User talk:IZAK/Archive 10

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

New template

So hey...I've started a little project at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Template:Judaism as you can see...please help out in any way you can, or tell me why I should just stop it. :-p Tomer ^TALK 09:56, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Tomer, ok, so I have given a comprehensive response on the Talk page there. Please see it. Thanks. IZAK 05:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yechezqel

It appears the author of that highly speculative article has been quite busy... I see JFW has taken care of the problem already tho...at least in its current incarnation... Kol tov Tomer ^TALK 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamliel

Thanks for creating the Gamliel disambig pages the other day - I was going to start working on some Gamliel stubs this week but was hesitant to start work without a framework in place first. Now here's the problem and I'm turning to you as an obviously senior member of wikipedia and an active member of project Judaism. Even in the Jewish articles, half the time I see it spelled Gamaliel and half the time Gamliel. I personally prefer Gamliel (as you appear to), but I'm hesitant to go about changing the spellings on lots of pages without knowing I'm doing the right thing. (Especially here. There's also a few other spelling inconsistencies in the judaism area (yavne vs yavneh, Rava v Raba_(talmud))I'd like to iron out one way or the other, but don't know which way to go. Is there a particular forum or place I should take this or should I just pick one spelling and enforce it accross the domain of articles? thanks in advance for your advice. --Bachrach44 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Bachrach: Firstly: Wikipedia is not a "finished" product yet, so many times names are not spelled the same in many articles, but one should NOT rush to change things too quickly because there may be good reasons, such as academic traditions versus religious scholarship versus common usage all competing with each other. But things can be worked out in time. Secondly: You are not being careful enough in your research, for example, the first Rabban Gamliel is mentioned in the Mishnah's Pirkei Avot (which makes him part of Category:Mishnah rabbis) and the last Rabban Gamliel lived in the time of the Gemara (and could fit into Category:Talmud rabbis.) So you need to be careful. Finally: How can you confuse Rava with Raba? They are different indviduals completely? This shows again that you are not doing your research well enough to edit articles authoritatively. Please give this matter your serious attention. I suggest that you consult all of the following for your Tannaim and Amoraim articles: User:Fintor, User:HKT, User:Jfdwolff, User:Frikle, User:TShilo12, and User:Nahum (there are a few more) who are all very religiously learned in Judaism and experienced. Thank you. IZAK 11:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • First of all, I'm not confusing Rava with Rabbah - if you'd read the pages you'd see that Rava and Raba (Talmud) are in fact two pages on the same person (debated with abaye, founded academy at machuza/mahuza). The other person who you're thinking of is listed as Rabbah bar Nahmani. This is an example though of the problems that result from not standardizing spellings. There are are currently two spellings of mahuza/machuza in wikipedia. Neither is an article yet, but someone will likely write one of them and never notice the other, which may also develop into it's own article. Also the mishnah is part of the talmud, so I don't see how categorizing Gamliel I as a talmud rabbi is wrong, although I will freely admit that the mishnah category is more specific and narrow so it's a better fit. Anyway, I will go talk to some of the users you suggested. Thanks for your advice. --Bachrach44 03:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Bachrach, thanks for the response. Firstly: When you wrote to me about "Rava v Raba_(talmud)" you did not indicate the Wikipedia links to those articles as you subsequently have now done. When you mentioned "Rava v Raba_(talmud)" it was impossible for me to tell exactly where the location was of that information. Secondly, now that you gave the links for "Rava and Raba (Talmud)" I have unfortunately not (yet) looked at, nor read, those articles (certainly not recently). These kind of editing problems where there are are duplicates of articles are very common on Wikipedia, with many reasons behind them. In such cases articles need to be merged (see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages) and/or redirected (see Wikipedia:Redirect) to only one article that becomes the main article (often there may need to be some discussion about the best method or route of doing so). Thirdly: The question of the standardization of Hebrew naming conventions has been at many times a serious and controversial problem on this English Wikipedia and I advise you to proceed with great caution as many people around here (both Jews and non-Jews) have very different ideas about how to go about this. Some want more "anglicised" (English-sounding) names. Some want Hebraic "academic" usages. Some want common Israeli usages. Some want only Sefardic usage and others want some Asheknazic pronounciations to be mentioned as well. It's a tough area! Fourthly: Of course I know that the Mishnah is part of the Talmud, but the Mishnah is also completely seperate, it came as one complete unit before the Gemora, and can be studied on its own, and often is. So listing those rabbis mentioned in the Mishnah in Category:Mishnah rabbis is perfectly ok and legitimate. The names in Category:Talmud rabbis is actually for the rabbis of the era of the Gemara, which is the main part of the Talmud by far (90% or so at least, maybe more), which came after the Mishnah. Finally, I am glad that you will contact the users I have suggested. They are all good editors, writers and resource people dealing with Torah subjects on Wikipedia from a traditional Jewish perspective. Feel free to contact me at any time here. Best wishes and Kol Tuv! IZAK 15:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Project Judaism

