with each other via Email. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: the link of JacobFrank's Userpage to his article, I am aware that this is unusual. My intent was to show people who Jacob Frank was in the quickest possible fashion, which would illustrate how Judaism and Wikimedia have another side besides the one that plays extra-stringently by the rules. JacobFrank has a real Userpage on Wikiversity, in which "purification through transgression" is used to discusses the policies of "be bold" and "ignore all rules" (these Wikiversity policies are the same as Wikipedia's). The hook for JacobFrank on Wikiversity has been up for months and reads: "There are some interesting and colorful people in Jewish history, don't you think? I'm just one of them. Find out more." His signature on Wikipedia links directly to the Wikiversity page. However, his Wikipedia userpage would only have a soft redirect if it were given that link, so I chose a redirect that would explain who Jacob Frank was as quickly as I could. If you found this problematic, I could change that redirect to my primary Wikipedia userpage. His Talk page already links directly to my Talk page, which is the same.

Part of the issue seems to be that Wikiversity has a slightly different policy about User accounts than Wikipedia. Wikiversity has several accounts, including JacobFrank, that are known as "mascots." These are obviously controlled by real people, but make edits in-character and with a distinctly different persona from the Users that control them. They are tolerated, so long as they are harmless to the encyclopedia. There was some controversy about JacobFrank becoming a Wikiversity mascot, but he was ultimately accepted. On Wikiversity, my idea was to add educational content to the mascot itself, in this case information about Jewish history that countered stereotypes. Since the real Jacob Frank has been dead for hundreds of years, I thought there would be no question User:JacobFrank is different from the historical figure.

It seems to me that your real question is about the character of Jacob Frank, and why I would choose to impersonate him. My choice of Frank was not because I support his rendition of Sabbateanism, but mostly because of where and when he lived--Frank was the most recent of the major Sabbatean leaders, and the only one based in Eastern Europe. Frankism was considered to have foreshadowed the predecessor of my own Judaism, the Ashkenazic Judaism of the Haskalah. While I do not believe Zevi was the Messiah, I differ from most Jews in admiring his boldly original antinomianism and in asking whether it's still possible to give his story a different ending. I think Zevi was a Jewish genius reminiscent of William Blake or Joni Mitchell. Blake, in his illuminated book _The Marriage of Heaven and Hell_ (which I shared in a JacobFrank post to WikiProject Judaism), also moved contrary to the religious trends of his day in advocating a religion of emotion and spontaneity rather than strict obedience. Perhaps this is one reason the High Holy Day JacobFrank post was "provocative" to you. Mitchell resembles another side of Zevi--a major theme of her music is the redemptive power of individualism. She pioneered the use of alternate string tunings, and in songs like "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" (about sexual activities that would be reviled in traditional Judaeo-Christianity) she showed that these tunings opened new realms of expression to the guitar. In "Woodstock," Mitchell even reaches toward the idea of redemption of the world--"And I dreamed I saw the bombers riding shotgun in the sky, and they turned into butterflies above our nation. We are stardust…and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden." Unlike Ottoman Sufism or 1960s America, which encouraged antinomian creative spirits to accomplish realistic goals, the Judaism of Sabbatai's time had no clear place for such a person and ran into trouble when it found one. Frank had a number of interesting ideas, but his excesses were part of the trouble. However, people who are conventionally considered Jewish heroes committed crimes at least as terrible--it is difficult to top King David, who murdered Uriah because of Bathsheba. Even Jacob Frank does not seem to have gone that far.

I am not the only editor with a positive view of Zevi, or the only editor with a Username based on Jacob Frank or other Sabbatean leaders--some of the other owners of Sabbatean Usernames have commented on my User talk page. While mine is not the conventional viewpoint of Progressive Judaism, I believe most major Progressive movements are making the mistakes of (1) failing to develop a distinct and compelling Progressive Jewish story to teach our children, (2) confusing Progressive Judaism (or Judaism in general) with social conformism. The major thrust of Classic Reform Judaism is integration with the surrounding society, and the major thrust of Traditionalist Reform and Conservative Judaism is mimicking Orthodox Jews in replicating the old traditions. Although Zevi's story is normally taught as a cautionary tale, he reveals that there is a third path, one that may be essential to realizing Progressive Judaism's creative potential. As Jews, we are already consciously choosing to be different from most of the world. So long as we do not depend on fulfilling impossible objectives and we remain moral, there is a power in being ourselves.

I try to be neutral in my edits to articles and in my suggestions about what should be done to them. Other types of Talk page comments, as well as User pages, are another story. My philosophy about them is almost the opposite, that they are a chance to express an editor's individuality and reveal that editor's particular angle. While Wikipedia is not Myspace, a byproduct of the editing process is that it accomplishes another worthy goal--to provide a common meeting ground for experts, some of whom may have unconventional angles. Someone relatively sympathetic to Judas Iscariot should not be prevented from participating in WP:Christianity as User:JudasIscariot, and hopefully countering the tendency to speak excessively negatively about him so that the overall discussion approaches neutrality.

I hope this answers your questions. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi La comadreja: Thanks for your detailed response actually in response to my own Email response which I repost now, with a few added comments, because it both serves to explain the lengths to which you responded and still retains the main problems stemming from the usage of the "JacobFrank" ID:
 * 1) It was only when I recently saw your recent pre-holiday "greetings" from Jacob Frank at WP:TALKJUDAISM from the "User:JacobFrank" account linking as it did (I see that you recently corrected that, thank you!) to the Jacob Frank article that I became very worried that a huge prank and violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:HOAX was underway because I found that the "User:JacobFrank" ID linked back to the actual Jacob Frank article, which you must admit is highly unusual for a user ID. It almost never happens, unless a user's ID needs to be linked to a subject since the user has over-stepped their mark.
 * 2) I then spent a couple of hours trying to figure out the trail of your IDs and I came up with at least two more, the "La comadreja" one, and then the "AFriedman" one and you must admit that it's also not that often that you find one user jumping from one ID to others at least three times, and that it's both highly unusual and arouses suspicion living as we do in a world of sockpuppetry, vandalism, sickos, and all sorts of banned users.
 * 3) Then I noticed edits by two of your user IDs ("JacobFrank" and "La comadreja") at the User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 page (of a blocked user yet, about a typical topic that a true Frankist would love of breaking Judaism's barriers!) and I was not sure what to make of it, whether it was yet another link by you to another user ID of yours as well and this time it was banned or was it a comment. I assumed the former, until user Malik Shabbaz told me more about you and pointed out that you had only edited that page but were not a banned user.
 * Ok, so then I also contacted you to find out what's up and let you know about that long into-the-wee-hours trail I was following.
 * 1) Which brings me back to the first issue and that is the usage of the "User:JacobFrank" ID and the way you linked it to the main Jacob Frank article and the way you had chosen to use it not just for neutral WM purposes but you were clearly injecting a Jacob Frank type message AS IF YOU WERE IMPERSONATING and PROMOTING the deceased Jacob Frank himself. Which put Judaic editors on the spot. How so?
 * 2) If you know anything about the real Jacob Frank's life you will know that he is notorious among Jews and Judaism for having betrayed Judaism and apostatized and became a full Catholic Christian in Poland.
 * 3) He was also discovered to be running a cult of sexual licentiousness that did not recognize any sexual boundaries, FRANKISTS HAD SEX WITH EACH OTHER OVER TIME, and his daughter with whom he had incest took over as the high-priestess of his cult after he died. He had hundreds perhaps even thousands or tens of thousands of Jewish followers who followed him and apostatized and became Christians and were absorbed into Poland's Catholic aristocracy and became leaders there.
 * 4) Now that is good stuff for an encyclopedia, but it should NOT become the grounds for injecting controversy into the usual question-and-answer type format at WP:JUDAISM, as if a red flag was being waved to the bulls.
 * 5) This is a very sad time in Jewish history, and nothing that Jews or Judaism are proud of. Yes, Frank had a Sabbatean philosophy, that on an abstract level perhaps had merits and was serious but it was actually mostly misplaced Jewish teachings that he twisted for his own perverted ends.
 * 6) No one in Judaism, even Reform Judaism, has anything good to say about him. He is a tragic and controversial figure. Notorious according to some.
 * 7) So it is thoroughly amazing to actually find a user who uses that name altogether.
 * 8) Even Christians downplay him because Frankists were notorious in their disregard for classical Biblical sexual morality which they held no longer applied since Frank was the "Messiah" and he declared an "end" to all those "old" things.
 * 9) At any rate, it is nothing like using Malik Shabbaz who was a black nationalist or a Christian icon (both heroes to their constituencies), but even that I think is wrong and they should not be doing it.
 * 10) My concern is that within the domain WP:JUDAISM the name "Jacob Frank" is an automatic red flag and challenge and puts people on the spot, then, when you seem to actually be "speaking for him" in WP:SOAPBOX fashion as if he were "communicating" from the grave as it were.
 * 11) It's doubly confusing, especially when you claim you want to be a neutral leader on WM when "Jacob Frank" is about as far from neutral as you can go in the history of the Jewish people in modern times.
 * 12) It would be like taking the ID of Judas Iscariot and enter into the WP:Christianity as User "" (a sockpuppet blocked indefinitely, as it happens), or take the user name and expect not to be noticed in WP:ISLAM or elsewhere and naively expect to be go "unnoticed" and given a free pass and claim to be protected by "neutrality" or some such rationalization, if you get what I am saying. It's provocative and violates WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CIVIL for some users.
 * 13) One should be wary of taking upon their shoulders the name of a famous person or movement or subject in history and come on as a user as if one were that person or movement or subject, and that is why WP:USERNAME discourages such choices: "...an inappropriate username – in particular, a username that is misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive..." or even "...Conflict of interest:If the username simply indicates that the user has a conflict of interest, without otherwise being an inappropriate username,..." and more like this
 * 14) Therefore, if as you say you are willing to let go of the User ID on both WP, WM or anywhere else in the WP universe it would be a great idea and very helpful all around but most of all it would help you.
 * 15) Because, you and any editor are obviously free to privately and personally hold any and all views and to work to add or improve any articles about any subjects and no one questions your right to delve into any aspect of the Frankists or the Sabbateans.
 * 16) But when a user takes on names of serious personalities fraught with controversy, it creates awkwardness and unease which then gets in the way of helping WP grow as a neutral encyclopedia. This should be logical and clear.
 * 17) In the past there have been users who decided to use user names like (red-linked now) or  (inactive since 16 December 2004, and complaints were lodged) and they were likewise similarly reminded to stop or switch and choose other user names that would not create confusion and misunderstandings.

