User talk:IZAK/Archive 48

History of the Jews in Łęczna
Consider having a look. Thanks  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have wikified it as best I can and added categories and a "See also" section, see History of the Jews in Łęczna. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Jewish life cycle
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by a category you created. Could you provide a little help? Editor2020 03:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and thanks for the question, see Wiktionary's definition of a life cycle, and the Life cycle page on WP, it's a disambiguation page that links to the many ways that the notion of a "life cycle" is meant and works. In Judaism, a life cycle in its simplest form/s, would be those rituals and events that cover birth, life, rights of passage, marriage, death. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding.Editor2020 18:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ohev Shalom Talmud Torah Congregation of Olney
"Final vandalism warning" (not)....just kidding!


 * thank you so much! It took about 6 hours of serious searching simply because nowadays searching using Google is such a tedious process of sifting through all the cyber flotsam and jetsam that just clogs everything up. But the WP:V & WP:RS were out there as over the years I had even read about some of these developments at that particular synagogue. There are a finite number of such Orthodox synagogues in the USA outside of the New York City area. Thanks for your kind words and the barnstar, I really do appreciate it! All the best, IZAK (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Reform/Progressive etc.
I've changed my username recently, I quite sure I've mentioned it on the AfD's. For the matter of discussion, I may have been somewhat sneering and contemptuous, but I've spent several weeks combing through articles and discussion pages concerning the topic. English wikipedia, for the moment, does not have a single accurate article describing the belief system of a large and important Jewish denomination; instead there's a horrible mess. Fact is, period. Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement, German Reform movement (Judaism), Reform movement in Judaism, Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism are, well, bad [so are Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism, btw] and I doubt an interested reader would understand anything. I presume you've done research - real research, not just accepting the claims of people who wrote that Reconstructionist leaders took part in the foundation of the WUPJ in 1926, when Reco. did not exist even in the mind of Mordechai Kaplan, and other numerous, quite awkward mistakes - on the matter. I still contest that there is a unique 'Progressive Judaism' with its own doctrines in Israel, or that the relations between Reform and Liberal Judaism in Britain deserve a separate article. Not to mention that there's much in common between Reco. and the large current known variously as Liberal, Reform and - until the former joined the WUPJ in the 1980's, this could have been an ideal name - Progressive. Thanks for reminding me how Wikipedia works; I'm not cynical at all, I got too involved in something which nobody cares about. Anyway, thanks. [P.S, and truly unrelated to what's above, you should consider stopping using Litvak pronunciation by default for people's names. Some of those are Hungarians, and they would have not appreciated it.] AddMore (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for contacting me. Just from reading the above you reveal serious problems about your approach, such as 1 When you say about yourself that "I may have been somewhat sneering and contemptuous" you show that you are not being objective and that you are violating WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL and do not have the right mental and intellectual frame of mind to undertake editing in the required WP:NPOV manner about anything let alone such complex topics you cite. 2 When you say things such as "I still contest that there is a unique 'Progressive Judaism' with its own doctrines in Israel, or that the relations between Reform and Liberal Judaism in Britain deserve a separate article" -- just who is supposed to adjudicate such complex sweeping claims?? 3 The best way to start improving what you feel needs improving is by starting discussions with editors who share your interests in order to build the basic required WP:CONSENSUS in order to move forward. But you cannot come along with "guns" blazing and move to "delete" articles and information simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 4 Because you are alleging and making sweeping judgments about articles relating to various religious movements and mostly negating them and coming up with your own "versions" of how to interpret them, it sure looks to me that without having serious discussions and gaining some allies then all you are really doing is a violation of WP:NOR and even of WP:NOTMADEUP. 5 So my advice to you is to take many steps back. Stop nominating what you don't like and disagree with for deletions that only causes an atmosphere of WP:BATTLEGROUND and start again MORE SLOWLY and CAREFULLY and yes it is more time-consuming but you will get to your objective much easier that way. Try looking at the page histories of the articles you don't like and try contacting as many editors as you can and see if you can get a few of them to join you in the venture of improving the article and thereby improving the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and of course helping those who rely on it. Thanks again and please stay in touch with me. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Village pump bot discussion
Your initial statement was that you wanted to "gather information and arrive at a rough WP:CONSENSUS" 14:3 consensus wise, and I don't think there's any new info to be gained at this point... maybe time to call it? Cheers JMJimmy (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me. I respectfully disagree with you! Because any serious discussion of this sort should be open for at least one to two weeks (7 to 14 days). Certainly, a minimum of one week would be fair, not 24 hours or 48 hours. As you can tell, and it has come to my attention, there seems to be a group of editors who feel they WP:OWN the status of categories. Other users who do not agree with them are perhaps intimidated. With each passing day there seems to be another user, who has expressed an alternate view to the prevailing group-think and it would only be fair to hold off closing off discussion using the usual benchmark at most WP:AFDs of not less than one week, often-times more, and in fact when it comes to WP:CFDs they often let discussions stay open for many weeks up to a month even, if you are at all familiar with those forums. In any case, the ones on whose behalf you wish to "close" for have nothing to lose, if as you seem to think their opposition to my proposal will prevail, then they will have a much better archived debate to refer to, so they should not fear they have anything to lose at this point. But thanks for asking and please stay in touch! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of developments

 * Village pump (policy)/Archive 114
 * Identifying types of articles for which alphabetical arrangement of categories is undesirable
 * The difference between the cats on the page and the cat page
 * Collation: alphabetical order & numerical order
 * Compromise proposal
 * CatVisor
 * JQuery workaround
 * Update requested
 * Help from Wikimedia Foundation requested
 * User:Paradoctor/CatVisor
 * User talk:Paradoctor/CatVisor

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
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) 15:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move
Thanks for the heads up that the move was under review. As you surely noticed. via my recent edits to User talk:Timrollpickering, I initially thought the matter quite suspect.