• Hello Izak sorry but I accidently responded on your user page first but here is the message I wrote- Hello Izak that you for the welcome and for the invitation. I would be happy to contribute to the project. Please reply on my talk page with the details of what I should do. Also, did you know I was a Jew from my user name or my contributions?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 04:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi: I noticed you were making some contributions to certain article that I keep on "my watchlist" link, and I saw your user page and some contributions. The name "Julian Diamond" seems Jewish so I assume it is a true reflection of who you are, so pardon me if I have made an error. The "Project Judaism" is very open-ended, just browse around and see what's on it, maybe you can latch onto something that interests you. Best wishes. IZAK 11:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• No you are right, I am indeed Jewish though I am secular, I was just curious if it was obvious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Also in reply to Gilgameshes craziness: As a Jew I am kinda embarrassed to admit but I don't read a word of Hebrew. I do kinda resent how the church of latter day saints have attempted to hijack our history but I don't really think I can add that to the discussion. Thanks for notifying me though. P.S. I changed my username to what was my nickname on my former account so please talk to me on this username in the future, Thanks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• The debate does not entirely depend on if you read Hebrew or not, it's essentially about how Hebrew TRANSLITERATED (aka ROMANIZED) words should be written on Wikipedia in a common format known to most readers, or should Wikipedia swing in favor of Hebrew lingo used only by "specialists". For example, do you think that Kibbutz should eventually land up as "Qibbutz"? Or should Tikkun olam stand a chance of being transliterated as "Tiqqun olam"? This is mostly about English (and common sense) and not so much about Hebrew believe it or not. IZAK 03:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

your attention requested

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tomer ^TALK 06:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Academic professionalism

(Congratulations, you made my WikiStress rise for the first time in months.) Speaking in a POV manner for a moment...I rather resent it being assumed and claimed that I am somehow trying to destroy everything that's good and pure in this world. That is not the way to participate in a Wikipedia discussion. It doesn't matter who the other side of the debate is—it doesn't matter if he worships Moloch and eats newborn infants for breakfast, lunch and dinner—you should respect the differences of other editors and not treat them like their singular goal is to destroy your world. Granted, there are people who would like destroy you or me or anyone else, but they don't belong here—the academics do. Returning to an NPOV mode... Please, if you cannot make edits or participate in debates without attacking the character of a user whose edit you oppose, I constructively suggest that you log out and not return until you can make an edit and express your editorial points without personal attacks. Your invaluable academic knowledge (and I as an editor acknowledge that you do have a lot of it) belongs here, and everything else must be left at the door on your way in. If you have good points, they should be able to survive group concensus and stand on their own empirical credentials. Another thing—in common practice, it is considered to be in incredibly poor taste to spread the same identical debate to more than one place, especially when not everyone involved in the subject of the debate are aware of nor can manage so many forked threads at once. In English, if I recall correctly, this kind of situation is popularly called "playing mommy against daddy," as it is generally associated as something only children do when they're afraid they won't get the outcome they want if they only talk about it in one place—it is generally frowned upon in adult society, because it tends to foster confusion and counterproductivity in a group of people, especially when not everyone is aware of who else is involved in the discussion. If you want to bring multiple people into one subject of debate, please bring them to one organized venue where all may participate in one thread—there is no need to clone the thread and start it in many places at once. - Gilgamesh

