User talk:TShilo12/Archive 7

Cut & Paste move repair
The page High Holidays was moved to High Holy Days on July 24. I tried to repair the move myself, since the only new edit to that page was reverted, but I see that one needs to be an admin to do this. (I had restored the High Holidays page in anticipation of the move.) Can you please take care of this? Thank you. --Eliyak T · C 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy action. I'll message the guy behind the move. --Eliyak T · C 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a citation is not trolling
In re this: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jkelly 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson
the far left wing of American Jewish circles [occupied, sadly, by a distinct majority of American Jews

Wow. So, in this particular case, you define the centrist as having a distinct majority to his far left.

Hmm, gee, are you the centrist? :o) DBaba 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How can a majority of American Jews be far left relative to American Jews? Doesn't that sound silly? Where is the center, if the majority is on the left?

I just found it fascinating that you could state that a majority are grouped to one particular side, distant from the center; I figured you'd notce that you misspoke when I pointed it out, that your "center" is apparently "far right" relative to American Jews.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--center--xxx

Do you know what I mean? You've declared the "majority" to be "far left wing", as if a center was determined by qualitative features rather than quantitative features: a minority cannot make itself the center simply by feeling very strongly about something.DBaba 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mel Gibson
I'm sorry you feel that way against Gibson. As he stated in his apology, not everybody will completely forgive him for his actions but he hopes they will eventually. Theres no reason you can't still enjoy his movies, go see Apocalypto, etc. Me, being deeply moved by The Passion of the Christ can't settle for the idea that the creator of it is an Anti-Semite. While I was angry at Gibson and confused why he acted the way he did, his apology and desire to meet with leaders of the Jewish comunity is enough to convince me he means well and really does regret and feel ashamed of what he did. I think it's a bit much to say that reasonably minded people will group Gibson into the same category as a Nazi dictator. Maybe some people from the Jewish community who were hurt by what Gibson said, but I truly believe he is a good guy who means well. If Steven Spielberg got drunk and started attacking Christians I would be angry at first, but I think I would get over it if he made a similar apology as Gibson. Not to mention checking into rehab. I think then Mr. Spielberg would fit into the rounded Anti-Christian hole like a square peg.Karatenerd 15:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Temple in Jerusalem Edit Conflict Resolved
Tomer, Biblical1 has agreed to a proposed solution for Temple in Jerusalem, so it looks like the article can be unlocked and we can proceed. Thanks for all your help. Have an easy fast. --Shirahadasha 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NPA
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

I think other peoples' English is just fine, myself. Grand master  ka  08:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As a note I am in concurrance with this warning, your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ambuj.Saxena are, in my view, quite over the line of civility. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon
You participated in the discussion last time. Please participate in the discussion this time. Uncle G 00:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Jabulon (2nd nomination)

Dont Ask!
Hi, while discussing a merge (wont happen) of my project and stefans project I found this sentence.

''I realize this WikiProject is still not up and running, but if people are looking at this, please review my comments on Talk:Wobbegong. I was gonna "fix" the article, but now I'm at a loss as to what to do with it... Tomertalk 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)''

You dont have to be part of a project to make substantial edits, just do it! That is what Wikipedia is for. Lenny 07:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell eugenics quotes
I supplied some of the quotes from Russell, and they were deleted within minutes by some guy named Andrew Norman, in this edit.] --172.192.28.208 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hi Tomer! I've requested an Editor review and would very much appreciate your thoughts. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback! --Shirahadasha 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish WIKIVERSITY
Hi Tomer: NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve
Hi Tomer: Take a look at this please: Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve. Be well. IZAK 17:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Requests
Hi, I request that deletions be made on the following:


 * This subpage, because I would feel better without such a list.
 * This userpage, because this is not my IP anymore.
 * This userpage, because this IP belongs to a public, school computer used by many every day.
 * This user talk page, because I would feel better if this disappears, and is of the same public school IP.

If you need another rationale to all of these requests, you could use Right to Vanish. If you somehow cannot bring yourself to delete these pages, you can ask anyone who does not have any hostile feelings against me to complete this request. Thank you. --Shultz IV 07:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish vs. Judeo renaming
Hi Tomer: Your learned input would be greatly appreciated at User talk:ThuranX. See my comments there please. Thanks. IZAK 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing AfD nominations
Hi, I read your question concerning the withdrawal of AfD nominations. For all I know, that's possible already, and unless someone other than the nominator voiced a "delete" opinion until then, it's a reason for a speedy keep (which, if I am not mistaken, the nominator might even immediately implement himself). The deletion attempt is not removed from history, but then again, why should it? Anyway, the best place for a proposed change to deletion policy would probably be Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Yours, Huon 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Galleries of fair use images
Galleries of fair use images are not permitted in user space. They are violations of copyright. I suggest that if you wish to keep a list of all of the images that you have uploaded, you link to the images rather than embedding them. Please fix your user page. Uncle G 12:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:TShilo12/Images

Barry Gurary article
Hi Tomer: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary. Thanks. IZAK 03:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Smiles...