I am being honest and upfront with you, and I assume you will take what I say in the right spirit. I enjoy WP and above all I have a lot of respect for it as an institution and that is why I care so much. IZAK (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why you and other people might be offended, and realize this is taking away from making useful edits to the encyclopedia. I'll be retiring the Jacob Frank account from now on.  -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH   (talk)  06:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi La comadreja: Thank you for your understanding. Let's stay in touch. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Auschwiz Selektion.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Auschwiz Selektion.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) 12:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am not even sure what this is about, it's been so long that I edited Holocaust-related stuff. IZAK (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Yiddish
Category:Yiddish, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I have commented. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

New Jacob Frank article created
Hi, I thought you might be interested in the new article about Harris Lenowitz I've just created. Lenowitz is one of the leading modern authorities on Jacob Frank. I've just found out about Lenowitz from User:Yalhak, and I'm trying to make the Lenowitz article into a Did You Know. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  19:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi La comadreja: Thanks for contacting me. I am unable to help you with this. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily expecting your help, but was thinking more along the lines of you being interested in reading the article. Also, that there are serious and constructive things to do in lieu of what I'd been doing earlier.  Have you seen this e-book?  I just found it when I was looking for information on Lenowitz, and I didn't realize anyone had translated it into English.  There is lots of interesting stuff in there.  -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH   (talk)  11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, congrats about being recognized as one of the most active Users. I'm sure you worked hard for that. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! IZAK (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI from Debresser
Just for your interest, I plan to reopen the ArbCom case. I hope this time it will rule clearly to exclude you from making edits in Judaism-related article. Please see User_talk:Dougweller for your information ONLY. You are kindly requested not to comment there. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Debresser: Thanks for letting me know, I have responded there. But, unlike yourself who almost habitually runs to admins and ANI rather than discuss and talk about issues especially when you venture into non-Chabad Judaic topics with your quite evident POV edits, I have opened discussions at two of the articles talk pages in question, see (1) Talk:Musar movement (see my lengthy exposition of why you are wrong at Talk:Musar movement) and also at (2) Talk:Posek that asks for more comprehensive discussions on relevant article's talk pages when there will be a probability that your pro-Chabad POV will create a WP:COI. Please engage in those discussions positively without name calling and deprecating anyone and instead of engaging in your constant WP:NPA against me or anyone who disagrees with you. Looking forward to getting your input. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Opening those discussion was a good thing, and I have gladly participated in them. It is a shame that you constantly keep clouding the atmosphere and poisoning the well with your wild and baseless accusations against Chabad editors. A good word of advise, if I may: try not to use the word "Chabad" for a month (or a week, for starters). That is sure to help! Debresser (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting input regarding Portal:Bible
I would like, in time, to see all the portals related to Christianity be serious contenders for Featured Portal status. One of those portals, even though it is not solely related to Christianity, is Portal:Bible. For what little it might be worth, I personally think that maybe, given the amount of material that exists here related to the topic, that we might be able to alter the portal so that the two articles, and maybe the DYKs and images, which appear together might all be directly related to one book of subdivision of the Bible. I do know that the Jewish editors are probably the ones who have the greatest interest in the books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and think that having input from Jewish editors on which article, DYKs, and image should be chosen as accompaniments for a given book or subsection of the Jewish Bible would be probably the most reasonable way to go for that material. Perhaps, ultimately, the portal might be arranged such that the selections change on a weekly basis, starting with alternating weeks of Jewish Bible and New Testament selections, and then continuing with selections on the remainder of the Jewish Bible until all the books/sections are completed. Personally, I think that we would definitely be more likely to get it to FP if we were to include all the directly relevant FAs and GAs and maybe FPs somewhere in the selections. Anyway, you seem to be one of the editors who most frequently works with Portal:Judaism, so I'm thinking your input would be possibly particularly valuable. If you would like to offer any advice on selections or any other input regarding the subect at User:John Carter/Christianity portals, I would be very appreciative. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorys
I’m sorry, Izak.

I am one little bold, it is not that the English is my language, the problem is that I do not speak it. Now I use a translator of the web page.

I ask you excuses for the troubles.

Using my audacity, I will comment you a question, if you allow me it, I am the author of the original article in Catalan xueta, this article was translated to English before that it was intensely improved incorporating bibliographical references and some other improvements, the article was considerate “Featured article” in Catalan, later in Spanish chueta, it has also been translated literally to the German xueta. Much work is not necessary to the article in English for attaining the same level of quality than those of the other three languages.

Could we make anything?

Best regards--Lliura (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take the discussion to WP:SPAIN. Ask around, IZAK (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yitzchok Hutner
I notice that you've made a number of substantive changes to the Yitzchok Hutner page, without bothering to comply with WP:VERIFY. Additionally, your edits appear to run afoul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I have spent considerable time improving the article with WP:SOURCES and would appreciate your contributing in kind. It seems quite clear that edits to this article are likely to be met with WP:CHALLENGE and should therefore be clearly based on WP:SOURCE material only. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. Firstly I was adding to the article and not removing information. That's how article's are written. What points would you like to verify, let me know and I will respond gladly. I do not make things up, if anything I try to be as inclusive as I can and base it on factual, known as sourced information. You are the only one making problems right now. Your tense and angry tone does not make working with you an easy task. You have a tendency to insult and demean editors who disagree with you. I was the creator of the article and I have watched over it since its inception. Dozens of editors have added touches to it over the years and have not seen fit to wage WP:WAR with me over it. Everything is true and verifiable, I assure you. Can you specify which points bother you, besides Hutner's known criticisms of Chabad, rather than make sweeping accusations and threats? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin was NOT founded by Rabbi Hutner, in fact its existence preceded his arrival to the US by more than thirty years!