• Calm down! IZAK 03:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • IZAK: Please listen to Gilgamesh here. -- Olve 17:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Davidic line

This article could use your attention. It's being used as a vehicle for propaganda for an obscure Bahá'í sect. It'll be obvious. MARussellPESE 18:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If it really is a part of the Bahá'í theology, then they have every right to have it mentioned as such. Let all the information be out...but be sure it's NPOV, so that Jewish, Samaritan, Christian, Islamic, Bahá'í, scientific, atheist, etc. theologies are described as belief and not fact, and no one has more empirical credibility nor importance of place of mention than any of the others. - Gilgamesh 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No it's not part of Bahá'í theology. Please see the talk page. Out of respect, I'm loathe to go stomping on a page integral to Judaic studies. To me, IZAK, as original author, takes precedence. MARussellPESE 20:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, there you have it. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The disputed passage/s are now on that article's Talk page until the matter can be factually clarified. Thanks for for informing me. IZAK 03:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bobov POV

I understand your frustration, but I'm not sure we should protect these pages. This is not vandalism - it's POV pushing, dirty laundry and probably original research as well. Please monitor the articles like you've been doing, and try to engage the editors in a discussion on the talk page. In my mind it's a chillul Hashem beyond measure that groups of Chassidim see it fit to publicise their succession quarrels onto a medium for the general public. Or perhaps it's not the Chassidim themselves but busybodies looking for a fight. I suspect the latter, actually. JFW | T@lk 07:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bobov Rebbes

It looks like JFW saw your request before I did. I'll take a look at the articles today. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ustinov Jaffa

• Hi, If you do a Google search http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&q=Ustinov%20Park%20Hotel%20Jaffa it gives 410 references.

Among them government sites like http://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/English/Tourism/Sites/AmericanGerman.htm and the best hotels, such as the “Do Park Hotel”, owned by Baron Ustinov (Grandfather of Peter Ustinov, the actor), which was renowned for its large, beautiful garden, where monkeys and parrots roamed free and the archeological museum in it., etc. I can not believe they all lye, although it is probably easier to verify facts from Israel than from Australia. abakharev 03:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your response. Not all of the "410 references" are about the Jaffa Ustinov, but a few of them seem to be authentic enough. Thanks for the clarification. IZAK 03:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Beth Din

I recently made some additions. I was hoping you could have a look. Klonimus 03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Kadima

Just wanted to thank you for being a large contributor to the WP understanding of Sharon's new party - it's good to have information and background to the event. At the same time though, I'd just ask if you could try to watch your step a bit, at times the writing style seems to delve into a bit of "Another sign of Sharon's skill..." which could be considered your point of view (POV). Great work though, much thanks! Sherurcij 06:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I have to wonder what you mean by "watch your step a bit"? Is that a threat or an insult or both? Me-wonders!? If I write that Sharon has "skill" in building Israeli coalition and unity governments, how is that "POV"? What is it if not a "skill"? A "handicap"? A "failing"? A "tendency"? ( I give up...) I didn't write "he did a fantastic / wonderful / outstanding / amazing / excellent / superior / great job" did I? It is no virtue to "hate" Sharon either you know, which from your comments I gather that you most probably do (why is that? has he done anything bad to you lately?), and that to hate Sharon, to my very clear and rational mind, is an ouright POV, wouldnt you agree? Or are you too far lost in your own prejudices? So I suggest that it is you who should "watch your step Mr." before I (metaphorically-speaking of course) kick your (theoretical) behind! Gotta get 40 winks now... Bye for now... IZAK 09:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  It's not a threat or an insult at all, it's a word of advice. And yes, saying "Sharon has skill" is just as POV as saying "Sharon has failings", whether or not somebody has "skill" is a subjective decision, and as such, does not belong in an encyclopaedic article. As per my personal opinions, though I'm not deeply entrenched in Israeli politics, I actually much prefer him to Netanyahu, and have never found any reason to dislike him. Don't assume just because somebody doesn't want POV in an article, they must therefore hate the person. I would leave the exact same message for anybody who wrote "Sharon proved a failure when..." in the article. Sherurcij 12:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  Sherurcij, these are the sort of comments you should try to avoid between now and the next time you're up for RfA... Tomer^TALK 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sherurcij:What you are saying is that "it is best to say nothing, or something meaningless in this case", which would then satisfy your own ludicrous "standards" for what is and is not "POV" on Wikipedia. How else would you say that Sharon has been able to do what almost all politicians in Israel cannot do, by building strong political parties and alliances? Personally, I just think that you have an axe to grind on this topic and are covering it up with recourse to twisted and false use/s of "semantics". IZAK 06:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

