User talk:Itaj Sherman

Portuguese in Hebrew Wikibooks
Continued from here

BTW i write a pronunciation guide of brazilian portuguese in the hebrew wikibooks. it's not as thourough as the phonology article here, but it's more practical for people who have only the very basic linguistic knowledge (of junior high) and want to learn portuguese. i don't use there terms like "allophones" or "phonemes". --itaj 23:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are free to translate the English language article as you see fit, of course. ;-) You might also find the article on the Orthography of Portuguese useful. Regards. FilipeS 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

a question
let $$(\Omega,\Sigma),$$ be a measurable space. i'm talking here about real-value signed finite measures on this space. let M be a set of measures.

let N be the set of all measures absolutely continuous with respect to a measure in the linear span of measures in M. i.e. $$N := \{ \nu : \exists \mu\in span(M)\ (\nu<<\mu) \} $$

for a measure $$\mu$$ i'll denote $$ {singl}(\mu) := \{ \nu : \nu\perp\mu \} $$. the set of measures mutually singular to $$\mu$$.

and for a set of measures L. $$ {Singl}(L) := \{ \nu : \forall \mu\in L\ (\mu\perp\nu) \} $$. the set of all measures mutually singular to all measures in L.

my question is if the above implies that $$ N = Singl(Singl(N)) $$ i know this is true if there's only one measure in M, but i need to know about infinite set M, countable and bigger. --itaj 04:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If span is in the sense of vector spaces, then no. Consider $$M:=\{\delta_n:n\in N\}$$.  Then $$\sum 2^{-n}\delta_n\not\in span(M)$$ or N, but it is in singl(singl(N)).  (Cj67 23:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Note
I've removed the category from your userbox. That category was deleted recently per User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007. Thought you would like to know. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my day seemed pretty Bright when it started. I suppose it will have to end a little less Bright than that. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of \X0
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  16:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, mistake with link. I wanted to do it inside my user space. --Itaj Sherman 16:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bright UBX
You're welcome to it! Happy to help! Urania3 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi I have created a Bright User Box hosted in my own user area . See Category:Wikipedians in the Brights movement. Lumos3 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

x
https://docs.google.com/document/d/x1-gBr4w_4Ah2My74vqYsKlHrE5TJJPfC4FpYdNUhKEvk/edit?usp=docslist_api Itaj Sherman (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

September 2020
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Epoch Times. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It wann't my POV. I deleted a sentence that referred to sources which do not claim it. Your reaction is clearly a political/financial struggle between The Epoch Times and other news agencies. Wikipedia is lost. Itaj Sherman (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 12:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Changing "spreads" to "mentions a few times" when the source uses "advances" and "promotes" looks like a misrepresentation of the source
And if you don't think it is, take the issue to the talk page (I won't discuss it here as it's of general interest). Doug Weller talk 12:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source does not say what is stated there, they deliberately imply it inexplicitly, becayse if they had said that explicity they would have been sued for libel.Itaj Sherman (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What bit of "I won't discuss it here" did you miss? Doug Weller  talk 14:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Your recent editing history at The Epoch Times shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious editing: warning
NBC and the New York Times are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. To talk about "publication wars" between NYTimes, NBC and the tiny fringe Epoch Times, as you do here, is absurd, and to remove sourced content based on your (mistaken) opinion that the sources don't say what they're claimed to is disruptive. So is this edit. Please stop your tendentious editing or you're likely to be sanctioned. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC).
 * These sources do not say that Epoch Times spreads Qanon - this was invented by editors on Wikipedia. They say some people who worked there are related to other publications who do, sometimes. There's explanation of that inside the article. Keeping this line at the top of the article, as if it somehow describes the Epoch Times correctly is only due to malicious interests of people against Epoch Times. I guess NYT has been losing too much viewership recently to right wing publications, someone here is being payed by them, or maybe by the CCP. Itaj Sherman (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, if they're handing out money, I could use some. I'm trying to keep things neutral, working free of charge. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "These sources do not say that Epoch Times spreads Qanon - this was invented by editors on Wikipedia", you say? Really? See this NBC article about the Epoch times, headed "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". I quote from it: "At the same time, its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream." It was one of the three sources for the content you removed here; the other two also make statements about Epoch Times promoting Qanon. Try reading the sources before removing them, and before making false statements about what they do or don't say. My warning stands — indeed, it's a stronger warning now, after your reply, which I have difficulty believing you posted in good faith. Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC).

Controversial topic area alerts
—  Newslinger  talk   14:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * What the hell is that?! I have no interest in Falun Gong, don't know anything about them apart from them being persecuted by the CCP. I do have a lot of interest in politics, but I never use Wikipedia as a reliable source for that, and I don't edit political articles here. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here because of your talk page comments. As an ex-Arbtrator I can assure you that ET does fall into the Falun Gong area no matter what you think. I see it’s been your main subject of interest for quite a while. And the sanctions cover talk pages. Doug Weller  talk 18:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a problem with the ET article. The problem is NYT and NBC published false hit pieces about ET, in response to ET uncovering their dependency on CCP. And the article on ET here is an amalgamation of those hit pieces. But it's not about their relation with Falun-Gong, it's mostly about COVID missinfo and QAnon. Wikipedia is becoming a tool. I follow ET news and some podcasts, never heard them talking about Falun-Gong but I don't care about that. They are anti CCP. The COVID missinfo is that in mid 2020 they already said that the virus probabely came from a lab and not from a bat soup market, and that CCP caused its spread to the world, which turned out to be true and the missinfo was by NYT and NBC rather than ET. And they have nothing to do with Qanon. Itaj Sherman (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No the lab leak theory is still unlikely. But that’s irrelevant to the issue. ET is covered by the sanctions. You obviously haven’t bothered to read the link to the decision. Doug Weller  talk 06:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI thread that involves you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Epoch_Times_pov_warrior

Dronebogus (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Page-blocked
I see I warned you sharply about tendentious editing related to Epoch Times a year and a half ago, and your response then was quite disingenuous. Not sure why I didn't follow up, but I see on ANI that you're still doing it. I've page-blocked you indefinitely from The Epoch Times and its talkpage. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC).