2. Aaron Schechter cannot be listed as Hutners 'designated successor' as the matter has been the subject on a never resolved ongoing dispute with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach and others, which has involved various legal summonses etc., including the involvement of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. The way the paragraphs inserted by USER:IZAK read are misleading and definitely ]]wp:unsourced]].

3. One might assume that the primary value of references is that they provide the reader with the ability to see what was actually said. Goldbergs book quite clearly quotes an anonymous (pseudonym) 'Saul' as the sole source for Hutners supposed 'fierce criticism' which seems to fly in the face of much conflicting evidence. So it is correct to cite Goldberg as quoting "an anonymous source" which is exactly what he does.

4. Likewise when USER:IZAK modifies actual quotes from both Hutners work and the 'Mibeis Hagenozim' sources quoted, this amounts to vandalism and is another violation of wp:ew. Winchester2313 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Winchester2313 (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Winchester: I have responded to the above at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner. Let's try to centralize all discussions at that page. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the threats.
I do not appreciate your repeated threats and intimidation, specifically when you constantly level accusations of some spurious Chabad-POV in articles having nothing to do with Chabad. Lacking other recourse, and as you seem determined to continue with the threats and warring, I have no choice but to request an arbitrators involvement, which I will do shortly. Winchester2313 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI from Winchester2313
I have responded to your accusations here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchester2313 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know, IZAK (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Winchester2313 at ANI
The case and its continuation, see:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646

Various questions
I see you are trying to help out in perfecting all the articles on prayers. This is very nice.

I have a couple of questions:

1.) You made the second word of prayers in lower case. Shouldn't they be capitalized, being that they are proper names? I saw you compared it to some others, like Rosh yeshiva. But a "Rosh yeshiva" is a position, just like Prime minister is a position. Meanwhile, Baruch She'amar is a title, just like Avinu Malkeinu is a title.

2.) A noticed you created a category called Category:Siddur of Orthodox Judaism. I don't see why this is Orthodox-specific. Conservative Judaism publishes its own siddurim, but uses all the identical prayers. The only major differences are that it is geared more toward prayer in English (in the USA and Canada), and the Matriarchs are included in the liturgy. Reform Judaism leaves out a lot of prayers and modifies many others, and altogether is most unlike Orthodox. There are also variations between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and other nusachim, but mostly in the order the prayers are recited.

Why don't you tell me what you think. Xyz7890 (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi XYz7890:
 * 1) I am really glad to hear from you and I will be very happy to talk with you.
 * 2) Let me compliment you again on the great job you have done with your series of articles relating to Judaism over the last two years or so. Amazing and a Kiddush Hashem.
 * 3) I went over many of your articles and I corrected many obvious small errors. Many of your article are really stubs and really need more work. I commend you for adding great references that is very important.
 * 4) However many of the articles' titles are in Hebrew and that creates many new challenges for the English Wikipedia. One way that I am trying to ameliorate and make the mass of Hebrew titles more digestible to the vast majority of non-Hebrew speakers is by adding categories that will help as over-all guides in organizing the material into more meaningful and digestible wholes.
 * 5) With regards to the spellings, the truth is that Barukh she'amar are the first two words of a prayer, the "title" is informal and the truth is that "Avinu Malkeinu" are also the first two words of a longer set of prayers starting with those words, yet I did NOT change "Avinu Malkeinu" because I acknowledge it describes God, so that capitals are correct, since He is both "Avinu" ("Father ours" translating literally, or "our Father" colloquially) and "Malkeinu" "King ours" translating literally, or "our K'ing" colloquially) and not plain "king" or "father". It can get tricky I admit and that is why I did NOT change all of them. But Rosh yeshiva] and Beth din are definitely as much real "titles" of people and institutions as any other Hebrew words, in fact more so because there are other no words that follow them, yet they are written with the second word in lower case. I would say that where it is the long-standing custom and known usage to have words like Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah then they stay because of WP:COMMONNAME, but when creating such words and using on Wikipedia for the relatively first time, then the protocol has been over the years to reduce the first letter of the second word. That's how I recall it being done for years on Wikipedia. Now that so many new Hebrew words have arrived that may have been forgotten.
 * 6) As for the category, feel free to create a parallel category for Conservative and Reform liturgies.
 * 7) The category does not specify order it only includes content alphabetically so matching between Sephardi and Ashkenazi versions do not matter. But the new categories do help to create direction and context that stand-alone Hebrew titles were not giving.

Thanks again for all your great work that I admire. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi IZAK, thanks for answering my questions. Here are some of my responses.


 * 1&2.) I want to let you know my background in this. I am not a professional in Judaism, just one who has a lot of interest in personal tefilla and related topics. I have been inspired to write about it to this degree because I went to search for it some years back on Wikipedia and found there was so little information about it. I am not surprised either. Jews are less than 1% of the world's population, and of the small number of Jews in the population, most are uninterested. The one thing that does surprise me is that no rabbis or other more educated people in Judaism tried to contribute.


 * When I first came to Wikipedia several years ago, I looked up common names for various prayers, and found they often redirected to a more broad topic that provided little or no information. For example, Shacharit, Mincha, and Maariv all redirected to Jewish services. Entering the names of specific prayers rarely led to anything. I knew Wikipedia could do better. As I got familiar with the notability guidelines, and I knew all that has been written in published materials about every prayer that exists, I realized the potential.


 * 3.) I appreciate all your correction of errors and any improvements you can make. I am aware that most of these articles are stubs and have room for expansion. At the present, I am trying to write about a page worth of information on each, and set the structure for future expansion, some of that I may add myself as I find more information.


 * 4.) The spellings of Hebrew words transliterated into English is challenging. There are often multiple ways in which this is done that are all accepted by English-speakers, and the most important thing of all is that one looking for an article on the subject can find it. To deal with this, I have often indicated in the introduction "also spelled ________ and other variant English spellings," and redirected as many alternate spellings as possible to the title.


 * The spelling issue also makes finding sources a task. I have to google all the different spellings looking for sources, since these names are spelled differently in different books.


 * 5.) With regards to capitalizing the second word of a title, it is a technicality and not a really major issue that there is any rush to resolve, but it is a complex issue that I feel needs a community discussion to resolve. I don't know where to hold the discussion. It needs to be held in a place where an issue involving multiple articles can be discussed. I canno figure out where yet. It is true. Most prayers have no official name, and are informally known by their first word(s), which are most suitable for the titles of the articles.


 * 6&7.) I think the idea of a category pertaining to the siddur is great, but there should be some discussion about what it should include. I am considering the CfD route, but I have mixed feelings about that. CfD is generally for category deletions, merges, and renamings. I do not wish for the category to be deleted, but I have wondered if the two categories you created should be merged, or if a renaming is necessary. I do feel a community-wide discussion with ideas from others is necessary.

Sincerely yours. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again Xyz7890: Thanks for your comprehensive and thoughtful feedback. I appreciate your honesty and I read you loud and clear. I hope that from my comments you will appreciate where I am coming from and my editorial "philosophy" which is not random. Here are some point by point responses again:


 * 1) When talking about your idealism and wanting to contribute to Wikipedia you come across as a great Wikipedian. You have also proven it by your immense contributions. But when you say that "The one thing that does surprise me is that no rabbis or other more educated people in Judaism tried to contribute" is utterly wrong because my experience in almost eight years of being active on Wikipedia is thet almost all editors who have contributed to the majority of articles in Category:Jews and Judaism as well as to article in Category:Israel and Category:Zionism have been very educated editors and quite afew have been rabbis as well. You underestimate their contributions and also how vas and hard it is to work and contribute to Wikipedia.
 * 2) Your own personal commitment to improving articles relating to Jewish prayer is great and very important, and your efforts are commendable. Everyone has their own unique interests and talents but that does not mean to say that others are "inferior" or "lacking" because they have had other interests.
 * 3) This is a VERY important job, when you set your goals: "trying to write about a page worth of information on each, and set the structure for future expansion, some of that I may add myself as I find more information" and its importance cannot be stressed enough and will save those article from any future challenges to their existence.
 * 4) Truer words have not been said when you state that "The spellings of Hebrew words transliterated into English is challenging" and, while there have been many discussions about this in the past see Wikipedia itself does not have one "standard" for this and probably will not have one for a long time if at all because of the genuine valid splits between the various ways of writing and pronouncing Israeli, Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Hasidic, popular, academic and even archaic ways of [[transliteration of Hebrew that is the real cause of the challenge to spellings of words because the choice of transliteration determines the spelling. And this is all reflected on the confusions on Google.
 * 5) Regarding usage of Hebrew words on Wikipedia, you needn't re-invent the wheel. Please see Naming conventions (Hebrew) and all past and present discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew), things still keep on coming up. Let me know what your conclusions are.
 * 6) Please leave the new categories I have created because they serve as important navigational and informational tools. At this time, as I mentioned, if you wish to have categories that describe other approaches, such those of the Conservatives or Reform feel free to add categories. But chopping out my well-thought-out categories would be like cutting off our collective nose to spite our face.