אחורה-פנה

Speaking of קדימה, I found the following two false predictions mere days before the announcement particularly amusing. A Sharon opponent in ''[http://tinyurl.com/dl76m Haaretz]'' (last paragraph): "...Peretz also managed to, in pratice, prevent Sharon from leaving [Likud]. A new party is not founded in a month..." And then, from a known Sharon sycophant in this week's Yoman, also dismissing the aforementioned prospects (50 minutes into the show): "...Likud's unity is strong..." Once again proving that fortune-telling is a harsh mistress. El_C 06:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

To continue this conversation I'm having with myself, on this week's Yoman, the regular host ( גאולה אבן) who was absent that week, was having a good time with our Uri (who she is not at all fond off), citing his statements above in response to his expected 180 degree turn, praising Sharon and less so the hitherto "strongly-united Likud." Amusing tragico-comical exchanges ensued. Talk about אחורה-פנה. El_C 06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been reading and following your comments here, no self-deprecation is needed. Well, by now, Kadima is on the verge of becoming "unwieldy", all within one week. The MKs are climbing on board... like the animals entering Noah's (Arik's) ark before the great flood ... IZAK 04:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice. :) Alas, it is only through self-deprecation that I can even come close to faking humility. Anyway, now it looks like there's a strong chance Peres will join Sharon's new party — who would have thunk it? I sure didn't. El_C 07:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Coalition politics writ large, and for Sharon and Peres it's the old Ben-Gurion Rafi crew to the helm as ever (they will never hand Israel over to the Sephardim...that is guaranteed whether it be in Likud or in Labor). It's a nice political show at any rate, Broadway could not invent this stuff, even if they hired the best and brightest script writers. IZAK 07:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Broadway sure has a lot to learn from Israeli politicians about showmanship and acting, that's for sure. Did you hear about Sharon and Peres' joint 17-billion shekel plan for the Negev? The last grand attempt in taming the wildreness by the last great Mapaynikim. Yet somehow, I strongly suspect that quite a few "unrecognized" Bedouin villages (some of which were in existence before the pre-independence era) will fall victim to that programme (i.e. recolcated to the appropriate reservations). El_C 07:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

By Jove, yes, the Negev, the holy soil in which (Arik's and Shimon's prime mentor) Ben-Gurion (and his wife Paula Ben-Gurion) are buried at Midreshet Sde-Boker after he had toiled in his beloved Kibbutz Sde-Boker surely they deserve a posthumous Garden of Eden (a secular one of course, built with Thai and Arab labor, alas) to surround them. Actually, I think the Bedouins will benefit, more Israelis and tourists to rip off with camel rides and trinkets etc. But you know, it's George Bush that is causing all this. Uncle Sam is building huge airfields and bases in the Negev already, as we tap-tap away right now on our key-boards, so don't blame Shimon or Arik for doing the bidding of their rich Uncle George who is the one pushing hardest for a Palestinian state. Like that old satire and movie about WWI, Oh! What a Lovely War, have you heard of it? (now there's a case of show-business trying to portray Realpolitik). IZAK 07:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I doubt many of them will profit from it if history is any indication (and I don't just mean culturaly); more like being caged in special towns. Mostly, the plan isn't economically sound, judging again, through many examples of the prior attempt. But, yes, of course the U.S. will dictate much of the final terms (for anything), what else is new under the sun. Back to the Sephardim (and speaking namely of Peres versus Peretz), I really do think it's more about money this time than ethnocentrism, though of course the former continues to play an important role. El_C 08:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberalism

Would you consider changing your vote to speedy keep so we can get this over with? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Done, Ok. IZAK 08:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Neofascism and religion#Judaism

This is just a rehash of the former articles Judeofascism (deleted and now a redirect to List of political epithets) and Zionazi (changed to a redirect and protected). Tomer^TALK 05:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You will, alas, need to read this

Please take a stand against hate on WP. [1] BrandonYusufToropov 12:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish classical musicians

Hi, I support your objections to some of these categories, i.e. Jewish Americans and Jewish American (occupation). However, I feel strongly that you misrepresented the previous consensus which was on categories which class Jewish people by country only, not which categorize Jewish people by occupation. I created the category Jewish classical musicians, and I don't really see how this is frivolous as Jewish people have made a very significant contribution in this field. I think that Jewish baseball players is too specific as I would be similarly against Jewish violinists/bassoonists for example. Arniep 14:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Arniep: Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15 and you will see that there were EIGHT categories listing Jews by occupations, the fact that they were American makes no differnces, the point is that their categorization by PROFESSION was rejected, as in for example Category:Jewish American musicians which was nominated for deletion because there is already List of Jewish American musicians and its part of Category:Lists of Jewish Americans as well. These lists and categorizations of Jews are dangerous, because soon someone will make a list of "Jewish" communists, "Jewish" Christians, "Jewish" athiests, "Jewish" Satanists, "Jewish" criminals, and G-d knows what else... that have no connection to real Jewishness as such. I used to favor such lists and categories in the past when they were reasonable and under control, now it's getting totally crazy. You are going to have "Jewish" "everythings" soon, it will make being truly Jewish meaningless, and there will be no end to the madness. Is this what an encyclopedia shoud be? IZAK 05:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"If I forget thee Jerusalem..."

You've posted a spectacular picture, but what does it show? It shows Al-Aqsa mosque (the Dome of the Rock), it shows buildings, walls and stones. And this you raise to the heights of religious imperative?! If that isn't idolatry than I don't know what is. Mind you, I would rather worship the cow -- at least its a living creature. And what a narrow and nationalistic viewpoint! Open your eyes, your mind, your ears. Open your heart!

