User talk:Shirahadasha/Archive Apr 2007

Archived old discussions
Copied old discussions to archive. --Shirahadasha 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Goedelian fallacy :)
Hey, I really hope you weren't offended by that guy, what he wrote was utter nonsense. I don't think it was ill intended, he seems quite perplexed at our NPOV policy not allowing him to write what in his mind is completely obvious. It seems his vision of Wikipedia is that it should teach the ultimate truth to clueless readers. You were of course right in everything you wrote before and after him, but I just wanted to make sure you feel enough wikilove, if there is such a concept :) --Merzul 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A request and an idea
Hi Shirahadasha: I received a request recently from User:Leschinski whose mother tongue is German who would like help with an important subject: Rabbi Joseph Carlebach, the last Rav of Hamburg-Altona who died in the Holocaust. See User talk:IZAK. Rabbi Dr. Joseph Carlebach was one of the last of that rare breed of truly great Orthodox German rabbis who were steeped in Torah scholarship and recognized as such by contemporaries in Eastern Europe and who were also secularly well-educated leaders of pre-war German Jewry. User:Leschinski has tons of archived material, mostly in German that he can provide, but needs help with editing and wikifying it. I have tried contacting User:SlimVirgin, see User talk:SlimVirgin, as well as Humus sapiens and Jayjg to get them interested, because I feel that an article about Rabbi Joseph Carlebach can be made into a great featured article (like they did with the Rudolf Vrba article, another noted figure associated with the Holocaust that had not received the attention rightfully due.) An important point that may interest you greatly is that Rabbi Joseph Carlebach's grandaughter is the noted Jewish historian Dr. Elisheva Carlebach in New York who is one of the few modern Haredi women in the United States to hold a prominent position as an academic authority and university professor who has published important works in (religious) Jewish history. Hope this is of interest to you, it is definitely a meritorious subject and biography that could meet the highest of Wikipedia's standards. A Freilichen Purim, IZAK 07:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:David Spart/Chabad Messianism
HI Shira. Thank you for your advice. Following a recent wheel-war over Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch in which PinchasC did not let me write an article on Chabad Messianism even after an AfD implied consensus for such an article I was advised to write such an article in my user space. I have now done so and would be grateful for any feedback from you before I put it up. Happy Purim. David Spart 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution
You make a very good point: "Any proposed policy language that says that well-sourced views can be removed on grounds of absurdity shoud be very carefully vetted to make sure opinionated editors won't be quoting it to remove material based on their own subjective view of what is "absurd"." Perhaps it's best if policy simply says nothing about truth: in other words, just "attributable to reliable published source", not "attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". --Coppertwig 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi, it's correct that an entirely unpublished paper presented at a conference couldn't be used as a source, but given that its existence and some of its contents have been published by a newspaper, it's okay to add it, so long as the edit doesn't go beyond what the newspaper reported. It shows the issue is being discussed, which increases the notability aspect, so it's probably a good idea to leave it in. Hope this helps, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a sensible advice. I am pretty clueless on this. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Partnership minyan - JOFA 10th anniversary
The information hardly seems encyclopedic to me, for the reasons you've outlined. Why not just delete it, if you think it detracts from the article, or is giving undue weight to the topic? Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

re nudity in Judaism author
I've commented regarding Dandelion's actions in creating this article...w/o being too specific, this is not an isolated incident. What remains of my comments removed a lot of harshness, since the AfD page isn't really the appropriate venue. That said, I've gone ahead and registered my !vote. I don't think "delete and redirect" is looked upon very highly bcz of gfdl concerns, so if it ends up simply being redirected, I'll hafta content myself with that. Monitor the article and drop me a note if it starts going wacky again, if what I think is going to happen to the article happens... Meanwhile, shabath shalom. :-) Tom e rtalk  23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

