User talk:IZAK/Archive 45

Petraeus scandal
Hi IZAK. My first reaction is that it's an impressive article. I'll take a closer look at it over the next few days and leave you some detailed feedback. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Judaism terms
Category:Judaism terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ignatz Lichtenstein
I've made a change or two, and suggested more, to this article, and I wanted some feedback from someone who has been involved in the subject before. I chose you in particular because I addressed the hoax issue I had seen you write about. Thanks!

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U
I thought your recent remarks re children in the class of another editor was inappropriate and reflected badly on you. I hope this feedback is useful. If not, sorry I mentioned it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob, thanks for contacting me. Not sure what your issue is exactly. As far as WP is concerned every editor should edit for himself and not let it be known that he part of any type of group editing, certainly not as the head of a pack of schoolchildren yet, because WP is not a game and because that runs into all sorts of problems and violations as I have indicated. Let me know if you have specific concerns so that I can address them specifically. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the contribution list of the account you were concerned about. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, how did this RfC/U come to your attention? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob, first tell me how and why it came to your attention, since you are so curious? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way Bob, it seems that my concerns, that to me were pretty blatant, resulted in the same being voiced by others at Administrators' noticeboard and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784 the latter an extension of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784, it looks like many other folks are rightly getting tired of Danjel's antics. Take care, IZAK (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, the discussion regarding the children's account has been closed with no action against Danjel or the account. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * However, this is still ongoing: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784 so that Danjel is not out the woods by any means and he needs to cool it. IZAK (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above ANI case has now been closed. IZAK (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

However, new discussions, an "RFC" based on concerns that I had raised (of course I am not getting credit for it), continue at Wikipedia talk:Username policy. IZAK (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished
Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Malik, thanks for informing me of this serious accusations when obviously whoever filed the WP:CHECK "complaint" did not bother informing me. I had responded and stated my response. The case was quickly closed: "16:16, 1 February 2013 Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) deleted page Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)". Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the user who brought the action against me has had requested that his own user page be deleted and no longer exists, what is that all about? See "07:19, 1 February 2013 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Danjel (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace)". How odd! What happened to User 's user page page ? He still continues to edit although he claims he will now scale back editing on WP. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

List of recent discussions concerning me where I was not informed
In contravention of the usual and required policies of Etiquette, Civility; Assume good faith, and following my considered outside opinion at Requests for comment/Epeefleche, here is a list of recent discussions that relate to me where at no point was I ever informed about them by the parties who commenced the discussions, primarily by User backed by User. Some of them where quite serious and had I known about them in a timely fashion I would have taken the time and effort to respond:


 * 1) Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK (Fortunately I did manage to comment after a user not connected to the compliant brought it to my attention above: . The SPI "investigation" ended quickly and was also quickly deleted without any action taken and in effect rendering the spamming of a link to it on other forums that in effect rendered anything to do with that moot.)
 * 2) Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche.
 * 3) Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche.
 * 4) Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche.
 * 5) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784

Wonders never cease. When commencing a discussion about another user, be it on any talk page and certainly on an official forum, and definitely when making serious allegations against that user, it is not just common decency but almost required to inform the user concerned or even any other interested parties. See for example Category:User warning templates, such as: Template ANI-notice: "Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."; or Template SPIusernotice: "A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts... Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/SPIusernotice for evidence..." and others like this. IZAK (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses
While User has had things to say about me lately, yet he has:


 * 1) Been suspected of sockpuppetry WP:SPI himself: User talk:Bob K31416; Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416; Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416/Archive.
 * 2) Been criticized for accusing an established user of being a sockpuppet: User talk:Bob K31416 that violates WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
 * 3) Accused an established user applying for adminship of being a sockpuppet User talk:Bob K31416; Requests for adminship/History2007 in violation of WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
 * 4) Forgets that Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Constant focus on toughening WP policies, thereby making user contributions more difficult, and thus reducing the ability of new users to join (a constant lament at the present of the WP Foundation) and is takes his causes to Wikipedia founder User even coming up with an idea for a "WP Commission" that would have the "final veto" on policy (even as he freely edits away constantly in areas of WP:POLICY) that flies in the face of what WP is all about about which he is reminded and that was rejected: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85, as concluded by User : "At the end of the day, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think we are in danger of thinking of wikipedia politically in terms of policies rather than focusing on what is most important, encyclopedic content. In fact if many on here cut the bureacratic/governor pretense and wrote articles instead the site would be massively better off.. And if much of the time spent discussing policies and wiki politics instead went into actual development planning and how to feasibly greatly improve overall content we would start meeting our real objectives...♦ Dr. Blofeld".
 * 5) Wikipedia founder User disagrees with his "off-wiki" obsession: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 125: "I don't think it's a serious issue. I don't like the term 'canvassing', even on-wiki. I think it's more often used by people who want to shut down an open dialogue than people who have a righteous cause for concern. Another word for 'canvassing' is "engaging more people in the discussion" - it's open to all sides. The idea that it's bad to go out and recruit editors when you see a problem in Wikipedia is problematic. That isn't to say that some kinds of approaches to that aren't annoying - they are - but in general, this paranoia about it is not justified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)"  and "I don't disagree with it (much) as written, but I think people tend to overstate the likelihood or importance of it, and tend to underestimate how often the real problem is people screaming 'canvassing' to prevent people from seeking outside voices. Many things on Wikipedia would benefit from more participation, more eyeballs, and the bias against recruitment means that decisions are made in obscure corners without relevant people being properly notified. This may suit the interests of a group that has a majority in that little corner, but knows that they are in the extreme minority in the broader community or world. But it doesn't suit the interests of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)".

So much for throwing stones. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Message
Bloger (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC
Most of your commentary above, particularly against Bob, is WP:POLEMIC. I suggest that you remove it. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 23:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I never delete what is on my talk, even if some users come here with the worst allegations, as you can tell from my extensive archives even if it may be unflattering comments or complaints against me. Essentially, you are asking me to violate WP:NOTCENSORED against myself which is utterly absurd. Everything I cite above is an open record and is on the record and can be found by any WP user. Thus, this is just a record on my own talk page of recent events that concern me, and about the various discussions that concerned me that I wasn't even informed about, that I have created a record of for the record. I could have lodged some pretty serious complaints against Bob for not informing me, but I did not wish to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND that you seem to delight in. Stop it! In addition to that, in the course of researching the above lack of basic WP:WIKIQUETTE of informing a user about a discussion that concerns him (me) I also put forth for the record some serious instances where Bob's arguments trying to find support for his WP:POV are rejected by some pretty serious editors including Jimbo Wales. Take care, IZAK (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. By the way, make up your mind if you either are or are not "retired" on WP, in other words is the message on user page at User:Danjel true or false? IZAK (talk)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Wikipedia:Etiquette etc. Thank you. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I am sorry that I was not able to respond and participate during this time, but as it so happens to be that a series of Jewish holidays and related days occurred during this time: The Fast of Esther on Thursday February 21, 2013; Shabbat on Friday evening February 22, 2013 and Saturday February 23, 2013 that continued Saturday night with Purim through Sunday February 24, 2013; followed by Shushan Purim on Monday February 25, 2013. At the present time comprehensive preparations for the forthcoming Passover holiday, March 25, 2013 - April 2, 2013, are under way, seriously limiting my time and ability to be as fully involved and respond accordingly. Thank you for your understanding, and as the closing admin in this ANI discussion has indicated, and by which I think we should all abide: "All parties involved here are strongly advised to drop the stick. If you can't stand each other, ignore each other. Now let's all get back to improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)" Amen! Thank you! IZAK (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I am sorry that I was not able to respond and participate during this time, but as it so happens to be that a series of Jewish holidays and related days occurred during this time: The Fast of Esther on Thursday February 21, 2013; Shabbat on Friday evening February 22, 2013 and Saturday February 23, 2013 that continued Saturday night with Purim through Sunday February 24, 2013; followed by Shushan Purim on Monday February 25, 2013. At the present time comprehensive preparations for the forthcoming Passover holiday, March 25, 2013 - April 2, 2013, are under way, seriously limiting my time and ability to be as fully involved and respond accordingly. Thank you for your understanding, and as the closing admin in this ANI discussion has indicated, and by which I think we should all abide: "All parties involved here are strongly advised to drop the stick. If you can't stand each other, ignore each other. Now let's all get back to improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)" Amen! Thank you! IZAK (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent discussion on Elazar Shach page
Hi,

Your input would be appreciated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach#Works

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Elazar Shach
Hello IZAK. I removed a recent comment of yours because it included unsubstantiated accusations that editors were meatpuppets. Please do not engage in personal attacks. Comment on content, not on contributors.