I cannot see why Tommy Lapid's remarks are not relevant to an article about Kadima. They certainly relate to the article's subject, as do their undertones, which are what probabaly bothered you. But I don't care enough about this to further pursue it. RCSB 02:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• I will answer your last comments first: I re-inserted "Tommy" Lapid's comments into the latter part of the Kadima article where the question of Shinui eventually joining up with the new Kadima party are discussed, see [2] so your complaint is not justified. And you know, for a guy who is complaining about non-Hebrew names, why does he choose to be called "Tommy" and not by his real Jewish name Yosef Lapid? He too is suffering from "selective amnesia" because he forgets that "Tommy" was an important nickname for the pro-Arab British soldiers who were the once-hated British occupiers during the British Mandate of Palestine especially when they blocked the entry of Jews into Palestine during the Holocaust, and as a Holocaust survivor himself, Lapid especially, should not use the name of a British "Tommy" (maybe "Boris" or "Igor" would be better for him, since the Russians let many Jews escape into Russia during World War II.) The man is a total idiot! Secondly, it is unavoidable that any modern picture of the Temple Mount, or of the Western Wall, or of Jerusalem's Old City walls should include the structures built on it during the eras that Jerusalem was controlled by non-Jews. Unfortunately you are focusing on the very superficial aspects of such pictures. If you look at it again, you will notice that about TWO THIRDS of the photo is of the sky, lights, and clouds, and NOT "buildings, walls and stones" (when did you have your vision checked last?), and people don't build those! Furthermore, the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock are not central to this picture, they are blurry parts of a very large cross-section of a larger picture of the Old City. Basically the photo reflects the totality of the Old City in the vicinity of the Jews' holy Temple Mount the way it appears today, more-or-less the way it would appear in the evening (or early morning). When I first visited Jerusalem many years ago, this was the viewpoint that I first encountered. Try to look BEYOND the physical things in the picture, in a "spiritual" way, and then maybe you will latch onto the notion behind "If I forget thee O Jerusalem..." that urges the Jews to always keep Jerusalem in their hearts and minds, no matter what happens to the physical city and regardless of what the Jews' enemies, or perhaps even Jewish enemies of Judaism, may have done to it, because Jerusalem will alays have special qualities that go beyond the physical dimensions. Finally, I don't get what you mean that you would "rather worship the cow" and how that would help any human to "Open your eyes, your mind, your ears. Open your heart"? I mean, a cow produces milk and meat (and manure and leather) but do you really want to be among those who worshiped a "Golden calf" that was real "idol worship". I think you should try to avoid making up your own "religious" arguments, because it was King David who coined the words "If I forget thee Jerusalem..." not me (and he never saw the Temple in Jerusalem built in his lifetime.) Anyhow I think I responded enough to you. IZAK 04:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Noahide Laws in Category:Jewish Christian topics ?

There is a dispute over whether Noahide Laws should be included in this category, anyone with an opinion is asked to express it here: Talk:Noahide_Laws#Jewish_Christian_topics.

• I agree with JFW on that page, and have noted it there. Thanks. IZAK

Is there a way to renominate your Sub-categories of Jewish people separately?

It doesn't seem to be working that they are all nominated at once - since many people are wanting to keep some - delete some. Antidote 21:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Antidote: Thanks for your concerns about the vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25. However, when we had a similar vote in the past, people seemed to manage just fine, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15 and we arrived at an amiable consensus then. I trust that users will be sophisticated enough now to vote for what they want even though it may appear a little confusing at first. Hopefully some consensus will emerge. Therefore I am not inclined to renominate the voting at this time. Thanks again. IZAK 05:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

From the looks of it the categories are going to stay in which case it may be best to delete or clear the extraneous lists like List of Jewish musicians, List of Jewish actors and actresses, List of Jews in Literature and Journalism considering they are pretty much all mentioned in either the category or country lists. Antidote 04:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would NOT recommend deleting anything without prior discussions and/or votes. Some people worked very hard on those lists and I am sure they would take great issue with anything being done to their articles/Lists without proper Wikipedia procedures being applied and followed. IZAK 04:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you

Refrain from saying that the names in the categories of say, Jewish Americans, are already in the "List of Jewish Americans" since that is also the case for Irish-Americans, Norwegian-Americans, German-Americans, Roman Catholics, and so on. I ask you to refrain until you nominate all of the above categories for deletion - as well as all others like them that I have not named - using the reasoning that the names in the categories are already in the appropriate lists. Thanks, I would really, really appreciate it.Vulturell 06:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Vuturell: How can you tell me what to say? If you want to say something do so, but don't tell me what not to say, ok! I don't know what you're talking about, because it's not that we only have "Lists" we also have Category:Lists of Jews which makes the other categories of Jewish people redundant. I am not involved with Norwegians or Catholics etc. What's a "Norwegian-American" or a "German American" in any case? And how are you going to measure the devotion to Roman Catholicism of anyone (maybe they have become Protestants for all you know)? This whole subject stinks, can't you see? In any case, I see that you want to play games. So I will await greater clarification. IZAK 07:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying there is, for example, a category called "Irish-Americans" AND a "List of Irish-Americans" and it's the same for just about every ethnicity and religion. Of course, you just implied that you don't care either way about these but I am telling you that the same standard has to be used for every ethnicity and religion and I am sick, sick, sick, sick of the Jewish categories or articles getting singled out from all the other ones.Vulturell 07:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I know what you're saying, but from what I can tell there is still duplication in the Jewish categories because NOT ONLY are their lists for Jewish people (the "Lists of Jews" ARTICLES are not part of my nomination for deletion), there are also CATEGORIES for those lists, so why do we need TWO categories for the same group of people: As in Category:Jewish Americans AND ALSO Category:Lists of Jewish Americans??? Do all the Irish/German/Catholic/etc groups have double CATEGORIES for their names??? IZAK

