User talk:IZAK/Archive 26

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Chaim Shmuelevitz – requested move

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. I have proposed a move of the Chaim Shmuelevitz bio. --Redaktor 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Redaktor: Firstly, for such a simple move, it needn't have been "requested" (especially from people who know zero about the subject.) But what you should have done is discussed the move with a few other Judaism editors (such as those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and those who check in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism) who are familiar with these personalities and naming conventions on Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with your move bacause Reb Chaim was not known to the Torah world nor would anyone in the Haredi world refer to him by his full name of "Chaim Leib Shmuelevitz" so you have made a mistake. It should have been left as it was: Chaim Shmuelevitz. So my question to you is, why were you motivated to do such a thing? And kindly do not start a trend of changing the articles about every last Rebbe and Rosh yeshiva to their full birth names because on Wikipedia the main name for an article is the one by which the person was commonly known and is most famous for. Within the heading inside the bio article/s one then provides full names and others by which that person was known. Thanks for taking this into account. Please see guidelines about this at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Examples (Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton; Tony Blair not Anthony Charles Lynton Blair; Julius Caesar not Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus.) Thank you! IZAK 04:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, IZAK, I am still finding my feet. I didn't know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, so thanks for putting me wise. Anyway, it was unintentional as I did not see the original Chaim Shmuelevitz article until last night, despite navigating through various Mir related articles. When starting my article I naturally used the full name, as is common in learned articles and, indeed, as is used in the source I was working from. In ignorance of WP policy I actually thought my proposal was uncontroversial. We live and learn. Given the WP policy, please change the article back to its original title. --Redaktor 09:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Rav Joseph Soloveitchik.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Rav Joseph Soloveitchik.gif. 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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 81.193.139.171 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.yu.edu/ IZAK 17:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Neatrality

I've nominated Dor Daim to be checked for it's neutrality. From what I know of it, its a hardline group disassociated from all Jewish denominations, a cult, and according to most rabbonim Milchemes HaShem is apikorses, so plz do your magic on it. frummer 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi FrummerThanThou - I skimmed it over and I don't get what the main problem is? Who reads those seforim in any case, there is a lot more "apikorses" on Wikipedia. Anyhow, I don't "do magic" -- I work my tuches off on Wikipedia, if you haven't noticed, and now I must get some sleep. IZAK 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion cat

The problem with that cat is that Kurdistan is not a country, it is a controversial geographical region. There will be a lot of WP:V issues, since you would also have to show that a specific religious topic is covered as being part of "religion in Kurdistan", instead of religion in X country. Believe me, the potential for edit-wars is great :) However, pls do not try to treat Kurdistan in line with other countries - it is a simple geographical region. Please be careful about the distinction. Cheers! Baristarim 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Baristarim: Ok, so it's not a country, it's a region with a recognized name. Thus Category:Religion in Kurdistan gets to be a sub-category of Category:Religion in Armenia; Category:Religion in Iraq; Category:Religion in Iran; Category:Religion in Syria, and Category:Religion in Turkey to be more precise, but it does not get wiped out. How can "edit wars" reject the reality of that? IZAK 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That is also the problem: it is not a recognized name. It is a controversial name that is occasionally used by geographers. In fact, it is so contoversial that not only Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran dispute its borders and definition, but it is also disputed by other indigenous peoples like the Assyrians (see Assyria) and the Armenians (See Armenian Highland). Should we also create a Religion in Anatolia or Religion in the Armenian Highland for example? No - since such categorization implies specificness that Kurdistan lacks. Listen, I know the politics behind it and everything, but there is not much Wikipedia can do if there is no such "state" called Kurdistan. The category is grounds for WP:V issues: how are we supposed to decide if something is in Kurdistan, and if and how that aspect in question relates to Kurdistan specifically as far as the demographics are concerned.
  • And it doesn't make much sense to direct it to Religion in X country cats, there are sub-cats such as Category:Religion in Istanbul etc. They do not pose a problem because they are strictly defined: it is a city, simply put. I reverted and re-reverted the addition of religion in X cats to give it some time for reflection though. It is already linked to Cat:Kurdistan in any case.
  • "Reality" is not as clear cut: you will find more Armenians or Assyrians who will dispute the existence and the extent of Kurdistan more than Turks or Iranians, with much stronger academic and historical facts btw :)) All I am saying is, even if the cat stayed, you will see that there will edit-wars in a wide range of articles for the inclusion of that cat in them. It will simply stay as a dead cat IMO. That's all.Baristarim 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Baristarim: Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content." So if anyone wishes to create articles and categories for the Anatolians or the Assyrians they are free to do so. Now the countries you mention, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran are the arch-enemies of the Kurds so no-one takes them (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran) seriously on this subject -- they are just racist hate-filled military dictatorships (ok, so Iraq is trying to shape up, after Saddam killed a few hundred thousand Kurds -- which only makes the Kurds more well-known than some of the non-entities you mention.) You have no right to interfere with standard religion categories when they are being built up. All I can tell so far is that you are rabidly anti-Kurd and that is just sickening in view of what they have suffered at the hands of Saddam and the Turks. IZAK 13:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?? Did you read Chaldean's note on the CfD? He is Assyrian btw. "racist hate-filled military dictatorships"? "rabidly anti-Kurd"? You don't know me so keep the high-school talk out of here my fellow. After such a show of minimalization and stereotyping bordering on racism, there is no need for me to waste my time on your talk page. Baristarim 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Religion in Kurdistan