Thanks again for all your efforts and I welcome communicating with you and any and all feedback. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong work!

 * Hi JO4n: Thank you so very much! It took up about half a day believe it or not because sifting and searching through Google's flotsam and jetsam makes it tough to locate acceptable sources. But I enjoyed it a lot. Please feel free to be in touch with me if you come across similar situations. Obviously, I will not be able to deal with all such cases, that's why it pays to place a notice over at WP:TALKJUDAISM when it comes to any articles related to Jews or Judaism, there are always Judaic editors there who are on the lookout and may help out too. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, always happy to see an article improved. Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks probably falls into the same category, will notify the project. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Rabbi Moshe Sacks article is a different kettle of fish because while Country Yossi is in essence a PR creature and therefore there are lots of links on Google, the opposite is true of Moshe Sacks that creates its own challenges and I have enumerated my reasons at the AfD page, take a look. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I've read your posts and see the dilema with Moshe Sacks and his ilk. The problem is that verifiability is an important policy particularly with BLPs, so we need something to verify what is in the article. Take care, J04n(talk page) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. At least on a very fundamental level he is notable for his rabbinic books. I will see what I can find, but it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Cheers, IZAK (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IZAK - I came over here to tell you what excellent work you did on Country Yossi. I see that I've been beaten to the punch so I will simply echo the above sentiments! Joe407 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe!!! IZAK (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Moshe Sacks
Hi again. Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks is due to be closed soon and it still has no sources. How do you feel about it being moved to User:IZAK/Moshe Sacks until sources can be found? J04n(talk page) 23:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there JO4n: Thanks for the suggestion, but I would rather my user space not become a storehouse for such articles. Somewhere there is a rule not allowing storage of problematic articles on user spaces, especially a de facto, if not de jure, deletion that you are suggesting here. But I do like the sensible response of Wizardman (the nominator of the AfD) that the article itself be noted as a "stub" to allow for keeping it under the present situation with editors familiar with this topic understanding that it would be counter-productive to lose it. I usually do not resort to this to invoke WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this type of situation but this time it must be invoked, since expert editors are adamant that the topic is notable, albeit lacking more references for now. Otherwise there is the threat of WP losing hundreds if not thousands of excellent articles based on strict invocation of referencing technicalities that can be allowed to wait. Thanks again for caring. IZAK (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again: The notability of this subject is further reinforced, he is linked at the Edah HaChareidis, all valid and true, so this deletion would create a red-link/gaping hole that helps no one. IZAK (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush
You will never get Cush to stop his crusade. Honestly. He just ignores any criticism of his behavior. He's had RfCs brought in the past, but he ignores those as well. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lisa, Good to hear from you. Nevertheless, we must always live according to WP:AGF and hope springs eternal! IZAK (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Double votes in relisted AfD discussions
IZAK, please don't vote again in an AfD after it was relisted, like you did at Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks and at least one other discussion I saw. The discussion simply continues, and people are expected to voice their opinion (keep, delete, redirect, ...) only once. Making additional comments, replies, ... is of course allowed and often necessary in a discussion, but please don't vote twice, it gives the cursory reader the impression that more people are supporting keeping an article than is actually the case. Fram (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Fram: Thanks for letting me know. I was not aware of this procedure. Are you sure that that is the way it goes? Could you please point me to the WP policy that forbids more comments from previous voters. Thanks a lot! IZAK (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can comment as often as you like but only one !vote per discussion. Can't find a policy to support this but it is common practice. You should strike one of your keeps but multiple comments can remain. — J04n(talk page) 20:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do! IZAK (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the time I took a look the AfD was closed. IZAK (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Midrash Shmuel
If you have time, please comment at this AfD. It seems like Wikipedia standards don't always jive with publicity-shy Haredi mosdos. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Move of Sephirot (Kabbalah)
I meant to point this out to you before, but appear to have forgotten. I've proposed that your move of Sephirot to Sephirot (Kabbalah) be undone. Since you made the move, I'm commenting to let you join the discussion at Talk:Sephirot (Kabbalah) if you wish. —me_and 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
I have a question concerning the use of "ha" with kodesh or ketoret. When should "ha'kodesh" be used and when should "kodesh" be used? When should "ha'ketoret" be used and when should "ketoret" be used? For example which of the following statements would be gramatically correct: (1) The primary purpose of the Shemon HaMishchah was to cause the anointed persons or objects to become kodesh – most holy. (2) The primary purpose of the Shemon HaMishchah was to cause the anointed persons or objects to become ha'kodesh – most holy.

The second is being used in many blogs on the Internet, however, it is not correct, is it? Please feel free to delete my question after responding to my question. Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cwatchman, thanks for contacting me. In this case, it's the Hebrew prefix "ha-" meaning "the" -- see Prefixes in Hebrew -- but in the examples you cite the correct usage would be number (1), because it is sufficient and no "ha" is required. Where do you get the idea to insert the word "ha"/"most" here, since it is sufficient to say that they became "holy"? because the way you are using "most" + holy makes it a tautology (because made holy by the anointment=holy=most holy). You may be confusing the holiness brought about with the shemen hamishcha with the situation, and wording, of the Holy of Holies=Kodesh Hakodashim in Hebrew, but that refers to a place designated by God as being the "most" holy place, while I am not aware of degrees of holiness in the Holy anointing oil, i.e. the Shemen HaMishcha (in Hebrew). Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. By the way, while we are about it, there are DUPLICATE articles on the same topic, for Kodesh Hakodashim and Holy of Holies, they need to be merged into one, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You have been most helpful. CWatchman (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jewish American Military History
Most of the article was yours, so you more than deserve this for the wonderful job you did. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, and thanks again for inspiring me! Best, IZAK (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of the article...
With 5,300 page views yesterday, Jewish American military history was popular enough to belong here. Apparently, we aren't the only ones interested in the subject. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Well of course. Jews have contributed to every country we've lived in, and are a significant percentage of America's population. The only people who would be surprised are the ones who wouldn't think to put that in perspective. Do you know about the website and blog Jew or Not Jew? Each day, it profiles a different famous person and discusses that person and their connection (or lack thereof) to Judaism. It's come up with a lot of interesting stuff over the years. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  08:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, thanks for letting me know. It's not surprising, it's a fascinating topic and it is actually AWESOME to read of the collective contributions of JEWS to America's inception, growth and might as the world's leading global military super-power. The facts are irrefutable and speak for themselves, they just needed to be gathered and presented in the article, and bang, it's a mind-blowing realization -- and hence, article! Best, IZAK (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. I haven't heard of that site, but no surprise, it is hard enough staying focused on Wikipedia that has now become the giant of information on the web. But again, thanks for letting me know about it. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