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

spreadin the smiles....

Category vote
Hi Tomer: Please provide your view at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10. Good Mo'ed. Thank you. IZAK 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

the Good Book
Hag Sameach!

Do you think it is controversial to claim that Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible?" I don't. Do you think it is controversial to claim that "the Bible" refers only to the combined "Old Testament" and "New Testament," i.e. is a term that refers to the sacred scriptures of Christians (but not Jews)? I do, but this is precisely the claim Home Computer is making on the Bible talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible#Current_layout

Feel free to weigh in. And please watch out for Home Computer's attempts to change the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Las marquesas.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Las marquesas.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Las marquesas.jpg
Greetings. Yes, I looked at the image closely. Regardless of how much original content was added, however, it could still be recreated from scratch, so I think the replaceablefairuse tag applies. Thanks for the tip about the Replaceable notice, by the way. It's a fairly new template, and people keep changing the way it works. It'll settle down soon, I'm sure. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing images on commons
The image you mentioned, Commons:Image:Eiao_map.jpg already has a description page and a category at commons. What's the point of adding a redundant description page here that only consists of a category? - Bobet 07:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at Category:Marquesas_Islands, it has a link to the files that exist on commons and are about the subject. The image in question is hosted on commons and has a description page there, and exists in the category that's linked above. Categorizing images in general is good, but since this image is already categorized on commons, it's not useful in this (or a similar) case. If you want to categorize images on commons (or move some images from here to there), start an account there. If there's something I'm not making clear, please ask. Thanks. - Bobet 07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, it's redundant. You have an image in one category, and then a link to the same image on commons from the same category. If you think commons images should be listed in Wikipedia categories, that's a feature request and I'm all for it. - Bobet 08:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Kloten, Wisconsin
Are you sure there should be an article for Kloten? I am definitely a local to Kloten, for I live around 5 country miles away. Kloten consists of a wedding hall, around 5 houses, and a now-closed church is a half mile away. That's it. It's far below my notability standard, and I consider myself to be an inclusionist. Johnsburg and Pipe, while larger, are also far below my notability standards for the record, so I won't write articles for either of them (I would do pictures). I noticed that the German Wikipedia has an article on Kloten. RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean that there are more than 15 unincorporated communities larger than Kloten in Calumet County alone. I've been through hundreds if not thousands of unincorporated villages/named intersections just in Wisconsin that are more notable (as I've travelled most of the state for vacations). It seems more than strange that this particular community would get singled out. I took several pics of location this morning, but I probably won't be able to upload them until next week. There are exactly 5 houses, including a farmhouse that happens to be quite near the other 4. You're lucky that I'm more on the inclusionist side, or else I would nominate it for deletion as non-notable. I'll leave well enough alone. I can see no harm in keeping a history of the place, since diskspace is cheap. I don't know any of the history of the crossroad, except that the wedding hall has been known as the "Kloten Oasis" for most of the last 20 years if not more. Cheers! RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you speak German? If so, would you create captions on the Kloten article in the German Wikipedia? RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Eau Claire County, Wisconsin
What image editing software are you using? I am wondering if you could use some type of area filling command. I am an IT student, so I have access to several editing software to try to help you figure out your question. I am not volunteering to do the task. Cheers! Royalbroil</b>Talk  Contrib 00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A WikiProject Conservative Judaism
Hi Tomer! When I began I simply took the projects that were around as givens and it never occured to me to question them. But it is odd that there should be a WikiProject Orthodox Judaism but none for Conservative, Reform, etc. Perhaps there shouldn't be any denominational WikiProjects at all, and the Orthodox one only has a dozen listed members and hasn't had a huge amount of activity lately -- and most of what's been posted on it has been duplicated on WikiProject Judaism So perhaps there shouldn't be any beyond just the Judaism one itself. But if there are, and I'm not sure the Orthodox project can simply be undone, perhaps there ought to be a Conservative project as well. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, Son of the Devil
Hi Tomer: Care to take a look at this Aaron, Son of the Devil article and see what you make of it. Does it have validity and is it being twisted in some (anti-Semitic) ways? Thanks. IZAK 04:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Username
He's been around since February. Have you asked him why he chose that name? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Sufism
Hi Tomer. I believe it is correct.
 * According to naqshbandi.net, the Naqshbandi Sufi way can be traced back to Abu Bakr.
 * According to naqshbandi.org, Salman al-Farisi passed his Secret on to Abu Bakr's grandson Imam Abu `Abdur Rahman Qassim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr as-Siddiq.
 * Also have a look at Naqshbandi article. Cheers -- Szvest 10:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