Cool Cat: I have some questions for you: How can you nominate a good category, like Category:Religion in Kurdistan for deletion within 22 minutes [1] after I created the category? Secondly, why didn't you have the courtesy to inform me (as the creator of this category) that you were nominating it for deletion? Finally, how on Earth can you say that the "Category is too specific and underpopulated" when many millions of people live in Kurdistan and most practice one religion or another? IZAK 12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy, I monitor the RC feed and when I notice something I feel problematic I act on it. I didn't think "courtesy" would be necessary 22 minutes after the creation of the category as you point out.

Not true. Kurdistan is an undefined region. As far as some sources, it doesn't even exist. Some sources suggest it occupies most of the middle east. So the "millions" of people living there can easily be subjective. On an article/list you can explain why something is considered in Kurdistan (since all sources will never agree), on a machine generated category you cannot do that. A country on the other hand has defined borders and demographics info you can use to base your categorization.

--Cat out 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat: Many regions in the world are "undefined" and over history they get redefined many times over, all usually depending on who wins the last war/s, so cut out the nonsense please. Do you know how many times Alsace-Lorraine has been "German-French-German-French etc"? Or that the Native Americans are historically marginalized in the USA even though they have the longest history in it? The point is that the existence and definition of ethnic/cultural/religious/geographic groups is not an exact science so to resort to false requests for "defined" this-and-that is not just missing the point but is clear-cut obfuscation that is proabably hiding a simple POV prejudice against a group, and in this case it's the Kurds, and my particular focus, the Kurdish Jews that I will not permit to get lost in the shuffling of the decks for no good purpose here. Finally, 22 minutes to nomnate for deletion a category devoted to "Religion in Kurdistan" merely because you think it's problematic is simply not a good enough enough excuse. You could have at least let me know in any case. Thanks. IZAK 14:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be problematic if we had a Category:Religion in Native Americanistan, it would be fine to have a Category:Native American religions. --Cat out 14:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are being obtuse. The Native Americans did not have conventional religions, so you will find that for them there is Category:Native American mythology and Category:Native American religious figures and more like that, and there is no restriction on Wikipedia on the amount of categories for Category:Native American people regardless of the fact that their people's geographic and cultural and ethnic boundaries are in dispute. IZAK 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You can't categories cities based on religion/ethnicity as there would be no end to how many categories we are to put for New York City alone.

By not categorizing New York City with a Native American Homeland we are not suggesting that it was not once Native American homeland. You can say it is Native American homeland in a sentence New York article, you should not be writing the article with categories.

How about an alternate approach: Consider how many categories would we put on Jerusalem... Would you support it being tagged as a part of Arabistan, Muslimistan, Jewishistan, Jewish inhabited region, Muslim inhabited region, and etc..? How about sub sects (Shiia, Sunni and whatever). How many pages of categories would we have?