History of Hanukkah
I've stumbled upon Category:History of Hanukkah. Many articles so categorized don't mention Hanukkah at all and seem at best barely related. How, for example, is Hanukkah relevant to the Seleucid Empire? What's the connection between Jonathan Apphus and Hanukkah? Right now I'd advocate deleting the entire category for overcategorization, but I probably missed your intent and would like to ask for an explanation of that category's purpose. Yours, Huon (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Huon. The supercategory Hanukkah seems to have a manageable number of articles, and it isn't particularly clear which would fall under the "History" category and which would not.  -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH   (talk)  16:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Huon and La comadreja: You are both mistaken and obviously lack a broader historical knowledge about this period in Jewish and world history. While Hanukkah itself is a Jewish religious holy day, there is also a vast historical dimension to it that is not religion per se but involves the deeper historical framework and background in which the holiday happened. Thus, for example, see Hanukkah to understand that it was the Greek Seleucid Empire that invaded Judea and against which the Jews fought their wars resulting in the Hanukkah victories. Now while the Hanukkah article and categories cannot go into that kind of historical detail it is vital to have access to greater historical information that the Category:History of Hanukkah adds. Similarly, the Jewish warrior Jonathan Apphus and his brothers, also known among Jews as one of the Maccabees was part of the ruling Jewish dynasty that led the fight against the Seleucids and eventually set up the next Jewish ruling royal house in Judea. This is also something that a purely religious accounting does not need, but it is key background to the historical context of the holiday. There will eventually be an article History of Hanukkah but for now, there is more than enough material to fully justify Category:History of Hanukkah since it is a subject that both Judaism and secular historians can agree upon. Thanks and please feel free to ask if you don't understand. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still doubtful. What you describe seems to be the historical background of the Maccabean Revolt, but I don't see why an eight-day temple re-dedication celebration held by the Jews would be relevant to either the Seleucid Empire or to one of the Maccabees who, for all I can tell, had nothing to do with said celebration. From WP:CAT: [Categories] should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects [...]. It's hardly essential to the Seleucid Empire that some rebels held a celebration after defeating it. The category seems to me an unnecessary duplication of Category:Maccabees, with some topics to which neither the Maccabees nor Hanukkah are essential thrown in for good measure. Put bluntly: The only article that even mentions Hanukkah and is contained in the "history" category, but not in Category:Hasmoneans, is Hanukkah itself. Do we really need such a category? Huon (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Huon: You are wrong! It is not just that "some rebels held a celebration after defeating" the Seleucids (one of the mightiest empires of that time!) but it has become a durable 2,200 year historical and religious festival observed by Jews and Judaism, so please do not belittle that religion or its people, and it's known the world over as Hanukkah, especially now when it is actually being observed! (Until December 9th, 2010). If it was minor, it would not be the second most popularly mentioned holiday mentioned in the USA during Christmas season. You are making several more serious mistakes and omissions. First of all, there is a serious subject called History of religions see its related Category:History of religion for its depth and scope. Another mistake you make is that you imagine that Hunukkah is a mere limited "celebration" that is unrelated to more serious matters in Jewish history and the history of the world -- while the opposite is true. Hanukkah and its long and complicated history is based on, derived from, is part of, shaped by, harks back to, involves, invokes and is established upon the multiplicity of historical factors that are in this new category that's troubling you for some odd reason. While the religious rituals of the festival are narrow and more specific, the historical origins and reasons for it are indisputable. It is all the more so a historical phenomenon because it involved wars with the Seleucids and their kings and it was a showdown between Grecian/Hellenistic culture and Jewish culture, ways of life and religion. It was a real cultural and military war of clashing civilizations, as the the two books of the Maccabees and other records of the time, such as Josephus, make very clear. Your last assertion is also wrong because the causes and background of Hanukkah are mentioned in many other articles, and their categories are needed, see for example:
 * Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history, this is pure history, not religion per se that is the backdrop to Hanukkah.
 * 1) Seleucid Empire, see comments about wars with Judea, it's the history of what Hunukkah celebrates, not just the rituals.
 * Category:Seleucid Jews, Category:Ptolemaic Jews, Category:Hellenistic Jewish writers are part of the historical period during that time and it's part of the subject of what the Hanukkah victory means to Judaism, the triumph of Judaism over Hellenism.
 * 1) Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
 * Category:Seleucid Jewish history speaks for itself, and is part of this topic for obvious reasons, why don't you have doubts about that category too?
 * 1) Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
 * 2) Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
 * Category:Battles of the Maccabean revolt, these are historical battles, not religious events, that resulted in the victory that Hanukkah celebrates.
 * Category:Hellenistic Jews is the cultural civil war between Jews themselves that is also part of the Hanukkah story, but it's not part of any ritual in the holiday as such.
 * Category:Second Temple involves the history of the Second Temple and involves many factors that are not part of the holiday but are part of the history aka "story" leading up to it and Hanukkah celebrates the re-dedication of this Temple.
 * 1) Second Temple is a summary of the connection.
 * 2) Hellenization, its impact on Jews, laying the beginnings of the historical clash that will be finalized among Jews with the victory symbolized by Hanukkah.
 * 3) Hellenistic Judaism.
 * 4) Hellenistic Judaism.

There is a legitimate amount of cross-referencing and overlap as happens with any inter-related subjects and categories. But categorization in particular lends itself to flexibility depending on what the main focus is. If the main focus is Judaism and Jewish history, then there is Hanukkah and Hanukkah has a history as well. If the main focus is Hanukkah and history, then there needs to be category that contains relevant categories. Categorization is not an iron straight-jacket, it takes skill and a good knowledge of the subject matter. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me give an analogy: Would you consider it appropriate to categorize the Second French Empire under "History of Sedantag", or Catholicism under "History of Guy Fawkes Night"? I doubt that, and yet that would be the direct equivalent of what you propose here. It's the wrong way around: The Seleucid Empire may be important to the history of Hanukkah, but the history of Hanukkah is a minor footnote from the Seleucid perspective. I will seek wider community input by nominating the category for discussion. Huon (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your own argument refutes you because there is both a Jewish way (still extant) and Seleucid way (now extinct!) of looking at the same historical phenomenon. We shall have to disagree in addition to our divergent opinions, you persist in trivializing a not just a major Jewish holiday but a very important event in Jewish history, when Jews went to war against the Seleucids and won, no minor feat like a one man nut job "guy fawkes" and his failed plot to blow up the houses of parliament. IZAK (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi IZAK, I just recently started getting very lightly involved in WP again. While I don't intend to get very involved at present, I hope that we can get along better from now on, focusing on our common ground and being respectful when we disagree. Chanukah Sameach, Shlomke (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! IZAK (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

CfDs
Thanks for advice. I'll quell my "deletionistic rampage," as you put it. Bull dog123 22:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Feel free to let me know or to discuss issues relating to deletion of Jews' lists and categories on WP. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your addition to your page
Hi IZAK,

