User talk:IZAK/Archive 41

Talmud rabbis in Palestine
Hi IZAK: Do you recall if you discussed this change at "Categories for discussion?" Chesdovi (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chesdovi: Thanks for contacting me. The above change goes back to 19 December 2006 over five years ago. No one has complained. It also makes sense because Note, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) it follows the Hebrew/Jewish terminology, see it there, that it was already:
 * 2) linked to he: קטגוריה:אמוראי ארץ ישראל
 * 3) part of Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, and therefore
 * 4) it was logical that it be re-directed to  . So leave well enough alone. Don't be so hooked on creating "changes" to non-Jewish names when the Jewish names are acceptable.

Are you interested to comment
Aren't you interested in commenting on the discussion at Category_talk:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis? Debresser (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Debresser, thanks for contacting me. I have looked at the "discussion" a few times and I have not been able to make practical sense of it, primarily because Chesdovi seems to be motivated by current-day politics and seems to want to make all sorts of "points" almost violating WP:POINT and his flurry of CfD nominations makes it more complicated to reason with him. If the parties could summarize in a few sentences what they see as the "problem/s" and what they wish to implement as a "solution" then I could know how to respond, but with people just talking past each other while being driven by seeming ideological agendas it makes it difficult to get involved and express a position. I am certainly not interested in getting involved in "taking sides" in squabbles that are going nowhere. So please help me, and the situation, by clarifying what's happening and giving people coming into the debate clear choices, not just expecting them to take up arms to do battle. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your serious response. The issue there seems to be clear: should we have categories named "nth century Palestinian rabbis" or not? Chesdovi does seem to have a history as a problematic editor, yes, and I can only guess as to his motivations. Debresser (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Debresser. Obviously the name "Palestinian" is a loaded term today and should be avoided when referring to Judaism-related topics as much as possible because it is a confusing label and has problematic political and historically confusing and contradictory meanings. It's not used by Judaism because the term "Land of Israel" defined as all areas that had been historically classified as part of the Kingdom of Israel+Kingdom of Judah+Judea where Israelites/Judeans and their spiritual leaders/prophets/rabbis had and still lived and it is the way Jews always referred to it, certainly as it should apply to Rabbis the religious leaders of Jews and Judaism. Let there be the parent Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel by century (itself a sub-category of the main Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel) and then take it from there, there would be twenty main sub-categories covering the 2000 years of the exile from the times of the destruction of the Second Temple circa 70 CE until the establishment of modern Israel in 1947/8:


 * Category:First century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Second century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Third century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Fourth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Fifth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Sixth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Seventh century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Eighth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Ninth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Tenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Eleventh century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Twelfth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Thirteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Fourteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Fifteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Sixteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Seventeenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Eighteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Nineteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
 * Category:Twentieth century rabbis of the Land of Israel (until 1948 when they then become Category:Israeli rabbis since Israel becomes an official country, but they could also be included in the above if need be).

That is what I recommend. I will note this at the discussion. Thanks again for your guidance. IZAK (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
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) 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi. Just happened to log in today, still on an extended wikibreak but thought you wouldn't mind my saying hello. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 20:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back HG! You have been missed! IZAK (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Arab
Category:Arab, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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☯ 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Synagogue support in NJ
Hey, thank you so much for your support regarding these pages (TBS, TE, and M'Shalom)! I was stunned when User:Concerned Vancouverite marked all three for deletion at once. These pages have been up for months, and I specifically made them because they are notable for this large Jewish community that they serve. It does not make sense because there are hundreds of pages about small synagogues, what are they going to mark every one for deletion?! I doubt it. Anyway, thanks again for being in favor to keep these on here. Tinton5 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel
You contributed to the recent discussion at WP:Cfd. The closing editor recommended that a discussion be started on a new name and we should seek consensus there before proceeding to Cfd again. I've opened such a discussion on Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel and invite you to participate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not demolish
Hello Izak, Thank you for linking to this essay, which I read a while back. It was well worth reading a second time. By the way, seeing the beautiful photo of Jerusalem on your user page warmed my heart. I have visited there in 1981 and 2005, and would love to return. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Reasonable opportunity must be given to each party to present his side of the case


A tag has been placed on Reasonable opportunity must be given to each party to present his side of the case requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this REDIRECT was deleted, it's a known phrase and it was taken directly from the relevant article, and would aid navigation to its Latin source for anyone searching for this English term, see Audi alteram partem. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Reasonable opportunity must be given to each party, to present his side of the case


A tag has been placed on Reasonable opportunity must be given to each party, to present his side of the case requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this REDIRECT was deleted, it's a known phrase and it was taken directly from the relevant article, and would aid navigation to its Latin source for anyone searching for this English term, see Audi alteram partem. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Not only must justice be done it must also be seen to be done


A tag has been placed on Not only must justice be done it must also be seen to be done requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this REDIRECT was deleted, it's a known phrase and it was taken directly from the relevant article, and would aid navigation to its Latin source for anyone searching for this English term, see Nemo iudex in causa sua. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done


A tag has been placed on Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this REDIRECT was deleted, it's a known phrase and it was taken directly from the relevant article, and would aid navigation to its Latin source for anyone searching for this English term, see Nemo iudex in causa sua. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done


A tag has been placed on Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this REDIRECT was deleted, it's a known phrase and it widely used in English, and would aid navigation to its Latin source for anyone searching for this English term, see Nemo iudex in causa sua. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done