Actually there are restrictions: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV are required to be observed.

--Cat out 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ha-Redeye

I've never heard of them, and none of the sources he links to appear to mention them. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Brian: That's why I was asking around. Thanks for looking into this. IZAK 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to second that, IZAK... The citations are actually irrelevant, and used quite deceptively. For example, Isaiah 66:2,5 is cited as a source at the end of the sentence Etymology of the name is speculated to come from the Bible meaning "one who trembles in awe of God"...but neither of those verses say anything mildly relevant to this group, nor to speculation about the origin of their name, it just happens that those two verses (as with dozens of others in the Bible) happen to contain the word "charedh". That's nice, but it's completely irrelevant information for this article. I don't have ready access to any of the non-online "references" (if they even exist). The external links seem to continue the pattern of discussing potentially interesting subject matter, none of which seems germane to "ha-Redeye" (as a mildly humorous aside, my first reaction to this article, given the name especially, was to think perhaps someone needed Visine...)... Cheers, Tomer^talk 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ha-Redeye. It was voted for deletion in January 2006, and then came back in September 2006. IZAK 09:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your action on this; being a newcomer I wasn't sure of the etiquette. I've detailed my own concerns about the lack of sources (including offline references) on the talk page of Ha-Redeye. I've also searched fruitlessly for the alternate spellings given. The appearance of "Ha-Redeye" as a person's surname leads me to believe that this article is a spoof, and I fully support deletion. Zahir Mgeni 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Hi Zahir: Thanks for your input. This is probably a WP:HOAX. 12:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. By the time I got your message, it had been taken care of.  :-) Tomer^talk 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Tomer, IZAK 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are countless Yemeni clans that intermingled with local African populations in East Africa. I wouldn't necessarily question the authenticity of this group (which would not likely be cited by European sources anyways due to the proliforation of such intermixture), but I would call into question its notability as cited in the deletion log. Shlomo Mizrahi 05:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 11

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; 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. --Cat out 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• And here I thought I was being so polite. IZAK 08:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

new article

tohu vavohu. check it out. its a pitty you got into a tiff with the wikiproject religion folks, they had an important tast of interwikying the sctructures of the diff religions, which could have been accoomplished with good managemnt. frummer 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi: The "wikiproject religion folks" you refer to was actually only one: User:Badbilltucker, and basically all the editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism agreed that one or two members of "wikiproject religion" who in fact are Christian members of other Wikiprojects should not be allowed to set themselves up as some sort of uber-committee to decide what is good or not good about Judaism articles. IZAK 08:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• tohu vavohu's contents and name moved to Creation according to Genesis. IZAK 09:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another gem for your attention

Penangite Jews. Lemme know what you think. My nonsense radar is bleeping like you wouldn't believe... Tomer^talk 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I dunno, doesn't look too bad to me. Lot's of Jews escaped to, and passed by, lots of strange places during the Jewish diaspora, especially in the turbulent nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Besides, golus is my "middle name" so it doesn't look that weird to me, but then again, one never knows unless one is the world's expert on Malaysian Jewish history. IZAK 08:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_11

