User talk:IZAK/Archive 33

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

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms

I was happy to see that your AfD for the Christian/Jewish/Muslim page was successful. You seem to be a bit more experienced here than I am (to say the least), and I was wondering if you might be willing at some point to make a second attempt at the Christian/Jewish/"Messianic" page. That AfD ended with a "No Consensus", but all of the reasons raised in your successful AfD apply here, and more. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Lisa: Thanks for the feedback. There is no statute of limitations and you can make the proposal yourself again when you are ready. Stay in touch. IZAK (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history

hi IZAK - there might be a problem with this cat and the other cat concerning Jews/Judaism in SA. Saudi Arabia was only called such when the Saud family took control in the early 20th century. before that it was simply Arabia, or Hejaz/Najd/etc. so it might be appropriate to rename to Category:Jewish Arabian history and Category:Jews and Judaism in Arabia respectively. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Itaqallah, thank for your observations. I do not agree with you at all. Excpet for a few for defunct countries and empires that once existed, but there was no such thing as an "Arabian Empire" AFAIK unless one talks of the various historical Caliphates. Therefore all the categories in Category:Jewish history by country follow the name of the country as it exists in the present as well as the geographical area it once encompassed because it incorporated all the policies and practices of "Arabia" in any case. This holds true for Saudi Arabia no less than it does for Italy or France that also existed in different forms and under different names ("Rome" or "Gaul" etc) with Jews in them. So you could start doing the same thing in Europe but historians don't, because even though Jewish history or the history of a country precedes the establishment of the modern states, yet the focus is the history of the Jews within the borders of the modern, meaninging the latest, state. Also, "Arabia" is a nebulous word, it's like "Europa" or "Latin America" as it can be used in the generic and broad sense as all places where Arab and Arabic have been widely spoken in the Middle East and North Africa. And on the "Arabian peninsula" it can legitimately refer to all the countries to be found on it, like the two Yemens, the Emirates, Quatar, even Kuwait. So forget about this neat trick because it won't work here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been reposted at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. All discussion should be centralized at that page.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Weisz

I have commented at ANB. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 24#Naftali Tzvi Weisz and here [1] DGG (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Category

Hi, don't you think this category [2] is useless ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• No its not because in its years of existence that was a major country with a huge Jewish population. It cannot be understood only in terms of the "Czech Republic" and "Slovakia" because those are very recent countries. Czechoslovakia was a legitimate country in its own right and during its existence there were many Jews and Judaism flourished in it. This is only the beginning as you are contacting me only a few minutes after I have created the category. It needs time. See the many other categories like it in Category:Jewish history by country. The Jews and Judaism were also significant in other (now defunct) European countries like the USSR, Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia, for which there are also categories (as there must be!) Thanks for asking though. IZAK (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you sure with the Czechoslovakian isn't it a noun? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I am very sure, just see the 1,300,000+ Google hits for "Czechoslovakian" -- it's basic English. What is your native language?, because an English-speaker familiar with this would not have asked this question. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • So Czechoslovakian can be used as an adjective too? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes. Any way you like, like on Google, choose the multiple examples from there. IZAK (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Ok, but google is not reliable. You will find Mississippi, Misissippi, Missisippi, Mississipi, Misissipi and other combinations :) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok, so out of the 1,300,330 Google examples lets say at least 300,000 are right, does that make you happy? Remember this is the English Wikipedia and I have no interest in making things up. Perhaps, instead of "Czechoslovakian" some may want to say "Czechoslovak" or " Czechoslovakan" or "Czechish" or "Czech" (after all, it's from a non-English language) but the fact remains that in good English usage, the suffix "-ian" would be the right one in this case in all the years that I have heard this word used in my academic studies. Are you trying to reinvent the wheel here or something? IZAK (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am just asking to improve my knowledge. Why are you getting upset? Please assume good faith ! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again Tulkolahten. I am not upset. By the way, what does the spelling of "Mississippi" have to do with this discussion because just as it is correct to say "Czechoslovakian" in English it is likewise correct to say "Mississippian" in English. Always glad to help. IZAK (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the award, and I'll take a look at that page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Occupations template?