According to our policy, WP:MEAT, "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. ... [I]t may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a 'meatpuppet', and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Malik: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have now revised the comment to exclude the reference to "meatpuppets" and to more accurately note the problems with (a) ongoing multiple anonymous IP commenters who flit in and out making attacks at random without having one constant user or talk page where they can be contacted, and (b) editors getting involved multiple times in heated discussions while making serious comments and allegations without signing with their user names, and (c) flurries of "new" users appearing out of the blue making comments that all sound the same and then melting away, something that has been bedeviling that article and its talk page for years and a weakness that is being utilized against the one user who is trying to improve that article. Thanks for taking note of these important nuances. It is a subtle and not so subtle ongoing war on nerves in defiance of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND all because Shach called the last Lubavitcher Rebbe a "false messiah" -- for which they will never forgive or forget -- and that constantly drives the pro-Chabad editors nuts, as they keep flogging a dead horse and as you can well see for yourself. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks IZAK. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Pesach Sheni
Thank you for the improvements. Just one question: Why did you think it was relevant to link to all those other days, especially the Purim ones? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi StevenJ81 and thank you for contacting me. The reason I added all the "See alsos" is because they are all days that are not "the real Yom Tov" but that nevertheless are attached and exist and are connected to the "originals" and are also observed by those who it effects and concerns. It's basically the concept of "extending a Yom Tov" beyond its normal and required time-frame. I hope this explains it. Thanks again, IZAK (talk)

Counting of the Omer
You did a great job expanding this article. I understand you want me to look at it now because it is timely, but I have to finish some other things first and don't know if I'll get to it soon.

Did you happen to see the TFD discussion that was just closed at Template:Infobox yeshiva? All the Infobox:Yeshiva 's have been turned into Infobox:School. Something really needs to be done, policy-wise, about categorizing yeshivas and improving their notability issues. Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Yoninah and thanks for getting back to me. Thanks also for letting me know about the TFD. Unfortunately I was not aware of it because no notification about it was placed at WP:TALKJUDAISM or at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please eep me posted if anything like that comes up again. Thanks and take care, 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sim Shalom Synagogue
Hi, I think our edits overlapped. You overrode my reference formatting and a new reference that I put in. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Hello IZAK. I'm not butchering the article, I was just removing text that is not actually about the subject (i.e. the section about e-learning). If you add referenced text about the synagogue itself (rather than concepts around it), I would certainly not delete it. Cheers, Number   5  7  10:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will look over it now. Thanks for letting me know. IZAK (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, then, let me do some more research then. Please be patient. IZAK (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very, very concerned by the stuff you're adding. Press Releases should not be used. And I don't really know how to emphasis how inappropriate the sentence "Blane has posted an extensive collection of highly professional videos online on YouTube" is. You are turning into more of an advert than the paid editor. Number   5  7  10:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can discuss it. He is not writing it I assure and I have no contact with him. I only learned of this subject when you nominated it. But it is important. The question is how to bring that out. The YouTube collection is real. Do we ignore it. It is a statement of what's out there, not of approval. Nothing is set in stone. What I have now seen is that there is also a twin article Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute and I think they should all be merged under one group heading. Blane, his synagogue and the rabbis seminary, it seems it is all one subject. IZAK (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the Youtube collection has been referred to by an independent third party source, then it should not be in there. You are an experienced Wikipedia editor - how could you possibly think that "highly professional videos" is an appropriate use of language? I'm honestly quite shocked and disappointed. Please can you remove that sentence and the paragraph about the press release, otherwise I'm going to have to tag the article as an advert. Number   5  7  10:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me a mo'... I will get to it. I am looking at some alternate refs. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now replaced the refs you objected to with a few others that are more critical. Keep me posted. I need to sign off now. IZAK (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed a sentence that wasn't actually about the subject (added to make it look there was more referenced material?). Number   5  7  12:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