re:MonteBoesen case
I'd close the case up and leave a blurb as to why in the Notes section. If there are any more problems it can always be easily re-opened. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / AMA ) •  Give Back Our Membership!  19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * :Thanks for your note. Still new at this, not sure of procedures for closing a case. Set status to closed. But not sure how to take off list of filed cases or if there is a list of closed cases it should be put on. Tried to find closure procedures in the AMA Handbook but didn't seem able to find them. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Once you change the template at the bottom of the page to "closed" it automatically refiles it in the proper category. Here are the instructions on how to properly do so: Category_talk:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. Now that you mention it, this page does seem to lack mention in the Handbook. I'll fix that as soon as I'm done posting here. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / AMA ) •  Give Back Our Membership!  02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently it looks like the template instructions are listed in the Handbook under "Advocacy Procedures" near the bottom afterall. Even I missed them with my onceover (but then again, lack of sleep may have something to do with that too). אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / AMA ) •  Give Back Our Membership!  02:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaim Richman
Hello. Is it your intention to dispute Chaim Richman's membership in the present "modern attempt to revive the Sanhedrin? We normally accept statements from organizations we have articles on that a particular individual is a member. If you dispute the notability of the organization, perhaps you should propose an AfD for the Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin article. Given that there's an article on the organization, membership would seem to be a relevant fact. Given that you appear to have been a long-term contributor to Wikipedia, I assume your recent deletion of the reference in a "no change" reorganization was purely inadvertent. I of course express no personal opinion on the activities of either the individual or the organization. I'd appreciate it if you'd respond on my talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you have lost me here. If you look at the diff here you will see that the reference remained - all I did was reorganise the order of the information because at the moment the article is awfully disjointed; you may wish to reconsider the reversion. BlueValour 17:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion by IP
I have no objection to your action, it might make sense to leave a note on the new IP's talk page explaining why you reverted. JoshuaZ 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kashrut
<>

Thank you. Davidyonah 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing comments
Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently edited your comment on Talk:Cow tipping after you had submitted it. Please read Talk page guidelines. It is generally best to use strikethrough to indicate comments that you want to change due to spelling or inaccuracy. If you think of something else to say, it'd be best to just put it below what you already said and sign ~ again, rather than adding it to the end of what you already said.

This is just a friendly reminder, I'm not trying to condemn you. Again, though we may not always agree, thanks for your contributions! —Remember the dot (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) — Well, someone may have already read your comments, so it's not a good idea to edit them afterwards. Readers may not realize that they read a previous revision of your comments, and so they would not realize that you went back and added more to them or changed the wording. Also, not revising comments keeps the timestamp by your signature honest. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you help?

 * I started the page: Jewish opposition to evolution. I realize that there is controversy within Haredi Judaism, but I don't understand it well.
 * Second question. Jewish Principles of Faith. Some previous author says there have been demands (what do they mean) to have the Rambam's 13 Principles be turned into some kind of creed. I cannot find any evidence. --Metzenberg 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Shirahadasha

Thank you for your interest in this.

To be quite honest, I don't know if I am in the right or not. I am trying to work towards unbiased, non-partisan edits, and someone has been kind enough to help with the editing towards that end.

I appreciate you getting back to me, I didn't expect a reply for several weeks and I expected this to go on for a while before someone stepped up.

So, even though I don't know you or how you would rule (or whatever), please let me know what you think, and I will either drop it, or go forward.

In other words, if you believe that I have some merit in my argument that my edits are being deleted WITH cause, let me know and I will continue working towards making them acceptable.

I don't know if you can also look at my accusation that the page looks like a press release by the premiers office. I stand by that, I think every negative article has been watered down, I believe strongly that this page is without balance.

As I have stated, this premier (a current sitting premier, holding the most powerfull position in British Columbia, Canada) is (was) the most divisive, polarizing premier in the last four decades. The province was on the brink of a complete shutdown, close to riots on picket lines.

His government cut all funding to womens shelters, broke promise after promise. Before he was elected he promised to restore funding to the Ministry of Familys and children. When in opposition he hammered the then current government on their mishandling of the ministry, and part of their demise had to do with childrens deaths under their care.

Under his office, the ministry faced more cuts, he removed the 'childrens ombudsman', then had several deaths of children under his watch. The list goes on and on.

