User talk:IZAK/Archive 28

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

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

From Chosid

IZAK -- thank you. Hope it helps bring balance and apropriate resolution. --ChosidFrumBirth 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• All the best, IZAK 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: your message

Hi, IZAK. I tried sending you an email in response to your concern, but I'm not sure it actually got sent. Did you receive an email from me? If not, I'll try to resend. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, no I did not get an Email from you. Thank you, IZAK 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I resent. --Rrburke^(talk) 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

MedCab cases page

Please don't edit this page directly. The list will be updated by a bot. --Ideogram 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, Sorry, I was trying to figure it out, by adding a case to it. Thanks for the advice. IZAK 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, what happened is you accidentally deleted the case box which the bot uses to add the page to the new cases list. In the future be sure to leave the preexisting parts of the preloaded case page alone. --Ideogram 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said, my sincere apologies. IZAK 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

hello

I think you've been somewhat unfair to me, but if you thought I was uncivil, I totally apologise. It was totally unintentional. Having said that, responding to perceived incivility with incivility isn't really going to leave you looking like the good guy. I'm not a fly-by AfD contributor and I like to think that all my contributions are properly considered... I wanted to properly understand the nomination. Now I do and I'll be happy to respond once I've finished the "homework"! --Dweller 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Dweller, pardon my abruptness. I greatly appreciate your honesty. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Sincerely, IZAK 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New article to tickle your fancy

Izak -- long time no contact (from me), just dropped into wp with a slew of little of things. But I think you will be most interested to know that I added a Bible verse! The Lord protects the simple. Check it out. (Pls rsvp to me, if you'd like.) Anyway, take care. Shalom, l'hitraot. HG 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi HG, good to hear from you. You have not provided the link to that article using [[ ]] All the best, 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Izak. I'm still getting the hand of using wiki markup. Here's the link: The_Lord_protects_the_simple HG 20:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I've looked at the user's edit history. There are some questionable calls, but the result is light-years away from obvious vandalism. Given that editors in religion areas tend to be opinionated folks, my intention as a beginning administrator is to focus on obvious vandalism and disruption (we have so much of it) and to become involved in specific edit disputes between established editors only when called for. If there's a specific dispute involving this editor and a specific article or category, I could take a look at that. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Enjoy your "admin internship" or is it a "residency"? IZAK 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I saw your thing with BHGirl at the pump, where you say: " it goes against procedure for any editor to empty a category during a CfD vote ". This is an issue in another debate. I'm sure you're right (or should be) but I can't see anthing to that effect at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy or anywhere else. Do you have a reference? Johnbod 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Johnbod: Thank you for taking an interest. The isssue I was complaining about was the reverse of deletion, it was about the propriety of "preserving" information/articles in a category by creating a listing with the same articles in the category transferred to a list at the very moment a CfD vote is underway about that category. The thrust of my argument is that just as an editor should not empty a category when it is being voted upon (which is definitely policy), it is likewise, by way of logic and procedure, out-of-line to listify a category's contents to "save its contents" which is what BrownHairedGirl did. In my view for her to do so during a CfD vote complicated things even further, so that it has the same result as "moving the goal post." I think this is a grey zone that needs to be clarified. Thanks again, IZAK 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ok , but where is it definitely policy that a category can't be emptied? I can't find it. Johnbod 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it all the time, it's in ALL the text produced by templates placed on any category's page when any category is nominated for deletion or renaming or merging: For speedy renaming {{subst:cfr-speedy|ProposedName}} Template:Cfr-speedy; For deletion {{subst:cfd}} Template:Cfd; For a merger {{subst:cfm|OtherCategory}} Template:Cfm; For renaming {{subst:cfr|ProposedName}} Template:Cfr they all end with the request: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." And in {{subst:cfc|ProposedName}} Template:Cfc (for converting the category text into an article) it requests even more: "Please do not empty the category, delete the text, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Those are very clear policy guidelines based on the consensus that has been accpeted about their usage for many years. IZAK 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So they are - sorry I suppose I stopped reading them some time ago. I was asking in relation to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_27#Category:John_Constable (2 down from the Category:Judaism-related controversies discussion), where the nominator removed I think 8/12 of the articles before nominating it. Very sharp practice, but I can't see where it is specifically against policy. Of course in agreed re-organisations I have transferred articles to a new category & then speedied the old empty one (anything to avoid the CfD madhouse), but this is certainly very different, as he is not involved with the category at all (or remotely interested - he seems actively hostile to all non-cinematic art). Thanks again. Johnbod 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For the nominator to remove the articles before nominating them would seem to be bad faith. Or, he may have not intended to nominate it and then decided that the heck with it, just nominate the whole thing, so it's hard to figure out what is going on in people's minds and their intentions. If the guy is hostile he may be sick in some way so that complicates matters when you have a normal editor dealing with a deranged one. Again all this is part of life on Wikipedia. But over time we do get a good sense of who we are dealing with, since we are smart enough to write and edit, I guess... But you know, this reminds me of a cat and mouse game sometimes or of squirells hiding their food before winter comes. Human nature is pretty odd. IZAK 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's his explanation; then he nominates the category because "the content doen't seem to justify it" without mentioning what he'd done. Then when challenged on it he throws a hissy fit. As you say, all part of WP, or AfD anyway. Johnbod 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Input needed about Hasidic dispute