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Cat out 10:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, I do not see where I am causing any "disruption" -- what am I disrupting? You come here warning me, but I have NO idea what the problem is. Can you kindly tell me EXACTLY what the so-called "personal attack" is that you object to so that I can address it and make you feel more comfortable? IZAK 11:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cool Cat: You persist in coming over to my talk page and warning me about "personal attacks" and "disruptions" yet I have no idea what you are talking about because you do not give me any examples of EXACTLY what you claim are "personal attacks" or "disruptions." So can you be so kind as to let me know what is bothering you and which of my statements you are referring to so that I can then understand your problems with what I am saying (is it my style, content, factual presentation, or what ? -- I have no idea where you are coming from) and so that I can treat you more gently and answer your allegations specifically. Thank you. IZAK 11:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Like what, let's agree to bump off the Kurds from Wikipedia? Sorry that is not my agenda. IZAK 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. You can't accuse people of agendas, racial hate and etc. --Cat out 12:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth is that a "personal attack" on anyone? It's statement that means that I do not wish to be a party to downgrading the reality and factuality of certain subjects relating to the Kurds, and my focus is primarily on Category:Jews and Judaism. You cannot play both sides of the field: Edit in a manner that comes across as an anti-Kurd POV -- or perhaps it's an anti-religious slant of some sort -- (correct me if I am wrong here, but that seems to be the only thing I can conclude from the way you wish to do away with certain categories pertaining to the Kurdish people), and at the same time you try to stop others from calling you on this and expressing their opposition to your views as exhibited by your editing actions. What exactly IS your agenda by the way? I can tell you that mine is to establish and strengthen subjects and categories relating to Jews and Judaism including Kurdish Jews' articles, and in the course of doing this I have been working on a variety of articles and categories, and while I appreciate the reminder that Kurdistan is not an actual country, yet it has more than enough validity and recognition as a cultural/ethnic/religious/political/social/historic/geographic region/area/location/zone/territory/ (it is definitely "on the map" academically and encyclopedically even though it may make some people very angry and cause them to react emotionally for whatever reasons) so that all Kurds can be classified according to their religions, including Category:Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan and its parent category Category:Religion in Kurdistan both of which you nominated for deletion [2] as if religion and Jews and Judaism do not count in Kurdistan, which is just not true. (By the way, just to remind you again, you nominated these two categories for deletion within less than 25 minutes of my having created them [3] [4], and did not even bother to inform me that you had nominated them for deletion, is that normal Wikipedian practice or what? and then you want people to be nice to you!) Is there no religion in Kurdistan? Or Jews and Judaism in its history? I am not a politician and I do not care about the political issues. I approach things from the point of view of history, and history says that there is a Kurdistan and a Kurdish people, regardless of the fact that unlike other national/religious/ethnic groups they were not granted their sovereign territory after the break-up of the Ottoman, British, Russian or Arab empires. The Kurds are no doubt the victims of unique historical circumstances, but Wikipedia is not here to administer some sort of coup de grâce to them, on the contrary Wikipedia must report all the facts, past and present. So that is what I meant by "...let's agree to bump off the Kurds from Wikipedia? Sorry that is not my agenda." Nothing more and nothing less. It is very sad that you consider that to be a "personal attack" of any kind. Thank you for your attention. IZAK 12:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining me your theories and beliefs on the topics involving Kurds and Kurdistan, I do not necessarily share them. I will stay on topic and will not respond to them in a detailed manner.

My complaint was you discussing contributors (in some cases me) on that CfD. When I asked you to stay on topic you made that bump off the Kurds remark as a response. That is not in the spirit of WP:NPA. Furthermore you are still asking about my agenda and weather or not if I am an "Anti-Kurd" or "Anti-Religion" person.

Based on your comments above, I would recommend reading about WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT aside from WP:NPA.