Anyway, hello: long time, no edit war collaboration. I'm currently reading 3D Test of Antisemitism, and I like the quote in the intro "If you say too easily that everything is anti-Semitic, then nothing is anti-Semitic, and we no longer can make distinctions." Makes me happy I forced the issue to recreate the Anti-Judaism article back in the day. (Please let's not make antijudaism a thing.)

As long as I have you on the horn, there's been some dispute over at Category_talk:Anti-Semitism given a prior RfC which closed in my dis-favor. I know categories are largely considered WP:BIKESHED concerns by the vast majority of editors, but I for one do care about them; still, perhaps we are of a like mind.... -- Kendrick7talk 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am quite new to posting though have been a member for a while. Today I inadvertently got into what I now know to be an 'edit-war' with User:DrKiernan over the wiki article Aaron Kosminski  (check the edits on that page). He is insisting that throughout the article he make mention of his unevidenced belief that Kosminski's supposed race is Jewish.

In the article above I deleted every entry that mentioned 'Jew' or 'Jewish' as each one of them had no source. I would still like them removed. Do you know how I may go about this, or indeed reporting User:DrKiernan for his unsourced vandalising of the post? I note that you have some comments on antisemitic articles and it may be useful to have your input on this. How do I report him to wiki for antisemitic unsourced articles? He seems intent on having this information on there and I question his motivation. Such a littering of "Jew" all over the article can have no positive outcome, it is unverified and it can only lead to unwarranted increases in attacks and negativity towards Jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestfootie (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just a blatant lie. There are sources throughout the article and the fact he was a Jew is integral to the story. For example, you altered a direct quote by changing: In 1910, Assistant Commissioner Sir Robert Anderson claimed in his memoirs The Lighter Side of My Official Life that the Ripper was a "low-class Polish Jew".  to "low class Polish man". Note that there are three sources for that particular quote. You removed the text Anderson claimed that the Ripper had been identified by the "only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer", but that no prosecution was possible because both the witness and the culprit were Jews, and Jews were not willing to offer testimony against fellow Jews.  Note the reference at the end of the deleted text. You removed against Jews from the text Sir Henry Smith, Acting Commissioner of the City of London Police at the time of the murders, dismissed Anderson's claim scathingly in his own memoirs written later in the same year, calling it a "reckless accusation" against Jews.  Note the source at the end of the sentence. This is obvious disruption. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ,, and I am truly flattered that you make these comments here, but I must admit I am not on top of all the details in this case, so could you please conduct your debate on the relevant article's talk page/s so that others who are more qualified can get involved. If I can be of any other practical help to you please let me know. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I say we just screw it, and simply start again at antisemitism; perhaps it might evolve over time. I for one am highly confused, and suffer no illusions about what "anti-Semitism" is going to evolve into, given non-stop trolling about who __ exactly is a "Semite" -- Kendrick7talk 04:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the first go went poorly. But I've at least put the marker down. :) -- Kendrick7talk 06:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikifying Jews in Carthage
Hi, please look at the bottom of the JVL page. It says "Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved." Not the Jewish Encyclopedia. You can also check that it is indeed the text from the current edition of EJ by going to the free online edition. Please revert yourself; it is a very clear copyvio. Zerotalk 06:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I thought you were referring to the Jewish Encyclopedia. Anyhow, it is still valid to WP:CITE brief facts and information from copyrighted material as long as its acknowledged properly, will do so soon. As I mentioned in the RFC the article still needs to be wikified and formatted properly. Thanks again for notifying me, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The material is essentially an entire entry in EJ. That makes it not a brief extract.  (If entire entries can be copied, what is the worth of the copyright on the encyclopaedia?) You should paraphrase it.  The link is sufficient for people to see the original text.  Zerotalk 07:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now reduced it by taking only a smaller segment which is still in the realm of the permissible as a block quote that is commonly done. Article needs to have content, citations are taken from copyrighted sources all the time as long as they are acknowledged, otherwise you run into problems of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. It has to say something, otherwise there is no such thing as an article with only links, since we are required to quote WP:V & WP:RS and show what they say. Working on it though not easy transforming this scholarly stuff into a readable article, although I will try to remain faithful to the words as well. I have already cut it down. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=625921059 your edit] to Jews in Carthage 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Olamot Nifgashim (1960), 60–78; M. Simon, Recherches d'histoire judéo-chrétienne (1962), 30–87. |title=Carthage|url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04010.html|
 * Fixed. IZAK (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jews in Carthage, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dido and Tyre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. IZAK (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me about this. If you will look carefully you will see that that image was uploaded on 22:35, 18 May 2004 over TEN years ago when WP rules about images etc were far different. Whatever WP policies apply now in the present please do so. I have no connection to that image. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)