I'll try to take a look when I can, though I have some major things going on IRL that will likely preclude my being able to participate much at WP. Best, --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Miri, whatever you can do would be great. IZAK 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi and about AfD חנוכה הרי

Hi Izak. I hope and assume you don't mind my disagreement on some AfDs. Anyway, there's a doubling of the AfD comments due to pages for both Chanukah and Hanukhah Harry. See, we should all be writing in Hebrew, must easier, eh?! Kol tuv, HG 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi HG: Why should I mind, that is why we all have our own "minds" right? IZAK 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing? No response...no apology?

You have no response or even a small apology to make to me after accusing me of "gloating" over the Holocaust [1]? The least you could do would be to delete your copying/pasting of that message all over those 10 or so userpages, thus doing your part to partially retract the spreading of your poisonous lies and pathetic slander about me. --Wassermann 13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wasserman old chap, this is what I wrote: "...Death of Adolf Hitler article where he adds "NOTE: Hitler's eyes were actually blue, not brown" [2] and this doozy: "Fairly definitive quote from Hitler on the "Final solution to the Jewish Question," stating that if another war occured Nazi Germany would 'annihilate' European Jewry."[3], not quite clear if it's meant to be gloating or mourning over the Jews? (so which is it, "Wassermann"???)" -- which baffled me so I asked for input from a few editors and admins who have dealt with you in the past. Why the self-righteousness now, do you think you can post ambiguous statements about Hitler and the Nazis and not get called on it? IZAK 05:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• And talking of apologies, you should apologize for this attack against me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices when you personalize and now seek to change the subject of your atrocious record (confirming my serious concerns about you): "obviously...User:IZAK is a delete-happy user (for whatever reason); therefore, his/her edits and nominations should be watched more closely. This was a POINTLESS nomination for deletion, a blatant waste of everyone's time. Again, we should all urge User:IZAK to get his editing/deleting behavior under control a bit." [4]. Couldn't you stick to the subject of that debate instead of attacking me personally? But then again, I will not feel bad, I will just feel that now I am in good company because you have done nothing but attack and attack, as I have already said: "...Since he officially assumed a user name in February 2007 [5], he openly espouses an anti-Admin outlook, see User:Wassermann#Censorship Watch -- Administrator Watch, has already been blocked for attacks, see User talk:Wassermann#Block, has been reprimanded for linking to attack sites, see User talk:Wassermann#Don't link to attack sites, has attacked well-established editors and admins, see User talk:Wassermann#"User Jayjg's policy" and User talk:Wassermann#Censorship as examples..." I look forward to meeting you along the road... IZAK 06:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility reminder

Hi! Just wanted to remind you and User:Wassermann that you can get help from a lot of sources -- me or one of the other administrations, the mediation cabal, the AMA, lots of places -- but please keep things civil even if you feel you're being attacked. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 04:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora category

Apparently we have a lot of the same people on our watchlists, since I just saw you post that message 3 times. While it probably could technically be put as a speedy for recreation of deleted content, I would personally suggest renominating it, since the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16#Category:Jewish diaspora was not one-sided and the category has sat for almost a year with no complaints. --tjstrf talk 10:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Shavua` tov, IZAK, I hope your 33 `Omer is going well. Regarding Category:Jewish diaspora, I agree with tjstrf here and JFW on his talkpage. My feelings about the category haven't changed since I !voted in the original CfD. Specifically, I said:

Keep only if clarified. I really don't feel very strongly about this category: whether it stays or goes, I'll sleep fine tonight. That said, if it ends up being kept, its scope [whatever that may end up being... I agree, as it stands, this is a pretty wide open cat...] should be carefully and succinctly outlined in the category text itself. Tomer TALK 20:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, Tomer^talk 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but...