--Cat out 14:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to drop in, but to the cool ;) heads in here I'll try to rephrase it. Cool Cat feels offended when someone calls him antikurd (just like some people would when called antiamerican and consider it rude and uncivil). Izak, you may not see it as a personaly attack, but that's what happen. Could you please try to avoid such remarks? That's all he's asking. -- Drini 01:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are not convinced by my intellectual brilliance, at least you cannot say that I didn't try to explain myself in an intelligent manner. You know Cool Cat it's very easy to cite all these rules and regulations, I know them quite well myself and I could do the same quite often but I don't. I prefer having human discussions with people and I try to understand them. Wikipedia is not a super-robot of some sort (although, like many large Internet entities, it does tend to have the symptoms and attitudes of a cyber-Frankenstein sometimes), rather, it's made up of flesh and blood human editors with real lives connected to real things. I do not really care one way or another what you think, I was merely pointing out to you that based on our edits and contributions a profile emerges and that from that others are able to draw their own conclusions and judge us based on what and how we go about the job of editing articles. So quit preaching to me, because I could just as easily say to you: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but I won't, 'cause as I said, I prefer human to human contact and dialogue and not robotic intonations of rules when one's own conduct is highly questionable. See ya, I gotta get some sleep. IZAK 14:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules only applies to edits made in the article namespace. Even then there is no excuse for incivility and personal attacks. I was not preaching you at all, just reminding of a number of policies. You are welcome to ignore the warnings risking possible unpleasant consequences. --Cat out 16:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but some of your comments are inappropriate in a way that will offend people. This, "You have no right to interfere with standard religion categories when they are being built up. All I can tell so far is that you are rabidly anti-Kurd and that is just sickening in view of what they have suffered at the hands of Saddam and the Turks", is not appropriate. You don't know other users, so don't assume. You also seem fuzzy about the historical details since you are comparing Saddam with the Turks, a whole nation. I was the one who created Turkey-Israel relations, so there is no hidden "agenda" going on. I don't know if you are aware of it but some of your category modifications are really troublesome and are done without knowing the specifics of the subjects as developed in the talk pages of related articles. This issue has nothing to do with a particular race or group. Please keep that in mind. I am sorry, but I can't help but notice that you created some other cats to make sure that the categories that you are interested in are deflected from attention. Please don't say that "you have no right to interfere when the religion categories are being built up". See WP:OWN... Nobody is trying to denigrate someone or a group. Cheers Baristarim 15:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Baristram: I do have wider interests and when possible I edit in those areas as well. I do not try to "deflect attention" from anything since Wikipedia, and its iditors' edits, are a literal open book for all to see. Religion is a legitimate focus of study for articles and category in any region so that focusing on all religions in any place on Earth may be connected to Jews and Judaism if they are to be found or have lived there at any time. You seem to be spending too much time negating religion which is not fair to those of us who understand its importance and impact to human civilization, and the Kurds and Kurdistan are no exception. IZAK 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lutzsk (Hasidic dynasty)

There is no Lutzsk (Hasidic dynasty); please delete the article (it is only a redirect page anyway).--Redaktor 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why should it be deleted since there is a Hasidic group that some know by that name but which is better directed to another? IZAK 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I linked it in the section Links to rebbes of different dynasties to Outline of Lineage of Karliner Dynasty where he can be found. Itzse 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Itzse is absolutely right. the link can be always be made directly to Karlin (Hasidic dynasty)#Outline of Lineage of Karliner Dynasty; there will never be a need for the redirect page (which is spelt wrong as well)--Redaktor 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, zillions of redirect pages are spelled wrong. That's what redirects are there for. IZAK 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely no one is going to guess that spelling! --Redaktor 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. A redirect is here to help solve any possibility. IZAK 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:M Yaalon larger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:M Yaalon larger.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 {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Replaceable fair use disputed: this photo is being used to illustrate a particular point in this person’s career as Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces IZAK 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Same for Image:Dalia Itzik.jpg. Thx. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
    • This nomination makes no sense as the source for the image is clearly given and marked as the Hebrew Wikipedia: "Copied from the Hebrew Wiki at [5] Where it is described as the official Knesset photo." IZAK 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Takkanah