 * Still doing what?!
 * I haven't changed the article.
 * I did express opinions in the talking page about the reliability of media outlets (NYT, NBC) publishing hit pieces about rivals.
 * I see now that expressing opinions in the talk page is actually the worse thing, this is what will get you silenced.
 * fyi, I was and am talking in absolute good faith. I believe everything I said, and I explained the reasons for my opinions. I would be happy to express a change in my opinion if it happens.
 * and you claiming otherwise, only raises my suspicion about your good faith. Itaj Sherman (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a copy of the conversation from the administrator noticeboard incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1081440736#Epoch_Times_pov_warrior

User:Itaj Sherman has been engaging in edit warring and WP:POV warring over the Epoch Times, most recently here, and has been warned about it multiple times. I think a topic ban under threat of blocking might be in order. Dronebogus (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are discretionary sanctions on anything Falong Gong. Secretlondon (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the egregious and reality-distorting nature of the comments by the user on the article talk page, I would support a hard ban of Itaj Sherman from the entire page itself. When someone is that far gone down the rabbit hole, it makes no sense to entertain their presence. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You harshly misrepresent what I said. The issue is reliability of a media outlets when they publish hit pieces against a rival.
 * And it's not an anecdote, the entire Epoch Times article is made up from these hit pieces.
 * It's a pitfall for Wikipedia, apparently one that cannot be overcome.
 * Sad and unfixable.
 * You can ban me if you like, I lost any hope Wikipedia could fix this. Itaj Sherman (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can just retire. No need for us to block/ban you if you cease editing in that area. Dronebogus (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I see I warned Itaj Sherman sharply about tendentious editing related to Epoch Times a year and a half ago, and their response then was quite disingenuous. Not sure why I didn't follow up, but it's apparent that they're still doing it. I've page-blocked them indefinitely from The Epoch Times and its talkpage. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC).
 * yeah there we go.
 * Aparently expressing opinions, even with explanations, in the talk page is worse than editing the article.
 * This is what will get you silenced.
 * I was and am talking in absolute good faith. I explained all my opinions.
 * "disingenuous".
 * just to make it clear, I am not and will not apply to get unbanned.
 * it would be a far stray from the point of this conversation.
 * just wait and see what I get for replying here... Itaj Sherman (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. I never responded to your comment on my talk page from 2 years ago, because I didn't see and practical outcome.
 * Unless you really feel the need to know the difference between the possiblity of covid starting in a lab and SpyGate and its evidence, on one hand, and on the other hand the tinfoil strawman Qanon.
 * It would be a waste of both our time. Itaj Sherman (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and look at these NBC/NYT sources, and see that they never say "ET says that Qanon is true".
 * Nor anything that can logically infer that.
 * There's a reason for that, and it doesn't put these sources in a good light. Itaj Sherman (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At the same time, its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A series on the occult, Edge of Wonder, became a firehose of content about QAnon, amplifying its foundational proposition that Washington is run by a pedophile cabal. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Through 2020 and into the early life of the Biden administration, Epoch Times and NTD alike promoted conspiracy theories related to the QAnon movement, the supposedly compromising international ties of Hunter Biden, and even sold merchandise outlining half-forgotten conspiracy theories such as “Uranium One”, which held that Hillary Clinton, as US secretary of state, engineered the sale of uranium deposits to Russian interests in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, that was exactly my point, the quotes copied do not explicitly say that ET says Qanon is true. They say implicit things in the hope the reader would think that. They say "conspiracies related to Qanon", but it doesn't have to do with Qanon. e.g. so many news outlets today talk about Hunter Biden's international ties, is that Qanon?! This is exactly a hit piece, were you make the reader understand what you want them to, without being open to libel.

This especially blows my mind, because I had been a reader of ET for many months before I ever knew anything about Qanon, they just never talked about it, nor any other news I followed. I think the first time I ever heard about that was two years ago when I happened to come across the ET article on wikipedia. Then when I found out what Qanon was, it was quite easy to realise it was some sort of fake news or even psy-op, in this case used as a strawman to tie with ET. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked for more info, and I realised I was unaware of the massive political context of what I was saying. Why it had to do so much with the Falun-Gong connection. For example the last source on the page. I wasn't even aware that Wikipedia banned right wing sources that were previously reliable, nor that it had this position about ET. While NYT, NBC and Haaretz are absolutely reliable, the clash is far greater than a few hit-pieces. Now I understand why the obsession about the German edition and their opposition to mass immigration, about ET usually supportive of Trump and his policies. As this Haaretz article describes. They also published Hunter Biden's international financial ties in late 2020 while it was still banned as fake news. This is unforgivable. Well ET being mostly classical liberal, leaning conservative, it's no surprise at all that they support hard assimilation of immigration, oppose illegal immigration, and oppose mass immigration even if legal. Coincidentaly, I happen to be an Israeli, and I know that Haaretz is a hard left biased news outlet, that does not clearly separate opinion from fact. I suppose just like the split in news outlets, there has to be a split between a progressive Wikipedia and a liberal-conservative Wikipedia. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

lol, incredible:. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)