A tag has been placed on Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this REDIRECT was deleted, it's a known phrase and it widely used in English, and would aid navigation to its Latin source for anyone searching for this English term, see Nemo iudex in causa sua. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI
FYI Basket of Puppies  05:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive708 for full record of events. User subsequently voluntarily "Retired" from Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Inside old synagogue Krakow.JPG


A tag has been placed on File:Inside old synagogue Krakow.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 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, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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) 15:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am NOT the creator of this image. Please contact its creator User:Wintermute314 as WC. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew redirections
in 2006 User:A.R. made redirections such as כלבת that redirects to Rabies, or צ'אראפונג'י and many more. while the redirection itself is not incorrect, it seems a little unnecessary. is there a reason for that or just no one paid attention to those unnecessary articles? (I asked Epeefleche that, and now I ask for your opinion as well). שבת שלום! Botend (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Surprise
I am surprised that after taking part in the discussion at the Rfc, you have not commented on the Cfd of Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Debresser: Sorry I could not attend to this, but even I am human, I was away on a WP:WIKIBREAK. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Second-time AFD
You may be interested in this second-time AFD nomination for Chaverim (volunteers). Best, Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Yoninah: Thanks for letting me know about this. IZAK (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Pres GW Bush mounting jet.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Pres GW Bush mounting jet.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Sorry to notify you about such an old upload. However, there is no source. You wouldn't remember where you got it from, would you? Lupo 07:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Lupo: It's sourced, see:

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not a source. A source would be a reliable source indicating that this was indeed the right tag for this image. Lupo 08:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2004 is a long time ago. It's a military photo. User added the tag  and that should taker care of this, please ask him if he agrees with you or not. IZAK (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No source provided - sorry.  Now this is **PROBABLY** an official USAF photo, however it's not sourced as such.   I suggest that whomever wants this to be used email President Bush's office - 'info@ogwb.org' - and ask for a photo of him with the F-102.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Use this pic in the article File:Lt George W Bush - Texas ANG photo.jpg .    I just uploaded it to commons with a USAF source documented .   Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the "no source" tagging on File:Pres GW Bush mounting jet.jpg has been reverted again by IZAK, that file is now on PUF. Lupo 10:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * IZAK, stop reverting them. E-mailing Bush is pointless because they do not likely have information on who took it, and I can guarantee that. You need to e-mail the public affairs office of the 147th Reconnaissance Wing or file an Electronic Freedom of Information Act request through the Air Force Research and Historical Agency. It is likely that the wing has the information because they are the ones who were the likely origin of the photo. The AFRHA might have it because they tend to collect things and are quite adept at cataloging information and I am sure that they would know something about the image, although I cannot say that with complete certainty. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin: Thanks for your suggestion. I have now sent the same Email (see below) with an Electronic Freedom of Information Act request through the Air Force Research and Historical Agency (AFRHA). They have acknowledged receipt of the Email and hopefully will get back to us on this ASAP. IZAK (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Email sent to office of Presdient GW Bush
Thank you Bwmoll3 for your help and excellent suggestion. I have accordingly just sent an Email as you suggested to info@ogwb.org that reads as follows:

"To Whom It May Concern:

There is some debate on Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pres_GW_Bush_mounting_jet.jpg about the "source" of the photo (uploaded and posted since 2004), of President GW Bush at that time.

It was suggested that permission be granted from your office, see the discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IZAK#File_source_problem_with_File:Pres_GW_Bush_mounting_jet.jpg

Could your office please grant official use of this image.

Thank you in advance!

Yours sincerely,

User:IZAK of Wikipedia."

Hopefully we will get an official response soon and as soon as I do I will post it here and forward it to those concerned. So please be patient. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Having been requested to submit more identifying information from the above, time simply ran out and the image was deleted. Perhaps someone else can get around to it one day. IZAK (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret
I saw the AFD and I tried to find citations, but couldn't come up with anything. This is just another case of a yeshiva with no general coverage. BTW, I looked up Yeshiva of Far Rockaway, which is probably better-known, and that looks like it's going to be the subject of the next AFD. Sigh. Yoninah (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, you forgot to cast your vote at the AfD. Others have chimed in with good reasons to keep it. You may find what they have to say informative. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can both agree that Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret should not be left the way it is.  I feel no obligation to delete it, so it can sourced that'll be fine with me, I just hate to leave the article the way it.  Please look at the article and let me know what you suggest.  Thanks (btw, I am user:CapMan07008, just a cooler signature, lol....) The Terminator 't  c'' 19:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer?
So much about technicalities and splitting hair, if you are not a lawyer you'd be great at it consider it as a career. I'm serious. The Terminator p  t  c  18:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jews and Judaism category tree
Template:Jews and Judaism category tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Full discussion and "no consensus/keep" decision at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 25. IZAK (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Categories of Jews and Judaism category tree
Category:Categories of Jews and Judaism category tree, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Full discussion and "delete" decision at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 25. IZAK (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Judaism
Wikipedia's coverage keeps expanding. Would you mind looking this outline over to see what topics are missing? I noticed you are far more familiar with the subject than I am. I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 02:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. This is a vast topic and I am afraid no "outline" will ever really come to grips with what's important in Judaism/Jewish History because there are so many points of view that range from ancient to modern and much in between, and from differing Western and Eastern perspectives, religious and secular outlooks and sources. I would need a lot more time and a really settled frame of mind to do the kind of justice you ask for, so I will not tamper for now, but please remind me about this again, as now is the time of the major Jewish High Holy Days. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)