Please see. HKT^Talk 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

HUC Links on the Rabbi Page

I noticed your removal of the links I added regarding the Hebrew Union College on the Rabbi page. Your note said you thought they were "self-advertising." While I am an alumnus of HUC, I want to clarify that the lnks were put up for one purpose: To give an actual citation to a claim on that page. Nearly the entire rabbi page has no citations whatsover. In fact the notes I added to outside sources are the only ones in the article. For someone to claim that Reform and Reconstructionist rabbinical students study sociology and pastoral care should be verifiable. Where is a better source for verification than the school's own course listing for the students? Immediately above in the Conservative Rabbis section (just to pick the first example I see), there is no citation backng up the claims of wha the students study, that women are being ordained, etc. It is listed only based on the author's word. I wanted to make the first small step in putting in citations. If i go tackle that section, JTS wll surely be the first web site I look to verify any claims. So I completely understand your initial concern, but I think these links are the 1st of hopefully many dozen that will verify the various statements made in this article. All the best. JerseyRabbi 13:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi JerseyRabbi: Welcome to Wikipedia. There is a correct way of citing sources and articles. It is not done the way you did it. See WP:CITE about this subject. Thanks, IZAK 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the link. I will certianly adjust the citations to include the references at the end of the text and make sure the format is consistent with Wikipedia style. If I might be so bold as to share a personal reaction from a relative newbie to a veteran, extremely active editor: My citations may have been misformatted, but they certainly were placed with the best of intentions to improve the article. The Rabbi article is completely lacking in substantiated claims. I made a first attempt - and that was what drove me to actually create a professional log-in name to do so. As I was reading articles other articles from the link you sent, I came across one that said we should always assume good faith that someone is trying to help the article, not hurt it. Simply deleting my citations was a bit offputting to me and if another user hadn't restored them so quickly, it might have made me very reluctant to continue editing. I know you were simply trying to keep articles free of perceived biased clutter and (I assume) that was not your specific intention. Since I don't imagine there are a ton of Reform Rabbis editing Wikipedia, I'd think my contributions, however tiny, might be valuable. The advice you give immediately above in directing me to a helpful style sheet so I can adjust/modify the work I contributed is exactly the pro-active positive approach that will encourage me to edit and post and seek advice from veteran editors. Maybe others will join me in substantiating the Rabbi article so it isn't simply a collection of individuals unsourced claims. Again, I appreciate the link and will work in the next week to adjust all my citations properly. Have a great day! (and an early Shabbat Shalom). JerseyRabbi 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Judge Goldstone.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Judge Goldstone.gif. 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 {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done, IZAK 11:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Judaism

Hi Izak! User:Mark3 pointed out in the Talk section that no-one has presented a genuinely Charedi point of view in the article. Do you think you or someone else could take a look at it? Best, --Shirahadasha 02:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Shira: How about what the Torah and the Halakha say? IZAK 11:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• See: Homosexuality and Judaism#Homosexuality in the Torah = "Haredi view" IZAK 11:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2007

Hi Izak. Hope you're doing well. I am not sure if you'd be interested in being nominated for the above position. Please let me know. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Szvest: Thanks for contacting me. I cannot take on any further responsibilities. Thank you for thinking of me. Sincerely, IZAK 13:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your prompt reply. Happy editing. See you around. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure. IZAK 08:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Bet Shira/Micah Caplan