Regarding this addition to your list, you might want to remove it for now, as one of the lists is currently undergoing deletion review. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay, thanks for letting me know, I have now noted it as such. IZAK (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I've replied to your reply to my !vote. cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cymru.lass: Thanks for letting me know. I have responded over there. IZAK (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie, another talkback, but I'm not gonna bother putting the talkback notice, because (a) I'm lazy like that and (b) you know where the discussion is. Would you mind sticking a tb on my page when you reply? I'm more than a little absent minded and even though I've watchlisted the TfD page, I don't always remember why I watchlist pages... Thanks a mil! --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 09:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cymru.lass: Thanks for responding. I saw and read your comment at the TfD page, but I will not be responding for two reasons: I've pretty much said what I want to say regarding the subject of the TfD, and also because I do not wish to start the kinds of new projects you suggest over there that go way beyond my interests and expertise. Thus: You are busy, I am busy, and for now, never the twain shall meet. Take it easy! IZAK (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Useless
See the diff to understand how useless your revert was. :( Debresser (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't nitpick. It's fixed now, I also fixed quite a few typos and links. Give me some credit for cleaning up a lot of hanging threads. How about the new Category:Menachem Mendel Schneerson that I created, it is a quantum leap forward. IZAK (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Credit given where credit due. But the revert was unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You know, often I work many hours on WP and when I do I sometimes work on many points and sometimes I may make mistakes or simply don't notice things, like any other human being. Usually I'm very careful and I try to be as exact and exacting as I can. I appreciate it when possible mistakes are brought to my notice and I always welcome a positive WP:CONSENSUS work environment. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion notice: smallcaps and LORD
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters).--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevinkor: Thanks for contacting me. Maybe you could help me out here, but could you please explain why this matter is so important to you? Certainly from a classical Judaic perspective this entire matter of using God's name the way that you do is a non-starter. What is this near-obsession with getting God's name/s "just right" -- an impossible task if ever there was one. There is a good reason that the Ten Commandments specifically instructs in the 3rd commandment Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Looking forward to understanding where you are coming from and what it is you are aiming to achieve. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good question, IZAK.
 * I know that personally, when I talk or write about God, I say "God".
 * When I pray, I address my prayers to "God", "Father", or "Jesus".
 * I guess my concern in this matter is to keep a typographical distinction that is sometimes in the primary sources (a translation of the Bible) or secondary sources, especially for direct quotes.
 * For example, see the NIV translation of Psalm 110:1:
 * The LORD says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
 * The translators use "LORD" to indicate that the word in Hebrew is the Tetragrammaton. The second use of "lord" is the more common, Adonai.
 * Before I made the typing-aid template, LORD, there were four different ways that this distinction was made. Some of the ways didn't work with some browsers. With the template, the style is consistent across Wikipedia.
 * Hope this answers your question.
 * --Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kevinkor: Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps I am starting to understand, and it confirms my initial responses that you are coming at this subject, of God's names, with a much too narrow and ultimately frustrating and futile, perspective. Just to take a few steps back again here, let me just ask, why does WP have to become the forum for clarifying your own very specialized and intensely personal questions about the names of God?, especially if this causes problems and even offends Jewish readers and users of WP who do not get into the actual specifics of God's names because it's basically a closed and esoteric subject in Judaism that remains one big unknown, best left to Kabbbalists. What is wrong with leaving it at two general and generic names in English, God and Lord, otherwise there are so many variants for the Names of God in Judaism that it would be impossible, impractical and basically wrong to get into every last detail and create templates for every nuance and meaning of God's names. Basically what I am saying is that every name of God can go under the rubric of "God" in English while there are some times when the word "Lord" can be used too in English, but to try to break down and micro-analyze God's names and create templates and whatnot to "steer" through all the possible variants just creates an impossibly complicated maze creating many more problems than solutions. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Me again.
 * I think the reason why I made a template for this one name of God is because that is what is done by the primary sources that I use. (I don't plan to make templates for the other names.)
 * Taking a look at Psalm 110:1 again, I see that 15 translations given at Bible Gateway use LORD or . Four translations use some other name. Only one translation does not give it any emphasis.
 * No offense is intended. Are you offended by this? Do you know Jewish readers or editors who are offended by this? If so, I apologize in advance and plan to apologize in retreat[right word?].
 * I'd appreciate if you could do some research for me. You might have an english transation of the Hebrew Bible or Christian Bible on your bookshelf. How does it render the name of God at the start of Psalm 110?
 * Thanks in advance, --Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I wonder if Jewish readers are offended by the term, "Hebrew Bible". If so, please suggest a term that you and I could use that isn't offensive. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kevikor: I take everything with a grain of salt, so don't worry about me personally, but I am conveying genuine concerns. As for Hebrew Bible in fact that is the preferred term on WP (as discussed years go) and not "Old Testament" because Judaism (and hence Jews) does/do not believe in, and in fact reject, the "New Testament" as you may know. As for God's name in Psalm 120 as it starts, let's see... I am looking it up now... from the Artscroll edition (informally associated with Agudath Israel of America) of Tanakh, it says: "1 A song of ascents. To HASHEM [sic], in my distress I cried and He answered me. 2 HASHEM, rescue my soul, from deceitful tongue from lying lips..." Not surprising, there you have it, they use the generic term HASHEM meaning "The Name [of God]", of course, that avoids getting into the humanly unknown twilight zone of knowing and pronouncing God's name/s. Howver, when pronouncing it in Hebrew it would be pronounced as "Adonai" (roughly meaning "My Lord")! Take care and stay in touch, IZAK (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Real time conversation!
 * How about the start of Psalm 110?
 * --Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevinkor: The translation from the same source says: "1 Regarding David, a psalm. The word of HASHEM to my master, 'Wait at My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.' 2 HASHEM will dispatch the staff of your strength from Zion; rule amid your enemies!" In Hebrew it would be pronounced as "Adonai" again by a religious praying Jew. However, here is a turnaround, in verse "5 The Lord is at your right; He crushes kings on the day of His anger." And that's because the verse does not use YHVH, which this edition translates as the generic "HASHEM" but rather because the verse itself refers to God as "Adonai" so that then perforce means that the correct translation of the actual word "Adonai" (and not YHVH) from the Hebrew can be made and it therefore can be generally translated as the literal "my Lord" or "my Master" or just "the Lord". Please note that when I write "YHVH" I have no idea how to pronounce it, and have never been taught how, and all of Judaism teaches that the translation of "Jehova" or "Yaweh" or some such is a falsification and absurdity of trying to figure out and pronounce the hidden real Tetragramaton for which YHVH really stands and which it denotes. According to tradition someone like the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) would pronounce it in full on Yom Kippur when entering the Kodesh HaKodashim ("Holy of Holies") as part of requesting and hopefully attaining forgiveness and atonement from God (in that case the real YHVH) for the sins of the Children of Israel and all mankind for that year. IZAK (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, IZAK! I appreciate you looking it up for me.
 * Especially, verse 5. The NIV translation has this: "The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath." Just like the Artscroll edition, which does not use "HASHEM", the NIV edition does not use "LORD" but instead uses "Lord". So the reader can tell that YHVH is not the word in original Hebrew.
 * I enjoy chatting with you.
 * --Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Stay in touch and please keep me posted. IZAK (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi IZAK,

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters), Hans Adler has an interesting opinion:
 * Literal quotations from an English source that uses the convention should be rendered as in "and the [i.e. Yahweh] knew her" wherever it matters. Anything written in the voice of the article should simply use Yahweh or Adonai. Wikipedia itself is not in the business of distorting language in strange ways in order to pander to the mental states of people with special emotional conditions. They are free not to read aloud whatever they don't like. The particular convention of distinguishing between  and Lord has come up for the specific application in popular books with an extremely high impression, in which it is important to hide the distinction for those who don't care about it, while making it available for those who do. This is not the situation we have here. In scholarly sources it seems to be much more common to use Yahweh or Adonai directly, and I can see no reason for us not to follow them.

I plan to go through the 49 (or so) uses of the template, LORD, and see which are direct quotes from an English source and which are in the body of the article ("written in the voice of the article"). I hope that most of the uses are for direct quotes. For the rest, I hope to change them to the two general and generic names in English, God and Lord, because there are so many variants for the Names of God in Judaism that it is impossible for a Manual of Style to navigate through them.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kevincor: Keep me posted and let me know if I can be of help. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi IZAK,

I am starting to research the use of the template LORD on Wikipedia. The raw research is happening at User:Kevinkor2/LORD2. I've analyzed 7 of approx 50 articles so far. Here are a few things that I have found surprising:
 * Quotations from the Qu'ran are using LORD in Elijah and Zechariah (priest).
 * An articles about a New Testament concept, Easter is using LORD.
 * Portal:Bible has featured chapters. Example: Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Exodus 5

I also found mentions of LORD outside of where I expected:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 15: announcement that I had created the template.
 * Help desk/Archives/2009 October 26: question about the LORD entry on the page, Lord (disambiguation).
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive 3: discussion at WikiProject Bible about words to use.
 * Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 September 6: Talking about "experiments" on the existence of God leads to discussion of Elijah on Mount Carmel.

As always, comments welcome! Discussing things with you is very helpful to check my sanity before I post to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters).

Self-deprecating humor: Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut!