Lenguas judías
Hola Tomer, he visto sus contrubuciones por Wikipedia en el sujeto de judaismo y así quería preguntarle como que aprendó todos los idiomas y sus formas distintas. Me fascina todo que tiene que ver con lenguaje, especialmente ése del pueblo judío. El castellano no es mi idioma primero, sino pensaba que era más mejor hablar con usted en una lengua menos utilizada en la Wikipedia inglesa. Escribeme si le gustaría compartir algun consejo, caz | speak 05:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Só quero compreender como tem aprendido todas as línguas judias. É interessante que sabe tão sobre essas coisas e me interessara o processo que usou você para ter tudo em sua cabeça. Quisera entender que é a melhora maneira para começar saber os idiomas sem confundi-los. Obrigado por qualquer ajuda ponha-me oferecer. caz | speak 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Me di cuenta que acaso no habla português. Así, reptiré lo que escribí antes para que entienda la propuesta. Querría entender cómo ha aprendido todas las lenguas con enlaces historicos judios hasta tal nivel que llena ud. artículos enciclopedios con información en cuanto a la derivación de eses languajes y todo eso. Si podría informarme le agradecería,

caz | speak 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD Orthodox Jewish communities
Shavua Tov Tomer: Please add your learned views. See vote at: Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12. Thanks. IZAK 11:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote request
Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 67.70.68.51 12:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Open Orthodoxy" & Avi Weiss
Hi Tomer: User:Shirahadasha has created an new article called "Open Orthodoxy" - about a new notion (that is "neither fish nor fowl") recently coined by Rabbi Avi Weiss. After having been asked about it, I attempted to redirect Open Orthodoxy to the Avi Weiss article and post all its content there because on it's own it's a neologism in violation of Avoid neologisms, but Shirahadasha has reverted my redirect. What do you think should be done, please add your views at Talk:Open Orthodoxy. IZAK 09:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your views please
Shalom Tomer : I have just contacted new User:Chavatshimshon who has made some big moves in long-standing articles about Jewish topics. Please read what I wrote to him and add your expertise and intervention. Thank you. IZAK 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * STOP your changes NOW!


 * Dear Chavatshimshon: Welcome, and thank you for contacting me. Regarding your changes @ Chavatshimshon edits Please do not make any more changes or moves to Jewish articles. You are too new to Wikipedia. You are not even reverting articles correctly (by creating multiple double reverts). You are also creating duplicate articles of existing articles, which creates even more problems. The articles you are fiddling around with have been worked on for many years. You cannot move and change these articles without discussing it with the nearly one hundred known members of WikiProject Judaism; WikiProject Jewish history; WikiProject Jewish culture and others. I am going to ask some experienced editors, who are also admins, to examine your recent changes and to revert your moves until we can get some better idea of what it is that you are doing, and if it is going to help the Jewish and Judaism articles on Wikipedia. Stay tuned. This message is being shared with User:Jmabel; User:Jayjg; User:Jfdwolff; User:TShilo12 and User:Humus sapiens. Thank you. IZAK 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi Tomer: Care to comment? Please see: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. Thank you. IZAK 12:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Holy of Holies and Kodesh Hakadashim
It looks like someone has simply deleted these articles without initiation a deletion discussion or resolving the ongoing merger discussion. It looks like Holy of Holies is now a redirect to Most Holy Place (an article on special places in various religions and cultures) without any of its content having been transferred. Is there any way I can get these articles ressurrected? Once they're back I would like to initiate an RfM/RfD to resolve how to deal with them. I agree there should not be three articles but would personally agree to one general article and then a series of religion-specific ones. Thanks, --Shirahadasha

Sorry the article is Kadosh Hakadashim. I'm still having a problem with Holy of Holies. It seems a search sends one directly to Most Holy Place, but clicking on a link can get one there. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianics again
Hi Tomer: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the  Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously  plagiarizing the WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this.
 * User:Stjamie (contributions) created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about Boaz Michael (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)

Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism
Hi Tomer: I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page, and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." , and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic "Halakha" etc?
Hi Tomer: On 25 October 2006, User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the  Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome the NotJudaism template
Hi: In view of the above, please see the new NotJudaism template:


 * Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Argentavis magnificens
Hi. I just read the link and noticed there was no illustration or link to any. I know of a link if it would be helpful. Just need to know how to get permission to enter it. TKS - wmfife@prodigy.net

Hello again. TKS for responding. Apologies for the delay. Here are the links I have: http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/giantbirds3.html http://www.csotonyi.com/Argentavis.html http://sped2work.tripod.com/giantbird0.jpg

Don't know whether they're copyrighted but the first can be edited down to image & caption if available. The third is a smaller edition of that image for placing in a space of limited area. The second one is a drawing, only recently done. I'm writing the artist, but as yet don't have much more info. on any of this. Any help welcome. Thanks. Wmfife 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