notify about a TFD
Let me know if/when you open a TFD or other proceeding about Template:Infobox yeshiva. I expect i would support its restoration. I happen to have just barely noticed another deletion nomination by the same nominator, about a template that I think is needed and that should not be lightly eliminated with very little notice. -- do ncr  am  19:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sim Shalom Synagogue
I created the page Steven Blane (rabbi) and changed my !vote to Redirect per your suggestion. I suggest you do the same. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Yoninah for letting me know and for also going out of your way to do this job, I have changed my vote to Merge and Redirect as it enhances the topic by making it more cohesive and avoiding the obvious WP:CONTENTFORKING of the three related articles essentially revolving about this one biography. Sincerely, and thanks again, IZAK (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you for amending your vote. I just have one question about your mention of WP:CONTENTFORKING. There is already a page about Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute that can be expanded with the sources I have. I didn't put every single detail about the JSLI into the Steven Blane (rabbi) article because I thought all that detail (e.g. how much the program costs in relation to other seminaries, how the ordination program is conducted, etc.) belongs in its own article. Could I go ahead and expand the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute page now? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Yoninah: Quite honestly as far as I can tell, the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute is just as much WP:CONTENTFORKING in this case and everything in it can and should be incorporated into the main Steven Blane (rabbi) article because it all comes directly from him, as he creates and runs everything. I haven't seen any sign that anyone else but Blane is involved in either his virtual synagogue or in in his institute to train virtual rabbis. IZAK (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. So am I allowed to make the JSLI page into a redirect to Steven Blane, or do I have to initiate a merge discussion on the JSLI talk page? Yoninah (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Yoninah: There is no hard and fast rule in such situations, therefore it's your call, you can justifiably go with WP:BEBOLD and make the merge for the obvious reasons I have cited, or you can take the slower route of a formal vote. I would say make the merge on your own and I will fully back you on it because when trying to improve the article about Blane's virtual synagogue, that I came up with the research that Blane's claim to fame is for his work with the "Institute" so that he and it and the synagogue are essentially one and the same topic -- he has just started these projects, maybe in a few years time they can be split up but right now the research shows it is all essentially the work of one individual. If anyone feels they must object to your move, then (no problem) we will oblige them by agreeing to the formalities of a vote and explain why that is really unnecessary. What I would definitely also do, is when you make the merge, I would start a new section on the discussion page and give a brief and concise explanation why you went ahead and made the merge. That's my take on it. Best wishes and have a great Shabbos, IZAK (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from book "Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse" regarding Rabbi Elazar Shach
Hi,

Just wanted to know if you have anything to add/respond to the discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Quote_from_book_.22Israel_and_the_Politics_of_Jewish_Identity:_The_Secular-Religious_Impasse.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Yonoson, thanks for keeping me posted. I have added a small comment. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again, this was "Resolved: Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC) " IZAK (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks a lot for your input.Yonoson3 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste moves
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ordeal of the bitter water a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Sotah. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- -- -- 04:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there -- or whatever your name is, and I must admit I cannot recall any of this. Was it done recently or some years ago? I cannot recall anything recent. Please tell me when this happened, I certainly am aware of the guidelines you mention. and I do abide by them. Let me know if you see any slip-ups, I would be glad to correct them if need be. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was done on Nov/30/09 . I guess you were unaware of the guidelines at that time, or perhaps they didn't exist yet. The page history of Ordeal of the bitter water was finally merged into the history of Sotah by administrator Anthony Appleyard on May/3/13‎. Sincerely, -- -- -- 20:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, Nov 09 is almost 4 years ago so no wonder I could not dredge up a fresh memory although it did ring a feint bell somewhere in the recesses of my skull. I think I was aware of that rule for a long time, it's been around for more than four years, but I may have been carried away in the heat of the moment or maybe I didn't think I was doing that, I just can't recall to be honest. But please notify me if you see anything like that from me since I have no interest in getting caught up in such issues. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
StevenJ81 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565728924 your edit] to Yitzchok Hutner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * * Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner... by Matis Greenblatt. (PDF), ou.org
 * Seems fixed now. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Move of The Holocaust
I agree with you 100% that the move was improper, but the proper place to address this is at Move review, where the issues you raised can be properly address by a wider audience. Please get this started ASAP so that such efforts to minimize The Holocaust can be addressed. Holodomor is a non-issue, as there doesn't appear to be other Holodomors or other efforts to appropriate the term for other tragedies and thereby minimize the systematic Nazi murders. Alansohn (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please rescue Antisemitism in early Christianity
Long time no see, IZAK. When did we last cross paths? Was it when you declared Ignatz Lichtenstein a WP:Hoax which should be deleted, because sources be damned?

Nah, I'm sure it must be more recent than that. In any case, I'm glad you've since come around to the WP:Preservationist way of thinking. Though, I fear that perhaps you've decided on a very radical form, where Wikipedia should just keep everything, lack of sources be damned.

Still, as a somewhat more moderate Preservationist, I am sick to my stomach for having to vote delete in the AFD for Antisemitism in early Christianity. I would gladly strike my vote if someone (hint, hint) could find some on topic sourcing here. Please? For an old friend?? -- Kendrick7talk 02:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569613504 your edit] to Maimonides may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)