Does that mean I want every single critical item that can be attributed to him? No. Not in the least. But as I see the article, it does almost nothing to show that side of his reign. It appears to me that the page is almost glowing in praise, showing all his 'accomplishments' with almost none of the strife on how he got there.

It talks about how the most jobs ever where created during his time in office. Most economists say that the government in power has nothing to do with job creation, esp in a province like ours where we sell mostly a resource based business. Mining, forestry. But in any case, it says nothing about how we got to that point. But does it really belong?

I don't want an "I hate Campbell" page, but I would like a page that reflects something closer to the reality.

BTW, I looked at other premiers for BC, and their pages are much smaller, and really shows only a bare bio. I suggested that perhaps, for balance, the page be stripped down to the bare biography, and everything else be referenced in the appropriate pages. I also pointed out in the discussion page for Gordon Campbell that there are many non-referenced parts. I covered a few. None of them, almost every one positive, were removed.

But if I am wrong, let me know. I'll drop it.

If I am right, please give me your suggestion.

Again, thank you for your interest in this.

I appreciate it.

Miked789 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)miked789

RE: Gordon Campbell edit dispute
Thank you for the information regarding this but I have nothing to add to this discussion. made two unsourced edits  to the article in question that clearly violated Wikipedia's BLP policies. As an Admin I used my judgment and left two messages on this users talk page regarding the importance of properly sourcing negative or controversial statments.. Afterwards I noted that the user entered into an edit war with other editors on the article in question but it did not involve me. Cheers. -- No Guru 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible
I tried to follow your suggestion about listing notable theological responses to the Documentary Hypothesis/Higher Criticism here. My only source is a book by Elliot Dorff - it is a good source but necessarily partial and limited. Since he is a Conservative philosopher his treatment of Conservative views is predictably more detailed and nuanced that of Orthodox and reform views. Also, it is dated. Please go over it when you have a chance and make what improvements you feel necessary/appropriate. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both your comments on my talk page - will you just go ahead and make the appropriate edits? I just copied Dorff's table and I think it is valuable but I think we are going to have to come up with another format that includes other POVs (like Weiss Halivni's - and I imagine there is a wider range of thought among Orthodox scholars and theologians) - maybe this just means repeating the Dorff reference for the specific positions he lays out... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?
Hi Shirahadasha,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khu  kri  10:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?
Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?


 * Jewish reactions to intelligent design
 * Jewish opposition to evolution

I feel the articles are well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who has been very difficult to work with. --Metzenberg 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked me: Not sure I understand what's meant by a "creed" here. Could you point me to the section on the talk page or identify the editor(s) requesting changes and help me understand what changes are being requested? Thanks,


 * Let's see. When I was growing up, a few of my friends who belonged to Christian churchs had to memorize the "creed" or "catechism" of their church, usually around age nine or ten. I think I would answer them, if they asked me, that Judaism does not have such a creed.  Instead, it has authority vested in its sacred writings, and a tradition of studying and commenting on those writings.  That's how I structured the first paragraphs in that article. If it can pass your judgment as a fair description, then I am sure I have described it well.  I do think of wikipedia as being for the general public, needing to be written without specialized language. Where did you grow up?  Israel?  I am from Wisconsin.  --Metzenberg 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles.  The main articles involved are:


 * * Jewish reactions to intelligent design
 * * Jewish opposition to evolution
 * * Natan Slifkin


 * It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight.  ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. Many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good day!
Since today is such a nice day, I decided I'd be a good friend and spread the Wiki Love by sending you this list of former members of the United States House of Representatives.

--Evergreens78 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vendyl Jones
Hi, no need to apologize - I meant what I wrote as a comment, not a criticism. :) --DLand<sup style="color:green;"> TALK 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reform Judaism on User talk:DMacks
There were a whole host of reasons why that link wasn't appropriate, didn't have space in the Edit Summary box to list 'em all:) My concern wasn't that it was a criticism or that it didn't have cites for some of its content, but that it felt like it started by deciding (without citing) what the true or authentic Judaism is. All the cites are just for historical facts and positions of the Reform Movement, issues which are (or could be) in the WP article (leads to ejecting the link on WP:EL grounds). I have no objection to "criticism"-like content or views other than the main/official one of a page in general. DMacks 01:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution articles
Thanks for your replies. I do respect your opinion and I will try to respond to any suggestions you have.