... who specialize in the study of ...
Done. Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity
You may care to comment here: Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also
If you have time, can you review this and then comment on the latest discussion on the bottom of the talk page for Cultural and historical background of Jesus article? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Added "inuse" template to Nachal Oz
Hi! I saw your edit summary asking that editors refrain from editing while you're working on the article, and I thought I'd make that even more obvious by adding a template to the top. I guess I thought I'd let you know why I did that, and I hope you don't mind. Happy editing! — K e  akealani  23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Noahide Laws cleanup
Hi, I was hoping we could collaborate on cleaning splitting and writing up more articles related to 7mBn. I've tagged Noahide laws for a cleanup. I'm not rushing in, I've read them all up, I'm waiting for the readiness of a few others so we can take this on together, and have it featured on the main page sometime. Its possible, there are quite a few of us and will potentialy be a subject of interest. Again, I'm one for words and think the parent article should be Seven Laws of Noach, as in 'Sheva Mitzvas Bnei Noach'. Anything that is should be another 'ism'. Chavatshimshon 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Chavat: Do not change that title, it is the accepted English name for it (why is it that you have this great urge to change the titles of long-establishe Wikipedia articles?) Not everything has to be a direct translation or transliteration from Hebrew. Many Judaic and Hebraic topics do and should retain their English titles. Please contact the following to help you: User:Noahlaws; User:Jon513; User:Dauster; User:HKT; User:PinchasC; User:Shirahadasha; User:Shuki; User:TShilo12, they all have knowledge of Jewish Law and experience as Wikipedians and may be interested in working on this with you. Sincerely, IZAK 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi,nice userpage! please join in the discussion on the Noahide Laws talk page about cleaning it up etc. Thanks! Chavatshimshon 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

'most of'
I can't see what your problem with this qualifier is. There were Torah-observant Jesus communities well into the third, if not fourth centuries. Christianity was never monolithic on the subject. For Mark, Jesus declared all foods clean. But Matthew (whom I think you are quoting) would certainly not have seen Torah as a burden 'grievous to be borne' - that clearly refers to his take on the Pharisees' interpretation. His critique of them is that they have "omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Which I believe is actually a common critique within Rabbinic writings too). Matthew actually states 'one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments.... shall be called the least in the kingdom'. Many scholars believe Matthew's community WAS Torah-observant (although the point is, admittedly, disputed). Paul (well he's perhaps contradictory on the subject), he certainly argued that Gentile followers of Jesus were not bound to be Torah-observant (but it is evident from Acts and Galatians that many Jesus-believers took a *very* different view). However, even Paul, never seems to have encouraged Jewish Jesus believers to break with Torah. My point (and I think the bulk of scholars would agree) is that the breach between Torah-observance and Jesus-followers was never uniformed and perhaps took a few centuries in some places. Certainly some Christian groups appear to have been Torah observant for some time (and I know of some who still are).

As for the wording. I suppose is is almost true (there's an exception to every rule) to say ALL Christians eventually abandoned Torah-observing, but it would quite wrong to imply that all, or perhaps even most, of Jesus' immediate followers did. --Sandy Scott 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, thanks for changing it. But we need to work on this further. Because for 'disciples' most people will read 'the 12' or at least his immediate followers. The best evidence is that they actually remained Torah observant. (Well, certainly James did, Peter is less sure). Acts 10 has Peter seeing all foods as clean - but the context is about eating with gentiles. Galatians (which is probably more historical, as a primary source) suggests Peter was still refusing to do so. The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 makes no sense unless the the Jewish followers (including most of the 12) were Torah observant, and at least considered requiring gentile converts to be so too. I wonder that I might suggest "the eventual abandonment of the Jewish law by Christians, and their worship of Jesus as God....". That keeps the sense that (basically) the whole of Christianity did "eventually" move away from observance. However, it doesn't imply anything either way about Jesus or his immediate followers, on which the evidence is open. It also doesn't suggest that this 'eventually' might not mean in some cases several decades even generations later. (Actually, "some of" Jesus' "followers" DO observe halakha today - but that's an insignificant minority, who might merit a footnote at best)--Sandy Scott 09:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:SalaYGomez.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SalaYGomez.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 88.160.247.46 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

King David's tomb
Thanks a lot for the great copy-edit there... article can be expanded. Amoruso 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling reversion in Richard Nixon
Sorry about that - of late there has been a spate of editors changing perfectly acceptable British spellings to their American equivalent; the reversion was an instinctive reaction without stopping to recognise that the article was about an American topic. Cripipper 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hey Ян
I was not trying to imply that anyone did anything deceptive or whatnot by fixing the link and removing the quotes - this is how my edit summaries will usually look like. As for the apostrophes/accents, there is a convention on Wikipedia about names in Hebrew (after numerous discussions the policy itself wasn't finalized, but many conventions were agreed on), which states that there shouldn't be any special signs before an Ayin at the beginning of the word, or anything at all differentiating it from Alef. See Naming conventions (Hebrew). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin opinion needed
Hi Tomer: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon
There's yet another AfD. Thought you might like to know. &mdash;Hanuman Das 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hivaoa map.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hivaoa map.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou
Hi Tomer: Latest chutzpah at Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian rabbis
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 14:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future.  (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though!  It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars.  I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not.  If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship.  The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber.  Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.)  Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nendo map.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Nendo map.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Near islands.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Near islands.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nwmarqs.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nwmarqs.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion
Hi Tomer! A WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thanks, IZAK 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:


 * 1) No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
 * 2) WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
 * 3) So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
 * 4) What will members of other projects, such as WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
 * 5) Note: WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
 * 6) It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
 * 7) Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Frummer creates User:Jesus
Hi Tomer: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi Tomer: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tahuata.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Tahuata.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Potential problem on Solomon's Temple
Hi Tomer! One User:Nnatan, after repeatedly posting some content and links which other editors removed as inconsistent with WP:RS, replied to a vandalism warning on User Talk:Nnatan with a reply on Talk:Solomon's Temple which appears threatening. Should we wait until this editor actually does something to the article or should some action be taken now based on this statement? Perhaps things may calm down. Shavuah Tov, Chodesh Tov, and hope you had a Chanukah Sameach. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Seasoned greetings
My God (should he exist), Tomer, I didn't know you were still around at all. I came to Talk:Wikiproject Judaism from other places where JoshuaZ, JMabel and others were engaged in vigorous defence of good sense, and I find you! Is חג אורים שמח לכולם an appropriate greeting in this festive season? (I wish I had got a little further in my studies of Hebrew...) كل عام وإنت بخير, in any case! Palmiro | Talk 23:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (in the meantime, I have lost all desire to ever look at your recent contributions again. Just so you know... Palmiro | Talk 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC) )
 * That would be "kull `aam wa-inta bi-khair", literally, every year and you well. Standard salutation for annual festivals. The Irish being a more pessimistic lot, the local version is "go mbeirimis beo ar an am seo arís", meaning "may we reach this time alive again". Very interesting webpages, by the way! Palmiro | Talk 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Three pilgrimage festivals
Hi Tomer: See Talk:Three pilgrimage festivals. Be well. IZAK 00:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs
Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."