Hi IZAK, how are you. Does WP:CCC answer the question? If there is a conflict, perhaps the parties should recheck the CFD discussion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Humus, I don't think what you cite here applies because what happened is not a "change of consensus" but rather, Hmains (talk · contribs) went ahead and (re)created the category in July 2006 without knowing that it had actually once already existed and that it was nominated for deletion and then deleted in October 2005. It is only now, in 2007, that I came across all this and I am not certain what the procedure should be. A de facto "change of consensus" may have taken place, but it's not derived from any official vote. IZAK 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 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 14:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sry

You emailed me a few things and asked me to vote. Sorry I never got to them. I've been very busy recently. Anyways, I'm reviewing this "allegations of Israel" thing now and, unless I feel neutral, I'll vote in a minute. --Yodamace1 11:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to note that I don't vote very often on the things you send me because the cases that really interest you aren't something I have much experience with. I can't really defend my opinions very well when it comes to cases which involve antisemitism and zionism...I'm simply not well-versed in such things. I'm much better when it comes to things which involve Judaism as a religion. For example, I was just looking at the Judaism Wikiproject and noted that you requested a mediator cabal for a certain Hasidic dynasty. ([[6]]) These are the things I'd be happy to drop in on. --Yodamace1 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

Thanks for the support w/ the Mendzibozh dispute...please check out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-18 Kol Yaakov Torah Center—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodamace1 (talk • contribs)

CSD Category

Thanks for letting me know. It should be deleted; I'll take care of it. Fortunately it had only four items in it anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox Judaism by city and subcategories for deletion

I want to let you know that I have nominated Category:Orthodox Judaism by city and many of its subcategories for deletion. I feel that they only serve to add another layer of categorization to their parent categories, which are not especially crowded at this point. The deletion discussion is here. --Eliyak T·C 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification, even though I disagree with your reasoning in this case. IZAK 03:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

Izak, greetings. How about changing the collaboration of the week? Weeks have gone by and Tikkun Olam is not attracting many edits, nor does it look like it's about to become a great article. Or is WPP:Judaism not very active now for this kind of collaboration? Take care, HG 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg

Hi, IZAK. I notice you posted a question about Joel C. Rosenberg's religious and ethnic background. Did you ever get an answer? The reason I ask is that he has been included in the article List of notable converts to Christianity. Despite his inclusion in this list, I have not seen any evidence to confirm that he was ever observant, in which case, while he might be ethnically Jewish, he can't, in my opinion, be considered a Jewish convert to Christianity. Moreover, an unsourced claim in the article on him asserts that his mother was not Jewish. If this is true, then from a Halakhic perspective he may not have been considered Jewish in the first place.

Moreover, it seems to me that the inclusion of any Jew who was not never observant in the first place mixes apples and oranges: a person who is ethnically Jewish but non-practicing and who adopts Christianity might fairly be considered a convert to Christianity, but not a convert to Christianity from Judaism because that person never practiced Judaism in the first place. The inclusion of such a person in the list confuses Jewish ethnic identity with Judaism as a religion. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

African-American organized crime

Hi FayssalF: See my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora#African-American organized crime. Thank you, IZAK 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, i suggest you follow these steps:

• Read descriptive names at WP:NCON and article title and refer other parties to them
• Raise the issue at WikiProject Criminal Biography in order to reach consistency and fair fashion
• Request a move

Note that i totally agree w/ all of what you've said. I'll be keeping an eye. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF: I am alreday doing so at Jewish-American organized crime#Recent page move I was hoping tha other editors could deal with the African American aspect. IZAK 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen it. Well, then we can go thru the same process for the African American article. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved page ---> American Jews to Jews and Judaism in the United States