Actually, I didn't nominate Micah Caplan for deletion; I nominated Bet Shira on its own, and User:Jayrav added Caplan to the AfD (see the edit history). I agree that the two should not have been nominated together. I came across Bet Shira when I was newpage patrolling, and, based on Wikipedia policy (WP:ORG (and the proposed policy WP:CONG) and prior precedent, I felt it didn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia, as there was (at the time) no evidence that it was notable outside of the local area. Judging by the many Delete votes on the AfD, a lot of users agree. Although you've wikified the article, there's still not enough sources to demonstrate notability; the only external links are to the synagogue's own website. If, however, you can demonstrate (through the use of further reliable third-party sources) that the synagogue is influential and/or well-known outside its local area, then I will change my vote. I'm not saying it's automatically not notable, but at the moment there's a lack of sources to prove its notability. (Note: I have placed a copy of this comment on the AfD.) Walton monarchist89 13:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Walton monarchist89: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You do not seem to understand the nature and workings of synagogues that do not function like churches and thus whatever is written in WP:CONG cannot really apply. It's apples and oranges. The Jews are a tiny people relative to the rest of the population, and only a minority attend synagogues today, so usually the synagogue is itself a reflection that Jews are notable in that locale from a religious and cultural perspective. Any synagogue represents the accomplishments of its membership (as well as its local and broader communities) at reaching a variety of notability criteria. This is a discussion that will need greater clarification. IZAK 08:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Let us try to keep this discussion centralized at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bet Shira for now. Thanks. IZAK 08:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK fair enough, I think the result of the AfD (keep Bet Shira, merge Micah Caplan) was reasonable. As I said, you have a valid point; as I am neither Jewish nor a resident of the American South, I don't know how notable this particular synagogue is, and I accept that you have more knowledge than me in that respect. In nominating it, I simply judged the content of the article as it then stood (before you wikified it) against Wikipedia policy. I apologise if I made a mistake. If you wish, I will notify you in future whenever I AfD an article relating to a synagogue; I agree that it's usually preferable to have an expert opinion, particularly in cases where the content of the article does not fully reflect the importance of its subject. Walton monarchist89 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Walton monarchist89: Your gracious comments are most welcome. Please feel free to call on me if I can help you in any way. I mean it. I am most impressed with your manner. IZAK 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Hi Cool Cat: I am sorry that you did not have the courtesy to inform me that you were nominating for deletion categories that I had created, such as here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 17#Category:Jews and Judaism by city and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 17#Category:Jews and Judaism by country. In the future, please try to inform users who created articles and categories that you have nominated their work for deletion as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Notes for nominators: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the category that you are nominating the category. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the category." If you ever nominate articles or categories relating to Jews or Judaism, please then post that to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism as it allows users with an interest and expertise in those subjects to participate in discussions for deletion that touch upon their areas of knowledge. Thank you for keeping this in mind. I look forward to your cooperation. IZAK 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As per personal policy I do NOT ever notify anyone when it comes to my deletion nominations. That way nominations are held in an impartial manner with random people commenting on the matter at hand. I am sorry but I have no intention of changing this personal policy. I am saddened that you find it uncivil. --Cat out 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not just IZAK. As you'll see from the guidance notes he's posted, "it's generally considered civil", ie most Wikipedians see it that way. --Dweller 10:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat: Hmmm, your "personal policy" runs directly counter to the following. Indeed as you can note below, in some instances there are even templates designed to let the creators of articles/categories etc know that their work is being nominated for deletion. It's a common courtesy we should all follow as serious Wikipedians. There is absolutely no room and zero tolerance for "sneak attacks" or "stealth warfare" on Wikipedia. Otherwise there can be no trust and chaos is sure to follow if one set of editors tries to do things behind the backs of others that they know have an interest and a stake in the work that they have worked hard to contribute to:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion: "...It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)."
2. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to use this page: "...It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template."
3. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Listing images and media for deletion: "...3. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:idw|Image:Image_name.ext}}
4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Notes for nominators: "...It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the category that you are nominating the category. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the category."
5. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#Putting a stub type on Stub types for deletion (SfD), and what happens afterwards: "...It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors to the stub that you are nominating the stub. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the stub."
6. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Nominating a proposed deletion: "...3. Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ for this."

Thank you for your consideration of this critical matter. IZAK 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that's just advice on one possible way to do things. Cool Cat is completely within his right to do what he is doing. The fact that different editors take different approaches to things on Wikipedia is one of the good things about Wikipedia. As long as his actions are in good faith, there should be no issue. Another great thing about Wikipedia is if he doesn't notify someone else.. YOU CAN. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I have nothing to do with this, but I came across this little dispute and couldn't help but comment on this misconception that people have to notify others about deletion beyond the three AfD steps. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott: That is only your opinion, because any Wikipedian with the slightest moral bone in his body would have the courtesy to let any other editor know that his or her article or whatever he created is about to be nominated. The notion of a public notice is part of intelligent life for most decent human beings and it is unwise to be so dismissive of such an important componenet of what is clearly a key component of Wikipedia:Civility. I always notify others when I nominate even when it goes against me, and regardless of the outcome, it is ultimately Wikipedia that benefits from a fair trial and verdict that avoids looking like a "trial in absentia" or is easily interpreted as a "stab in the back" by a fellow editor that undermines the very foundations of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It's as if one day a person wakes up to find his house eaten away by rats and then is told by the exterminator to "assume good faith" -- not very likely to happen is it now? IZAK 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I have some evil intention when nominating pages for deletion if I do not notify you? --Cat out 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat: No not "evil" -- that is too strong a word, and I doubt that you are capable of such. Yet, the above guidelines make it very clear that it is the right thing to do to let any editor know that you are nominating their work for deletion (remember, this is not just about "me" or "you" this is about the welfare and maintenance of Wikipedia's contents.) If you dislike those guidelines or advice so then that is your business, but it is not a justification for anything on Wikipedia or anywhere in life. In Jewish parlance we would call letting others know about what you were up to when nominating their work for deletion as being a true mensch -- if you don't get it, then I can only hope that you will improve over time. There is nothing more I can say to you at this time, I think I am being very clear, and I hope helpful to you! Sincerely, IZAK 09:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week