Thanks! Killdevil 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mala Zimetbaum and millions of Holocaust victims and survivors
Hi Tomer: How notable is this person Mala Zimetbaum, and does she deserve an article of her own? There were millions of Holocaust so should they all get their own articles now? Doesn't that trivialize the event? Seems that if someone gets to write a book or gets mentioned somewhere, they then "automatically" become notable. What do you think? IZAK 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Messianic Judaism
Template:Messianic Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I do not expect that a failure of the RfA will negatively impact my participation in Wikipedia. And I in the event that the RfA passes, I would like to believe about myself that I would be worthy of the trust given me and that I would seriously consider all criticisms. (I would like to believe that I do my best to consider criticisms even as a non-admin :-). Thank you again for your comment, and have a good new year. Sincerely, --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't take it personal at all. Sincerely, --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why.
Hey Tomer, I left you a reply on Yao's current RFA, found at WP:RFA. I would be interested in hearing your opinion. Thanks!  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people
Hi Tomer: Have you ever had a close look at this strange article: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. The heading stinks. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? I doubt that the originators of this article and those who worked on it have rational objectives. It should be merged with something else involving Adolf Hitler or even deleted for its stupidity. (If not, how about Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Tomer, I saw your reaction on Izak's page and the templates you added to the article. I have AfDd the article. gidonb 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, seems this is a case of "here today, gone tomorrow." IZAK 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments
See: Talk:Kavod HaBriyot. Thanks, IZAK 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rambam was a "Muslim" for a while?
Hi Tomer: Ever heard of this? See List of Muslim converts: "Maimonides - Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician forced to convert to Islam under pain of death during the Cordoba massacre of 1148. Reverted to Judaism when his life was no longer under threat. " I don't see which book by "Lewis" is even cited here, and does "Lewis" even say that? (I assume this refers to the Arabist Bernard Lewis.) I had once heard that the Rambam did issue a heter for this kind of procedure (it must be written somewhere) but I had never heard that it had also happened to himself personally. I read an article in the English Yated a couple of years ago that the Mashhadi Jews in Iran relied on such a ruling from the Rambam, and that it was controversial, yet acceptable according to Halachah. Can you help with verifying this, especially if it happened to the Rambam? Thanks. IZAK 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Yao's RfA
Yes I'm willing to remove the comment or strike it out, which ever you will agree with. Alex43223Talk 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, I removed it from the page. Have a good one, Alex43223Talk 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mala Zimetbaum
Thanks. Never heard of her before either. --Shirahadasha 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Maimonides from the list
See my responses at Talk:List of Muslim converts. Thanks, IZAK 04:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops
Yup, you were right. Dunno how I left that one out. Thanks for fixing it. Heimstern Läufer 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: your RfA
Please be kind friend. How do you think I don't accept criticism? I welcome you point out my typos, but don't be deliberately mystifying (i mean those 2 errors or 3 errors). Yao Ziyuan 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Comment
Ho Tomer! Do you recommend that I withdraw the RfA or that I refine my answer to Question 1 to better explain the reasons for it? I value your advice. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. IZAK hasn't commented yet, and I'm laboring under what may be a misapprehension that I'm not supposed to come to people and talk to them first about these things, because I'm not supposed to solicit votes. I really am trying to be even-handed about this, and perhaps I may be being unnecessarily so. Am I wrong? Best, --Shirahadasha 08:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tomer! Had to deal with a "real world" crisis and couldn't get back to Wikipedia until this evening. You had suggested withdrawal in the wee hours of the morning. I appreciate your concern, your prediction is turning out to be accurate. I acknowledge that while I've done basic-level administrative work including deletes, mergers, vanadal patrol, participation in projects, discussions about policies, there are a number of things on the administrative backlog I haven't done, and I haven't done a lot of work with categories, images, templates, and the like. Given the number of people weighing in at this point, and the damage already done by sticking with a failing nomination this far, I'm not sure it hurts me to wait a day or two and solicit additional feedback. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tomer, User:crz had put a Moral Support comment ending in "I suggest withdrawal", and you put a "Strong 2nd" comment right after that. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tomer. I realize they're not most of what I've done, but there's actually quite a lot of vandal-fighting, AfD/AfM, article moves, etc. buried in my edits. Look for example at the history of Bible where I've regularly reversed vandalism and put warnings. I've also very regularly visited WP:AIV and requested blocks (They should be in the history for AIV). I realize I haven't done this as systematically as an administrator could or used very advanced tools, and it's not a majority of my edits, but it's been a regular rather than an occassional subset of what I do. I appreciate the time you've already put into this. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism in Africa
Hi Tomer, I've taken your grammatical advice and flipped the pronouns for groups in Jews and Judaism in Africa to Which instead of Who. The article is clearly in good hands, so I'll take it off my watchlist now. I like the changes you have made, and am glad that some of my own contributions survived the review! Fayenatic london 08:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. If you don't mind I'd like to say something with regard to Sir Nicholas' Q11. We seemed to have different interpretations of the question.  My understanding of the question was that he created the AfD in userspace as a sample, i.e. that it was not the "real" AfD.  Your interpretation seems to be that it was created as a test to see if I would catch that it was an invalid AfD and would be inappropriate for me to edit.  Are you still fairly confident that it was intended as a trick?  With regards to "mealy-mouthism", I hardly think it is mealy-mouthed, or an attempt to please people to state that I would not close such an AfD and give the reasons why.  The actual AfD had been brought up three times, each time with a preponderance of poorly supported keep.  I would think the objective at that point would be to definitively settle the question.  Given my non-neutrality on the issue and my lack of sufficiently broad respect and authority, I cannot help but believe that my closing the AfD would not help to settle the matter but would serve to delay final resolution.  I'd be interested in a response to this.  Sincerely, --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny Swastika
Hi Tomer: Take a look at these templates: with the displayed prominently. Honestly, of all of Hinduism's symbols' did this one have to get "headline" billing on these templates? Alternatives are aplenty if one were to look around on articles listed on Hindu Deities and Texts where there are dozens of less offensive symbols that could be chosen for the same purpose. While the swastika may be ok with some Hindus, it should not be flashed around "in all innocence" because for the rest of the world that was caught up in World War II it was the symbol of literal EVIL, DEATH and DESTRUCTION emanating from the Nazis. It was Hitler's personal diabolical "symbol of choice" and for that reason it is VERY far from neutral, no matter in what context it is used. It violates Civility to have it displayed in such an "in your face" fashion on these Hindu templates, giving it a dubious "place of pride" it does not deserve. Need one say more? IZAK 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hindu Links (top left)
 * Hinduism small (bottom)
 * HinduFestivals (top right)
 * Hindu Deities and Texts (top right)
 * User WikiProject Hindu mythology (left)


 * Hi: NOTE: Talk about this is now centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. Thanks. IZAK 02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

minor correction
That's 'Ms.' Freisling. And we are in agreement regarding the absurdity of some of the arguments raised in that thread -but I'd ask you not to sum up my position as being based on my family history. If you read my comments, I made very clear that my family history was not a primary factor - the misrepresentation of the swastika as 'the second most revered symbol in the world' and similar misrepresentation in the percentage of Hinduism templates employing the swastika are at the core of my argument. In any case, thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

POLL
I'll admit it, your addition is a better choice than "keeping". I don't see what the problem is. No one had a problem with this issure until IZAK went crazy on us. I'm an athiest, but I think everyone is entitled to religious freedom. Screw "Political Correctness"!(Ghostexorcist 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
 * No, Ghostexorcist, screw "nonsensical polls", misleadingly titled 'Consensus'. Your comment here that the 'third option' is a better choice clearly warrants the poll's removal - but since you reverted my removal of it, I fear you won't have the courage to admit it's a bad idea and remove it yourself. Care to prove me wrong? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Extreme bad faith?
What the hell are you talking about? Check the page's history again. That wasn't me! (Ghostexorcist 06:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Huh? I hit the "+" when I created my poll comment. How did I delete someone's edit? If I did, I did not mean too. (Ghostexorcist 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC))


 * He deleted the "consensus" from the page, so I revereted it back. That was the vandalism I commented about. I looked in the edit history and saw that he had left a comment. I was unaware of it. (Ghostexorcist 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Not sure I understand what you meant on my talk page
But my 'dinner table' comment was a joke. Hope it didn't hurt your feelings... maybe we can sit down and have a nice chat sometime.



-- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Shavua Tov and...
...see my reponse to your outburst at User talk:IZAK. Thanks, IZAK 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Beaver Damage
Thanks for your note. I'm not an admin, so I couldn't delete it on sight, or I probably would have. It was funny reading your message as you obviously went through the exact same sequence of thoughts that I did. At first, I concluded it was patent nonsense and put it up for speedy deletion. However, I took a look at the WP:PN criteria and realized that hoaxes don't qualify. I was then surprised to learn that hoaxes, apparently even obvious ones, don't qualify for speedy deletion. Seems like there should be some quicker way to deal with obvious patent hoaxes. Anyway, it's probably not necessary, but you could endorse the prod with a prod-2, if you want.--Kubigula (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI - Crz pointed out that WP:CSD says you can speedy delete "obviously ridiculous" hoaxes, though WP:HOAX suggests otherwise.--Kubigula (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Jew
You're right, the procedure of conversion is not the article. But there's considerable history of notable conversions from Judaism to Islam, from one of the wives of Oso haIsh, to the Rambam it appears, to Shabsi Tzvi etc. I think that history deserves an article of its own. crz crztalk 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So go close it 'keep' and let's hold a renaming discussion on talk. I am not wedded to my original choice. crz crztalk 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to sign the closing statement. crz crztalk 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Jew
I missed the AfD close by minutes, as it took me so long to research and write my response. This is what I wished to post:
 * Delete. The article reeks of OR. Where is the citation for notable sources using the neologism? Islam regards (and welcomes) converts, regardless of origin. They become Muslims, not "Muslim Jews". Likewise for Judaism, which either denies the legitimacy of outbound conversion, or regards such converts as Muslims (depending on strand of Judaism). Judaism is very "hot" on the fact that there's no half-way house, hence the often vitriolic responses to "Jews for Jesus". Other than points to this article, or places where the words should have commas between them, I struggled to find relevant hits on Google, other than this which used "muslim Jews" in the title, but nowhere in its text. Delete as OR. --Dweller 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

--Dweller 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomer....
Tomer? Is that short for something? MetsFan76 06:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok ok..gotcha. MetsFan76 06:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll
Stop assuming bad faith, that wasn't a vote so I didn't treat it like one, that was an opinion that the poll was useless, it is enough for you to say that once. You should understand the result of this poll doesn't mean ANYTHING, I just want people to know what we are discussing.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi...
Hey Tomer....Whats WP:ubio? MetsFan76 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez I should have gotten that one lol. Actually I have been looking up what you asked of me.  Do you want to switch to instant messenger if you have one?  It might be easier to go over this. MetsFan76 05:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll be waiting. MetsFan76 05:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha-Redeye: Jewish "Swahilis"?
Hi Tomer, do you have any idea if this article Ha-Redeye really adds up? Thanks, IZAK 08:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Penangite Jews
Actually, the sources seem to back them up, though I've never actually heard of a community there. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Penangite" seems a common adjective to refer to people who live in Penang. So it's not BS in the sense that "Penangite Jews" seems as appropriate as "New Yorker Jews" or "Berliner Jews". Maybe a rename to Jews of Malaysia or something like that would be better? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Julie Nelson
Since we're talking about sources, where is your source about when she was at school? According to their official website Julie Nelson was Miss MN USA 1988 and it seems unlikely looking at her bio that it would not be talking about her, particularly since the age bracket seems about right. It could of course just be a coincidence... I can't find a pageant picture of Miss Minnesota USA that year so am pretty much flying blind. Have left it as you edited until I can figure it out, but have reverted your removal of the image (replaceable fair use now tagged for deletion). -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops got my words twisted... reverted your re-adding the image! Anyway sounds like you're right and it was just a co-incidence... -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  01:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha-Redeye was voted for deletion in Jan 2006 !
Hi Tomer: Here's an administrative lapse. I was going to nominate Ha-Redeye for deletion, and as I started the process of placing the deletion tag on the article's page, guess what came up? This: Articles for deletion/Ha-Redeye. So why wasn't it deleted, or was please look into this matter. Thanks a lot. IZAK 08:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems recreated this article in September of 2006. So what's the procedure now? Does it get automaticaly deleted again now (by WP:PROD perhaps) or do we need to go through the whole procedure of a WP:AFD? IZAK 09:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hochschule
CAN I GET A LITTLE TECHNICAL HELP?