Hello -- I just moved American Jews to Jews and Judaism in the United States per your May 11th, 2007 moves. This was of course to standardize the article's name per the "Jews and Judaism [by country]" article/category naming precedent. Since you just recently moved and created similar pages (Jews and Judaism in Switzerland, Category:Jews and Judaism in Norway), I hope that you'll back me up on this should any controversy arise about the moving of this article as it has done in the past. --Wassermann 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Wasserman: You have waded into potential controversy and I am not obligated to back you up, as I will explain: There is no over-all consensus on Wikipedia about how all articles about Jews and Judaism should be named. The cases you point out where I created "Jews and Judaism in ____" articles were examples of relatively small articles that essentially had little information (such as writing about the Jews of Norway or smaller countries with a handful of Jews in them) and were of an inclusive nature that could survive such a name, but I have tended to avoid messing with long-established articles about countries with huge Jewish populations at present, such as the USA, the UK, Russia, France and Israel, where other editors have used a certain naming format, and which I have been reluctant to tamper with because it may be part of other articles they have written. Another reason you should avoid messing with well-established articles is that there are essentially three VALID ways of dealing with the topic of "Jews" and "Judaism" based on three major approaches outlined in three key articles that explain these key differences:

1. Using the Jew article as a criterion, articles and lists about Jews mostly as an ethnicity, more or less lead to Category:Jews.
2. Using the Judaism article as a criterion, articles and lists about Judaism mainly as a religion, more or less lead to Category:Judaism.
3. Using the Jewish history article as a criterion, articles and lists that focus mostly on the Jewish history (and politics) aspects of countries or groups, more or less leads to Category:Jewish history.

Many editors have written articles based on Jewish history but call it "Judaism", while others write articles about the religious practices of Jews in countries and call it "Jewish history" so it can get confusing because so far not every single article has been sorted out and it would be a very tough job to do so. I have been at it for four years and it's not easy, especially as new articles get added and new editors come along and decide to shuffle articles and categories around as you seem intent in doing for unclear reasons. The purpose Category:Jews and Judaism is to serve as a parent category for Category:Jews (based PRIMARILY on ethnicity, as per the Jew article) and Category:Judaism (based PRIMARILY on religion, as per the Judaism article) but it is not meant to serve as a "guideline" to make all articles into "Jews and Judaism in ____" only, on the contrary, the ideal would be for there to be enough information to add to articles about Jews (with emphasis on Jewish history topics for example) and Judaism (with emphasis on religious aspects of Jewish life) as distinct topics, each showing how they are connected yet different subject, and thus creating separate articles about Jews vis a vis Judaism. Thus one can just as easily and correctly create Jews in the United States as well as Judaism in the United States -- which is not what you did. When dealing with a huge article I would suggest getting input on that article' s talk page first, or getting some advice from other more experienced editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where I would be happy to share my experience and knowledge about this subject rather than being handed "ultimatums" from you that I should "back you up" when it seems your intention is to be controversial and cause havoc rather than work in a direction that will help, strengthen, beautify, enhance and magnify all articles relating to Jews and Judaism on Wikipedia. IZAK 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But what about the tricky "Jews and Judaism in [country]" category, which lumps together both ethnicity AND religion? That's what I mean...in regards to Switzerland and Norway you lumped them both together, and I based my earlier moves on that. I don't understand what I've done wrong... --Wassermann 08:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasserman what are you referring to exactly when you say: "I don't understand what I've done wrong"? Let me just say, that my primary objective is to get articles about categories into Category:Jews and Judaism by country that serves as a parent category for "Category:XYZ Jews" and "Category:Judaism in XYZ" (two different subjects and hence categories.) Often, I come across articles about so-called minor countries or subjects that fit into neither category, with a mix of information, so for the time being it can be called "Jews and Judaism in XYZ" until such time as an editor will come along and create full-blown separate articles about "History of Jews in XYZ" (or "XYZ Jewish history), and "Judaism in XYZ" and "XYZ Jews" but there will still be an overlap, and in the end all those articles will then go into that country's "Category:Jews and Judaism in XYZ". Sometimes there are also lists that have some information, so that you could have "List of XYZ Jews" which serves as the main article until more information can be added by an editor who is willing to create more articles. I hope you can see the complexity, but talso the basic order of things here. One has to proceed with caution because a lot of work has been put into the various articles and if you rock the boat too much many editors will get upset with your desire to create change without first discussing and ALSO getting the input from experienced editors. IZAK 09:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, I have reverted your move because the American Jews article is part of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and it approaches the subject of American Jews that way, so here again is yet another criterion by which this topic can be handled in terms of ethnicity. Indeed, if you would have bothered to look at the talk page you would see the {{Ethnic groups}} at the top of the page, and when talking of ETHNICITY which is what "Jew" is mainly about, one does not refer to "Judaism" (the religion)! That's why you have to be careful when considering making any serious changes to very important articles. IZAK 04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello -- I'm just trying to organize ALL of these articles, pages, and categories related to Jews and Judaism so that they are consistently named (they ALL need to be standardized and streamlined), which they currently are not. Please assume good faith and see this. Thanks. --Wassermann 08:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasserman: A number of people are also doing this including myself, and we have worked on it for a few years. But you must realize that there are various ways to organize Jews and Judaism topics as I have outlined above and it is not easy to create only "one" uniform way to organize everything about Jews and Judaism for the simple reason that Jews and Judaism are so varied and have different histories. For exmaple, a similar issue has been discussed over the years about what style of Hebrew to use on Wikipedia (by the way Wasserman you do understand Hebrew don't you, because if not how can you organize articles about Judaism with so many of them being about Hebrew concepts?) See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) for how difficult these things really are to sort out. It would help if you would respect the fact that a number of editors have been around for a long time and have dealt with some of the problems that you will definitely stumble into if you don't give yourself time to acclimate and learn more about past discussions and disputes. Remember: LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP or you may make things worse, and then you will get angry that other editors are calling you on it. IZAK 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish communities in England