Can you never ask me a question about my voting again? Thank you -- JJay 07:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not? You know the old joke: "Why do Jews always have to reply with a question? Answer: Why not?" IZAK 07:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The category "Lists of Jewish Americans" is just an easy way to sort them all in and to navigate them. For example, List of Irish-Americans is too long and needs to be split into several Lists (i.e. List of Irish-American Politicians), in which case it's not unreasonable to expect a similar "Lists Of Irish-Americans" category. I don't see what your complaint is about this category, it's just full of links to specific lists, not an additional listing or grouping of names. By the way, if I had to pick anything I would pick the "Jewish Americans" category to stay and the Lists to be deleted. But we can't do that without applying the same standards for all ethnic and religious categories, still.Vulturell 07:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

So then I am correct then, that at the present there are NOT any "Category:Lists of Irish-Americans"...and we'll worry what to do about them when it happens. But right now we do have two categories for Jews, as in BOTH Category:Jewish Americans and Category:Lists of Jewish Americans. And, over-all, if we have Category:Lists of Jews it is hard to accept that you also need a second category for each Jewish person. That's exactly my point, you don't need to have two categories when one will do. What is so hard to get about that? IZAK 07:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct - because the Irish list hasn't been split yet, like the Jewish list was. Here's the difference - "Category: Jewish Americans" is an actual category and listing of Jewish people, while "Categogry: Lists Of Jews" isn't. It's just a link to the Lists themselves. So you have two sources/lists - the CATEGORY "Jewish Americans" and the LIST "List of Jewish Americans". "Category: Lists of Jews" is just a way to simplify communication between the different, profession-based, lists of Jews. Similarly, we have an actual LIST of German-Americans and a CATEGORY "German-Americans". Two sources for names, just like the Jewish ones. I'm not sure why you're counting "Category: Lists of Jews" since it's just a tool to make it easier to navigate between the names, not an actual list or group of names.Vulturell 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Misty Jerusalem view.jpg

Hi IZAK, I see you cleared the orphan notice off Image:Misty Jerusalem view.jpg. Wikipedia policy doesn't accept fair use images on user pages, because we can not make a clame of fair use there within the context of our project goals. As such, it is a criteria for speedy deletion on english wikipedia if there is a fair use image unused in any article and tagged as such for at least 7 days. --Gmaxwell 09:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Gmaxwell: Thanks for the info. Let me ask you, so what would be the best way to tag either my own image or one that I received from someone via Email on my User page for now (if someone wants to use it for an article that is also ok)? Kindly let me know. Thanks. IZAK 10:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you own the copyright then you tag it with GFDL-self, but if someone has sent it to you via email then you do not own the copyright. If you contact the owner of the image, you could obtain their permission to release it under the GFDL or creative commons licenses, you would need to indicate who the owner is on the image. If the image just came from the internet somewhere and you can't find the copyright holder, then you cant not use the image at all or can only use the image on Wikipedia in limited ways and only in an article. --Gmaxwell 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hi again Gmaxwell: Thanks for your help. I am trying to understand the last thing you said. Could you please point to where exactly the official Wikipedia rule states that "...you...can only use the image on Wikipedia...only in an article"? Where can I read this "rule/s" that even Wikipedia:Fair use pictures are allowed "only in an article" for myself? Thanks. IZAK 02:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Replied on my talk page. Sorry for the late reply. --Gmaxwell 03:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)