The big problem that the Judaism and evolution article has had is undue weight. The article and its Talk were, in the past, consumed by debates about issues that interfered with a classical treatment of the subject.

I would start in the 19th century, with Samson Raphael Hirsch, and then Rav Kook for the early 20th Century. For the late 20th century a representative sampling of the different movements, but taken from statements about 20 years ago. Rabbi Lamm, the Conservative movement's responsa of about 1988 (I think). Of course, there has never been an issue in Reform Judaism about evolution. Because the treatment would stop in about the 1980s, current debates that involve the politics of the USA, about intelligent design or creationism, would be on those "forks" of the page.

Now, the Jewish opposition to evolution page isn't something that I want to be POV. I looked at Feinstein as the modern authority, and then Shafran as the modern commentator on his views. Is that correct? Is there another authority I should choose?

Frankly, what happens in the Haredi world on this subject is a minority opinion, and a link at the bottom of the page is the right weighting. I don't want to see an article that is consumed by interpretations of the Slifkin affair.

Now the frankly mischevious editor I was talking about was running around making edit changes on pages without reading their Talk pages. What he needed to do was write to the Talk pages, not write to the pages himself. But in the case of the Natan Slifkin page, he couldn't have read the Talk page, because most of it is written in yeshivosh. --Metzenberg 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for assuming good faith on my behalf. I probably good have handled this debacle better. I think I incenced user Metz with my rather quick deletion of Anti-Defamation League. And I think I just got a bit hotblooded when I saw an irrelevant monkey picture on an article about opposition to evolution.--ZayZayEM 07:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops
After careful reading of User:Metz last message it seems he has decided to leave wikipedia (though possibly return with another pseudonym). Do you know how I can get the pages in question unprotected? --ZayZayEM 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Chink AfD
The Chink article has been greatly expanded now. Please take a look and see if you are interested in reconsidering your vote for merge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Conservative Judaism and Criticism of Conservative Judaism
Hi! These articles appear to describe a North American phenomenon; my understanding is that the equivalent in Isreal is called Masorti Judaism, which has a separate article. Given this geographical limitation, are thse articles appropriate for WikiProject Israel? Best, --Shirahadasha 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am just automatically tagging all pages in categories/subcategories of Israel. So there may be a few that are in-appropriate. If this is the case, feel free to remove them. Thanks, Reedy Boy 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration.
You are allowed to make a statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Metzenberg-ZayZayEM

Please comment. --Metzenberg 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also entered proposal for a compromise on Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. If my proposal is accepted by User:ZayZayEM and User:Guettarda I will withdraw this request for arbitration, and we can consider this resolved. I have informed them. --Metzenberg 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Campbell
I'm not taking a break from that article but I'm not sure that I want to continue with Mike's dialogue. Frankly I only edited the article once since Mike joined and I was talking things out to try and help the situation along. I did also think that it was pretty serious that Mike does not appreciate the consequences of his comments to Wikimart. And I think the failure to address that it is a major obstacle to a genuine dialogue. So far it has actually impeded any dialogue at all, other than with me. I see that you are a member of the Judaism Project so I hope that you at least appreciate how those comments come across to most people.

But back to the dispute, like I said, I only made one edit to the article and I had hoped to help the situation. I had thought that I could help the situation along but I've never faced such hostility and accusations in all my time at Wikipedia. I edit Wikipedia for fun, when I have the time and dealing with that is not fun and not a good use of my time. If you have a talk with Mike and do want to engage in serious discussion at a later time, let me know. Otherwise, I think now that I'm gone, there is nobody left to advocate the position to. I'm not an advocate and I don't know how you want to handle the situation but I just thought I'd let you know that, for the moment, I find Mike too much to deal with. I frankly wish I'd just reverted a bad edit and moved on like No Guru did. --JGGardiner 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)