Thanks for locating and adding the remaining articles for this category.--Redaktor 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. IZAK 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty

I see that you have created a Category:Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty, However, they do not form a dynasty.--Redaktor 14:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Readktor: They certainly do. See Category:Hasidic dynasties for many examples of Hasidic dynasties, and the Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty is no different (just that they are not Hasidic but Rabbinic/Talmudic.) IZAK 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding relations with Christian and Islamic projects

As you may or may not have noticed, there has been a recent argument by someone who elsewhere clearly identifies himself as a Jew regarding Bob Dylan's status as a Christian. While I consider this to be an important point to say that Dylan has, according to verifiable and reliable sources, been clearly indicated to be a Christian, I very much think that it is a waste of the time of virtually everyone involved to spend much time at all arguing the point. On my own talk page, I have received a message to the effect that you are one of the more active, and possibly more shall we say conservative, of the members of the various Judaism projects. It occurs to me that there probably have been similar arguments in the past regarding members of that ethno-religious group, and that those arguments were probably as unproductive and interminable as this one has been. I was wondering if you might consider it a viable option to perhaps create a separate, possibly independent, group where issues such as these might be (hopefully) quickly resolved so that all parties involved can return to their primary interests, improving and expaning all the articles we deal with, and not focus disproportionate time on these essentially trivial concerns. If you would have such an interest, I wonder if you might be interested in perhaps either personally becoming a member of the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Inter-religious content task force (I know the name can use some work) which can help resolve such questions more quickly and, with any luck, with less contentiousness. Also, I was wondering whether there might be other areas where the various Judaism and Christianity (and possibly other) projects might cooperate. Two specific areas come to mind. One is the extant Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biblical Criticism projects. As the books of the Judaic Bible are also included in the Christian Bible, I would think that by perhaps increasing the participation in those projects by members all interested groups, we might well be able to increase the quality and quantity of content relating to the books of the Bible. Also, and I acknowledge here that this is a bit more dubious, I was also wondering whether you might be interested in perhaps either joining yourself or encouraging others to join the new proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Religious leaders group. It occurs to me that the lives and historical settings of the various religious leaders of the Western world, both Christian and Jewish, since the beginning of the Common Era have several things in common, and that content relating to those figures could possibly be reasonably improved by members of either Jewish or Christian heritage. Obviously, I do not think that it should often be the case where a Christian, for instance, determines the content of an article about a Jewish leader, unless that Christian is the one who has provided the majority of the content to that article already. It could easily be the case that for whatever reason the most interested party in the life of a leader of one faith is in fact a member of the other faith. There, too, it might be useful to combine efforts. Also, as on the Talk:Jerusalem page, it might even be possible to in some instances combine banners of multiple projects in one banner, thus maybe eliminating the use of the {{WikiProject Banners}} and replacing it with something which displays a greater degree of instantly visible content. Anyway, I would be interested in any reply you might choose to make. John Carter 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Broyde