Someone mixed up two articles that have nothing in common. These should be two seperate articles and, it seems, someone a while back mixed the two together and added redirect from the former to the latter. I need some help to clean this up, undo the redirect, and make sure that this is not labeled as a massive delete VANDALISM.

There was a Neolog rabbinical school in Berlin that was attended by Solomom Schechter and AJ Heschel called "The Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, or Higher Institute for Jewish Studies, was a rabbinical seminary, established in Berlin in 1872"

There is also the entire field of the academic study of Judaism started by Wolf, Jost, And Zunz and then continued in MANY MANY schools and seminaries called Wissenschaft des Judentums ("the science of Judaism").

The former is Reform, the latter is generic.

Thanks--Jayrav 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Zach... Zech... zzz...
Hi again Tomer, I've set myself a task to rename and disambiguate Zechariah, Zachariah and Zacharias properly. One of the talk pages already suggests using the most common English spelling Zechariah. So, I was going to rename Zechariah as Zechariah (prophet), but realised that this would still be ambiguous because Zacharias is a prophet in Islam. Do you think that Zechariah (Hebrew prophet) is a good title? Please reply here:. Fayenatic london 09:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Yehoishophot Oliver on Tzniut
Hello, I seem to be involved in a revert war with this user. The user seems to be adding a preachy style (stating that what people do "violates the Halakha", replacing claims about what people do do with unsourced claims about what they should do, etc. It's not that I really disagree with his view of halakha here, it's a matter of highly POV tone and style. He responded to my comment on his talk page by blanking the talk page out, so I'm not really sure what to do here. He had been given a number of warnings by others about highly POV edits in various articles and these were also blanked out. Perhaps you or another administrator might intervene? Best, --Shirahadasha 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh...
Hi. The template you mention is not mine; as you may have noticed, the instance you found is from nearly a year ago, when I belive I found it on a list of warning templates (in Wikipedia: space, probably) and assumed it was official. (I was much more of a newcomer myself then!) I wouldn't use it now for any number of reasons. Thanks for your concern. Brendan Moody 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you're curious, that template has a Template: space page here. Brendan Moody 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dikembe Mutombo
Hi, not sure if you're new or not (most likely not, considering the size of your user_talk), but I'd like for you to familiarise yourself on the guide for one of the basic fundamental procedures that must be followed by all on Wikipedia: citing sources.

Your inserted information has to be independently verifiable by others. Given reasons such as "I saw it on TV", "I read it in a magazine/newspaper", "I heard it on the radio", etc., are not acceptable. Published sources only, and they must be adequately incorporated into the article. Thanks, bye. --Downwards 06:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The transcipt of the State of the Union is now available online, and I've added a reference to the article. Zagalejo 07:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reporting Downwards, his rigid adherance to WP:Cite while not full understanding it was a detriment to that article. --BHC 22:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Judaism in Kazakhstan
That's fine. Please improve this article in any way you can. All the pages on religion in Kazakhstan are of poor quality at the moment. KazakhPol 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Karaite Judaism
I appreciate the ask. 2nd Temple history is not my "thing", but regardless the source material in this area online is miniscule and often of suspect origins. So I am not aware of anything that would be cosnidered scholarly and objective. I have my own opinions (including not liking that the Pharisees are the ancestor of Orhodox Judaism since all of the modern major branches of Judaism are descendents of rabbinic Judaism and therefore to single out the Orthodox is not needed), but moreover, I'd think there should be such extra tag next to the Pharisees. There is no similar tag next to any other Jewish group. If people want to learn about the Pharisees, click the link. Same with the Karaites. The list of religions should be sparse IMHO, and explanatory extras (especially ones under debate) should be moved to the individual pages of the groups. So, sorry I don't have "the answer" to resolve the dispute. All the best, JerseyRabbi 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to remind ya
Contrary to the often seen discussion, WP:AGF does still exist, even on RfA pages. Trolling project pages (by your own words) is very close to crossing that line... please try and avoid it :) -- Tawker

Werdna RfA
I think a quote or a diff is missing in your opening comments to your oppose !vote. --Dweller 08:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that this comment constitutes me "trolling your talk page". The abuse you've given me on my talk page is unwarranted. --Dweller 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning
It's utterly unacceptable to refer to other users as trolls. Don't do it again. -- Cyde Weys 09:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What's even more disturbing than your willingness to call other good faith established users trolls is your utter lack of understanding as to why it is a bad thing. It's okay though; you don't have to get it, you just have to stop doing it, or there will be consequences. And don't patronize me by saying I should be more "considerate" or "patient" and that I shouldn't have gotten involved here. It's really very very simple: don't call other users trolls and I won't have to get involved, okay? -- Cyde Weys 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you for being "big" enough to revisit my talk page and leave a message like you did. I'm delighted. Not easy doing that. Cheers, --Dweller 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)