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Galician Jews
Hi! Thanks for your information on the Category:Galician Jews. Yes, maybe we ought to rename it to Category:Galician Jews (Eastern Europe). -- Shalom, Mibelz 07:13, 16 Dec 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Mibelz: You are most welcome. It must be done (see WP:DISAMBIGUATION), because of the problem of two "Galicias" on WP i.e. Galicia (Spain) and Galicia (Eastern Europe). Thanks for contacting me and please stay in touch. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Izak! You are absolutely right about it. -- Warm regards, User:Mibelz 22:44, 16 Dec 2010 (UTC)

Ten Martyrs and Midrash Eleh Ezkerah
Dear Mr IZAK, I randomly came across these articles and it appears they are on the same topic. Do you think they should be merged? Basket of Puppies 04:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Basket: Thanks for contacting me. It would be a bad idea to merge that because the one deals with a text (Midrash Eleh Ezkerah) that is part of Aggadah and is ALSO mentioned in other sources as the article states "The same event is related in a very ancient source, Ekah Rabbati on Lam. ii. 2, ed. S. Buber, p. 50b (comp. also Midr. Teh. on Ps. ix. 13, ed. Buber, p. 44b)", and as the article makes very clear, while the other deals with an event that is mentioned in the Yom Kippur prayers in an entirely different context. It would be like proposing to merge one of the tales of William Tell, the famous Shooting an apple off one's child's head into the main Apple article, which would obviously be wrong on account of both faulty logic (by making a category mistake) and of subject matter, because even though the subject matter is partially shared, it comes up in an entirely different context. The real "solution" here is to cross-reference them with "see also" links. Thanks for asking, IZAK (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're the expert so I'll leave it up to you. Later. Basket of Puppies  01:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Basket: If you ever want to pursue it further, you could post a question at WP:TALKJUDAISM. Stay in touch, IZAK (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your changes to the categorization of Chabad articles
I would appreciate a post justifying your unilateral massive changes to the categorization of the Chabad articles. I see these changes as unnecessary and inefficient, but I am open to discussing the issue. If you posted such an explanatory post somewhere, please draw my attention to it. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Yehoishophot: Nice to hear from you. Not sure which "changes" you are talking about. You can review it all from my edit history if you like. There were copy edits and links fixed up, and some minor expansion of a few articles, nothing "massive" as you allege, so cool it. I also created three new categories, namely Category:Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Category:Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, Category:Shneur Zalman of Liadi, all of which are quantum improvements, so give me some credit for that. During this time, the ever-watchful eagle-eyed User was watching over my shoulder and he did not complain. If you have specific issues that bother you, feel free to mention them here. Try to avoid like acting in the spirit of WP:OWN. Also please refrain from the combative tone so that we can communicate harmoniously. IZAK (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm referring to the creation of those new categories. Please explain how you feel that they are improvements, considering that articles that were before grouped under orgs, schools, etc. are now being grouped in two places, or not being grouped in the orgs. or schools parent categories, etc. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is wrong because the articles are not losing anything, they retain everything they previously had, but they also get an extra benefit of being included under the categories of the Rebbes that created those organizations or wrote those seforim or were identified with those events that now can be centrally organized under their names rather than being scattered around. Seems to be you are not that familiar or comfortable with the methods and benefits of categories in general. I have been involved with categorization since their introduction about six years ago, and they are incredibly useful tools for pooling and organizing information under central and key topics, and nothing can be more central or a key in Chabad than the various Rebbes who each in their own time introduced and ran their own efforts. The categories in and of themselves are 100% NPOV tools to assist readers who may not be familiar with topics or may be searching for topics related to a main point and the categories get them there. IZAK (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish History
Thanks, I'll try to be more careful going forward. By the way, there is a number of categories of type "Jews and Judaism in Country", many of which contain "Jews in Country". The second is meant only for articles about individuals. Is there a way to make it clear? I moved as many inter-wikis to the outer category as I could find, but this is not fool-proof; besides, I do not know what other wikipedias have similar category structure. As I was doing that, I also noticed that many French inter-wiki categories were named "Jewish history in Country", rather than "Jews and Judaism". It does appear that having both structures is unnecessary... Can they be merged? What's the best place to discuss this? --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Vicky: Thanks for responding. To be "Jewish" means to be part of both a religion known as Judaism and also an ethnicity that makes them Jews and that creates unique complications. Topics and categories relating to Jews, Judaism and Jewish history are very complicated and ancient subjects that cannot be squeezed into any one model. Please do not merge anything without deeper understanding and exploration of the total structure of a well thought out and functional categorization system. No need to jump and "fix" things that are not broken. I have worked on many of the categories for years and they are excellent. You are not using the correcting terminology here, so your objections are not clear, but they do not make sense. Firstly, all the categories in in Category:Jews and Judaism are well thought out out. Secondly, Category:Jews by country are also well thought out and structured. Thirdly, Category:Jewish history is supposed to be only for history articles, it does not include things like Category:Synagogues and Category:Rabbis. Finally, I have just finished weeding out and fixing many duplicate categories of individuals in Category:Jewish French history, so your concerns are unfounded at this time. Please continue to share your thoughts with me and I can clarify more for you. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My objective was to combine inter-wikis. It seems to me that the "primary" hierarchy here in en-wiki is Category:Jews and Judaism. However, within Category:Jews and Judaism by country there is one hierarchy of categories by country, and parallel to it are Category:Jews by country and Category:Judaism by country. In addition to these, there is Category:Jewish history by country. This leads to two questions:


 * How should articles be categorized? For example, many articles include a section on history - do they fall under both "Jewish Country history" and "Jews and Judaism in Country" categories? Are "Jews in Country" categories meant only for articles about individuals? What should be included directly into "Jews and Judaism in Country", rather than "Jews in Country" or "Judaism in Country" (or, perhaps, in addition to one of those)?
 * Unlike en-wiki, Wikipedias in other languages often do not have all these distinct category hierarchies. The "primary" category may be named "Jewish history by country" in one language, "Jews by country" in another and "Judaism by country" in yet another. For example, see all four interwikis for Category:Jews and Judaism in Hungary. They literally mean, "Judaism in Hungary", but appropriately point to this parent category because Category:Judaism in Hungary in en-wiki is too specific. Same with lt-wiki for Category:Jews and Judaism in Lithuania, which translates "Jews in Lithuania". But then look at fr-wiki for Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany - fr:Catégorie:Histoire des Juifs en Allemagne. Well, it is correct in a way - at least, as close as it gets, although inconsistent. But what's the best way to handle this? Perhaps, the French category should have Category:Jewish German history as its en-wiki, but here both Category:Jewish German history and Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany should link back to it?
 * Finally, the naming convention "Jewish Country history" is very unnatural and inconsistent with the way other categories are named. I think they should all reversed to "Country Jewish history" where adjective for that country name is widely used and changed to "History of the Jews in Country" otherwise. --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Vicky Ng, thanks for the response, see my detailed response below at . I did not want to split up your words here, so I created a new thread below. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Vicky Ng
Hi Vicky, for the sake of staying on the "same page" as you I will respond within ALL your comments below:

"My objective was to combine inter-wikis. It seems to me that the "primary" hierarchy here in en-wiki is Category:Jews and Judaism."
 * Yes it is. But working on inter-wikis should not interfere or dictate how categories should be created or run. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"However, within Category:Jews and Judaism by country there is one hierarchy of categories by country, and parallel to it are Category:Jews by country and Category:Judaism by country. In addition to these, there is Category:Jewish history by country. This leads to two questions:"
 * All categories named "Jews and Judaism" are all-inclusive parent categories per Category:Container categories ! While "Jews by country" is focused ONLY on "biographies" and there are tens of thousands and they need to be kept from flooding othernon-biographical categories. While "Judaism by country" categories are mainly restricted to the categories "Synagogues" and "Rabbis" (Rabbis of course are always a sub-set of both "Judaism" and "Jews" because they teach Judaism and are its leaders while the rabbis are of course presumed to be Jews as persons). "Jewish history" categories include topics and sub-categories that often include non-Jewish histories, issues and personalities and often include secular subjects, often not a part of either Judaism or Jews categories per se. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"How should articles be categorized?"
 * No need to ask this question because they have all been excellently categorized for years without any problems or questions: At the top is always Category:Jews and Judaism. Its two main sub-categories are always below it: Category:Jews and Category:Judaism, and then it also includes any and all sub-categories remotely related, and of course Category:Jewish history is probably the third of the most important of the sub-categories. Like all situations as categories grow and spread, there are going to be over-laps and intersections, and new users are bound to make mistakes and have questions, but that gets sorted out over time as those who have created and understand the system put everything into order. So far, since the inception of the categories system there have been relatively few problems. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"For example, many articles include a section on history - do they fall under both "Jewish Country history" and "Jews and Judaism in Country" categories?"
 * Not really, because ALL "Jewish" history categories are sub-categories of the larger parent "Jews and Judaism" categories that deal with lots more than just "history" alone. This needs clean-up and organizing from time to time, which I often do, to keep the lines clear, not unusual when maintaining any categories. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Are "Jews in Country" categories meant only for articles about individuals?"
 * Yes, and you mean "Category: CountryX Jews". The main order should be that ALL biographies about Jews are to be placed in the "CountryX Jews" categories and must not flood other categories. There are always some exceptions and people not familiar with the categorization system misuse them and it needs follow-up cleaning up work which I take very seriously. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"What should be included directly into "Jews and Judaism in Country", rather than "Jews in Country" or "Judaism in Country" (or, perhaps, in addition to one of those)?"
 * Again, to repeat, ALL "Jews and Judaism" categories should be treated as per parentcat, see Category:Container categories !!! and therefore articles about Jewish history or other subjects should be placed in history of Judaism or Jews or Antisemitism etc categories and not under the "Jews and Judaism" categories. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Unlike en-wiki, Wikipedias in other languages often do not have all these distinct category hierarchies. The "primary" category may be named "Jewish history by country" in one language, "Jews by country" in another and "Judaism by country" in yet another. For example, see all four interwikis for Category:Jews and Judaism in Hungary. They literally mean, "Judaism in Hungary", but appropriately point to this parent category because Category:Judaism in Hungary in en-wiki is too specific. Same with lt-wiki for Category:Jews and Judaism in Lithuania, which translates "Jews in Lithuania". But then look at fr-wiki for Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany - fr:Catégorie:Histoire des Juifs en Allemagne. Well, it is correct in a way - at least, as close as it gets, although inconsistent."
 * The English Wikipedia is not bound to follow any others nor the other way around! Categorization has been worked on for years in a reliable way here and just because they do it differently on other WPs by language does not mean much. Please realize that the English Wikipedia is by far the hugest and vastest of the Wikipedia projects with the most number of articles, that in turn have absolutely necessitated the addition of much-needed sub-categories and sub-sub-categories etc to organize the hundreds of thousands of articles in the domains of Jews and Judaism topics and articles. You cannot squeeze everything into just a "Jewish history by country" category, that would just create a huge mass of unusable information, it would look like a telephone book. The present system works excellently once you grasp its solid structure and it has been used effectively for years by hundreds of users to add more categories and articles year by year for more than six years now, ever since the system of categories was introduced. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"But what's the best way to handle this?"
 * No need for the question, nobody has had any problems, as I have explained to you above, and below. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps, the French category should have Category:Jewish German history as its en-wiki, but here both Category:Jewish German history and Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany should link back to it?"
 * Not sure what you mean by this. How does "French" connect with "German"? Sometimes some subjects overlap so categories automatically overlap too, that is just logical. Even if categories in "Category:Judaism" are used on inter-wiki links, when a user will click to that on the English WP, at the bottom of the page they will see that they can click and easily get to "Category:Jews and Judaism", or, alternately, feel free to use "Jews and Judaism" categories for all inter-wiki Judaism-related or even Jewish history-related categories in non-English Wikipedias, as you please. I am not concerned with inter-wiki issues. IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Finally, the naming convention "Jewish Country history" is very unnatural and inconsistent with the way other categories are named. I think they should all reversed to "Country Jewish history" where adjective for that country name is widely used and changed to "History of the Jews in Country" otherwise. --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)"
 * I understand your question, but you must note that the main parent category is Category:Jewish history and NOT "History of the Jews" or "World Jewish history" and that is because the starting premise of these categories comes from the main Jewish history article, therefore, it is legitimate to then sub-categorize and call the sub-categories "Jewish CountryX history". It would be possible to waste time and fiddle around and start changes that achieve nothing, like having six of one and half a dozen of another, it is still a VERY good system of categorizing Jewish history by country, and by the way there are many sub-categories like Category:Jewish history by country or Category:Jewish history by region that do create other legitimate category trees for the same categories. IZAK (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Feel free to follow up with me. I will try to respond in detail. Thanks again for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I was not planning to change the category tree here (other than the proposal to reverse some naming), and inter-wikis were my main concern. Again, just to clarify: I am not suggesting that en-wiki should follow any other structure. Rather, I'd like to make sure that WPs in other languages "see" each other. Here's the deal: if fr-wiki's main hierarchy is named "Histoire des Juifs en *" (e.g. fr:Catégorie:Histoire des Juifs en Allemagne) and links to "* Jewish history", while ru-wiki links to "Jews and Judaism in *", most likely there will be no inter-wiki between those two. However, if both link to "Jews and Judaism in *", then bots will connect them with inter-wikis to each other. On the other hand, sometimes it may make sense to link a second English category to some category in WP in a different language that already has a different two-way link to en-wiki. In this case, as far as I understand, bots will not replace the link. I'm just not 100% sure of all pros and cons of this. --Vicky Ng (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again Vicky: As I mentioned, I am not involved with inter-wiki issues, I have more than enough on my plate maintaining the categories relating to Jews and Judaism. I would say, that based on what you are saying here, the core of the problem you are dealing with is that the English WP is more evolved than the others language WPs and because the English WP has more and a higher order "evolutionary structure" of its Jews and Judaism categories it creates "conflicts" when trying to match up with other WPs who do NOT have the same level of categorization in Jewish subjects. I would say you need a pragmatic approach, that if those other inter-wikis make "Jewish history" their main parent category then it would make sense to have that other language inter-wiki link to Category:Jewish history (once a user would click to that page, then automatically at the bottom of that page they will be take to an even larger "Jews and Judaism" parent category) and as you point out, there is ALSO a choice of making the inter-wiki link to Category:Jews and Judaism by country as well (isn't it nice to have a choice at least?). Similarly, if the other language WP makes Category:Judaism its own parent category, then again you have a CHOICE of making the inter-wiki link to the English WP to EITHER any of Category:Judaism OR if preferred to any of the Category:Jews and Judaism parent categories. Again it is a matter of choice. But both sets of choices are happy ones, and the discretion of the one creating or fixing the inter-wiki needs to be good. I see now why you were trying to fix the inter-wikis of some categories, hopefully from now you will have an easier time of it. Keep me posted. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I created a bunch of inter-wikis in ru-wiki pointing here, but then noticed that bots are not updating them with inter-wikis to other language WPs that are present here in en-wiki. Then I realized that bots ignore those inter-wikis when the there is ANOTHER en-wiki from WP in that language, pointing to a DIFFERENT page here in English. For example (using a made up country, just for fun), if ru:Категория:Иудаизм в Республике Столовой points to en:Jews and Judaism in Republika Stolovaya, which, in turn, links to fr:Catégorie:Histoire des Juifs en République Stolove, bots will not copy this fr-wiki into the Russian article if it links to, say, en:Stolovaya Jewish history. This is why understanding this hierarchy and the purpose of each level was important to me. I moved most inter-wikis to the top level here in en-wiki (Jews and Judaism in *), so that the bots will at least update those other language WPs that do not have a conflicting en-wiki, and then propagate these links to other languages. Sure, I know how to navigate to the parent category here, but for a person who speaks, for example, Russian and Hebrew, this will be of no use, unless there is a direct link between those two, which I'm trying to accomplish. --Vicky Ng (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Vicky; Your job is not an easy one, because you are trying to streamline how different cultures and languages view and hence categorize subjects, so no wonder bots are confused when it's inherently confusing for humans with intelligence. But all problems have solutions even ones that relate to solving the intersection between WP:BABEL and H:ILL. Best wishes and keep me posted. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See User:Kevinkor2. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Loved it! Milking unintentioned ambiguity to the hilt! IZAK (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Wow, what an honor! Thanks so much, Yoninah (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You deserve it a million percent! A gutte voch! IZAK (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you HJ Mitchell, much appreciated. IZAK (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Acalamari. Much appreciated. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)