Izak, hi. Two different folks raised q about whether R. Broyde is notable. I thought so, but don't feel a strong need to argue over this. I'd appreciate your registering your honest opinion about his notability on the talk page or that of, Yours truly, HG | Talk 02:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks muchly!

Image:Hitlermusso.jpg

Hello, IZAK. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Hitlermusso.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:IZAK/archive 25. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Hello, IZAK. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg) was found at the following location: User talk:IZAK. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mikulov (Nikolsburg)

Hi Izak. Someone has removed the Jewish section on Mikulov (Nikolsburg) and cites WP:SU. Do you know what he is talking about? Please give a look.

BTW, I am quite aware of the good work you put in on Wikipedia, even though we usually pass each other like two ships in middle of the night. I have a hunch that we know each other in real life, although I have no idea who you are and vice versa. It's probably best that it stays that way. An admirer. Itzse 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DRosenbach

Hi IZAK! User:DRosenbach has been trying to add criticism of Reform Judaism to the article, which hasn't had any so far. He's also trying to add more critical content to the Conservative Judaism pages. The problem is he doesn't come in with any sources, and he uses the talk pages to go on and on about his views. If he could just do some homework and come in with some quotes by figures everyone agrees are notable and if he could tone down the rhetoric on the talk pages a bit and focus on the articles, everything would be fine. As things stand now he seems to be getting on a collision course and I may end up having to block him, and none of this should be necessary. Could you give him some help? Best, --Shirahadasha 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Shira: Thank you for thinking of me. As a general rule I try to avoid the main articles about the Reform and the Conservatives. I have enough work cut out for me in the Orthodox sectors, if you know what I mean. The truth is those articles could use a healthy dose of critical analysis. Why should they be immune to the treatment that is meted out to so many articles about Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. Rather than threatening to block User:DRosenbach, you could point out to him where he is making mistakes. IZAK 06:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Circular reference to article in category

I noted that you removed all categories from the article African Jews, except for the category "African Jews." The change seems to create a circular reference to the only article sharing the same name as the category. So, why have only this one category that refers to the article, given the circular reference? I was going to restore the article with the previous categories, but thought that I first ask you about this change. lwalt 08:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am not finished I am working on this now. Thank you. IZAK 09:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Americans

Why did you remove the intro from Category:Jewish Americans with the edit summary wikifying? The intro clarifies who belong in the category, and is therefore quite useful. Lesnail 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The {{catmore}} template is sufficiant in that case. IZAK 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Schneursohn

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Schneursohn, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Schneursohn fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Schneursohn, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I emailed you

Please notify me on my talk page that you emailed me. Thank you very much--Bachur 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Nothing important. IZAK 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Barak Kaiba

Hi Shira: I came across this "user" page at User:Barak Kaiba and I cannot make heads or tails of it. Barak Kaiba (talk · contribs)'s don't go beyond writing up this piece of of self-glorification. In User:Barak Kaiba#Early Life he says: "Barak Kaiba was (personally identifying information deleted)." So I think this is just a violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE, WP:HOAX and the former WP:VANITY. It's just some kid trying to get around Wikipedia's (by now labyrinthine) rules (that just keep on growing) and the page needs needs some admin attention to be deleted. Thanks for your care. IZAK 07:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Chodesh Tov and Chag Sameach, IZAK! Because the information indicates the user is a minor, I deleted this and other personally identifying information from the user page. However, I left everything else in place. If it's not blatantly offensive, violating the protection of minors rules, libelous, taking up gigabytes of space, or similar, I'm not personally inclined to make a bigger deal of what editors put on their user pages than necessary. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! FYI did a little more research into userpage policy and the "don't make a bigger deal than necessary" approach is pretty much what Jimbo Wales recommends here -- he calls it the "middle ground" approach. --Shirahadasha 07:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Shirahadasha, and have a good Shavuot. IZAK 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)