I saw you posted on this site recently. Would you mind going there again and voting? Thanks, Happy138 12:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Happy138: Voting for what? Can you be specific please. Thank you. IZAK 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Wasee Panah

I dunno, but the linked image looks pretty crappy... I'll look into it in greater depth when I get home... Tomer^talk 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, IZAK 11:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ramban Synagogue Jerusalem.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ramban Synagogue Jerusalem.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 {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done, IZAK 11:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice family tree

Wow. Nice family tree for Twersky. I didn't know you could do that! Nice work. —Dfass 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Only problem is that it's a Soloveitchik family tree not a Twersky family tree. Rabbi Twersky's only real connection is that he married Rabbi Soloveitchik's daughter. --ChosidFrumBirth 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi all: I did NOT create the "family tree" someone else did (looks like it was User:Eliyak in August 2006 [6] who gets the credit), -- I simply copied and pasted it from Brisk yeshivas and methods#Family tree to the related biographical articles to connect them all, and I added some new info along the way. That's about it. IZAK 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Troll trying to steal my name

Izak, it seems that we have a new user who is pretending to be me, User:RobertKaiser. He follows me from article to article, deleting every minor comment, and attacks me as a "troll". It is a sad joke, one that unfortunately has occured before. This user is not Robert Kaiser.

I find it bizarre that he would even do such a thing now, since I have no time for Wikipedia. For all intends and purposes I haven't been here for a year. What little I do here has to do with stuff like the Renaissance Faire in Tuxedo, New York. Occasionally I check the physics articles. That's about it. I don't have the time to do much more than that. RK 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi RK: Sounds pretty weird to me. IZAK 10:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Rabbi_Soloveitchik_and_class_3x2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rabbi_Soloveitchik_and_class_3x2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done, IZAK 11:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage (Judeo-Christian)

Thanks. zzzz.... Nite! Mathmo ^Talk 12:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Avraham Korman and your nominations of Judaism articles

Hi Baboon: You have nominated the (stub) article about Rabbi Avraham Korman for deletion. Judging by the Hebrew link provided [7] by the creator of this stub and the number of original works of rabbinic literature this rabbi wrote, the rabbi seems to be notable. Why are you taking it upon yourself to judge if an Orthodox rabbi is notable or not? Do you read Hebrew? Do you know much about Judaism? Are you learned in Torah study to make such quick decisions? Something seems to be wrong with your approach and your harsh nominations for deletions of articles relating to Jews and Judaism are becoming a matter of great concern. IZAK 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Do you reserve it for yourself alone to judge the notability of orthodox rabbis? From where do you glean that I made the decision "quick[ly]"? Finally, didn't I list the article myself as the relevant noticeboard, where you saw it and had the opportunity to remove the tag - is that not the best evidence of my good faith. Incidentally, which other articles related to Jews and Judaism have I nominated for deletion? I am pretty sure you owe me an apology. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Baboon: I don't reserve anything for myself on Wikipedia but it is very reasonable and logical to expect editors who contribute to any subjects (or wish to subtract from any subject) to evidence quantifiable and obvious knowledge about any subject they are dealing with. It was your pattern of nominating photos relating to Jews and Judaism, as you have done on my talk page, that makes one think twice as to what all these (proposed) scalpings are really all about. Nothing too complicated, just based on your own actions so far. IZAK 14:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Avraham Korman

Could you please expand the Avraham Korman article with references and the years of his birth and death, if you have access to this information? I noticed that you left a message for the article's creator, User:Joel Samuel Weisberger, asking him to expand the article, but he is comparatively new and may not have seen the message yet. As well, could you please look at his other contributions at Special:Contributions/Joel_Samuel_Weisberger to see whether any of those ought to be expanded? --Eastmain 14:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism template nominated for deletion again.

here. As you were an active contributor in the previous tfd, I encourage you to come again. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)