This would make a good template, but makes a longish and ugly see also. May I suggest templating it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Piotrus: It's not an ugly see also, but I would have no objection to a template being made for it, preferably a footer. The {{Jews and Judaism}} model could be used, it was expertly designed by User:Yahel Guhan try asking him to help out, he has responded well to my requests in the past. (There will probably be a few more "occupation" articles that can be added.) Thanks for the feedback. IZAK (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Colons

Thanks for inserting the colons to decatergorise my sandbox, which I left yesterday when the sandman arrived. Strikes me that WP code should be If Sandbox Then Ignore Categories.
Given a major interest of yours perhaps you'd care to give me your opinion and advice on this: Many an article is written with much material which seems more to express the writer's group (national/religious &c &c) concerns rather than contribute much about the subject of the article. My sandbox "General Government" is an ongoing attempt to get some sense into the WP article, as it was written it gave very little information to the seeker; who, outside those directly under it, even knew of "G..g.." (whatever the German was), let alone the bashed into English "G..G.."? The article has a picture of Franck which I think irrelevant as the linked article about him has the same picture. There are pictures of Nazis' victims but they seem to me, not things to be covered up, but not to carry forward knowledge of the G.. G.. There seems to be a tendency for all WP articles dealing with the atrocious events of that time to bring forth every barely tangential circumstance. An extremely involuted arguing has raged about "Polish death camps"(+/-) which any competent newspaper editor (as opposed to a WP one) would have killed by a simple retitling.--SilasW (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Silas: Thank you for contacting me. I would strongly suggest that once you have created and written a fairly good article, or content for an article, then post it as soon as possible. There is no reason to let good work linger. In my own creation of articles or of content I have never used a "work page" because if I have faith in my writing and research there is no reason for me to "beach" my important creations and let them languish in obscurity. So move the stuff you create into the Wikipedia (article) mainstream and then see what happens next. Either editors will object, and you will get feedback, and/or you can move content for discussiosn on article talk pages if need be, but the most important thing is that you will move away from the feeling of frustration of sitting on some good work, like a hen waiting for her chicks to hatch, rather than getting it online and with the light of day, it will enter into the Wikipedian mainstrean that you seek, provided it meets all the criteria of logic, reliable sources and good basic research. Hope this helps somewhat. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Texan history

IZAK, I feel that I have some stalkers in recent attempts to delete articles that I was in the process of just begining to write, AND had place underconstruction notices on!!! It seems to be the same two people again. Do you have any advice? I really just feel that I need some time in writting these articles and when people try to delete them only a few hours into my attempts, it is difficult. Any advice would help. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Bhaktivinode: You may be right, that certain people may have a special eye out to supress articles relating to Jews anywhere (why do I get that eery feeling about that song "Throw the Jew Down the Well" that was also sung in Texas I think?) And funny that you should ask me, because I was just counseling an above user about his method of work. (1) One way you can get around it is to start your own private work page that no-one will be able to touch until such time as you are willing, ready and able to post it (I do not use this technique, but sounds like you should in this case to avoid getting your work erased before you are ready for it to see the full light of day.) So this is what you do: You use your own user name and put slash at the end and then on that page you go ahead and write, research and create the page/s that you want. Thus if say you wanted to work privately on an article about "Jewish Texan history" it would look like this User:Bhaktivinode/Jewish Texan history and you work on perfecting it until you are ready and then post it. (2) You may also want to bring this matter to the attention of the Judaic editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and state what you have been going through and give as many examples with links to it. (3) You could also lodge a complaint and ask for input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (known as WP:ANI.) Hope this helps and keep me posted. IZAK (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well now Bhaktivinode: I thought you were talking about real Jewish Texan history, but now I see that you forgot to mention to me that you are referring to two weak articles here. Sorry, but Jewish Aggies, Chabad of Brazos Valley, and the article about Rabbi Yossi Lazaroff are just not significant Jewish history. Please try to avoid posting silly articles and concentrate on writing important history so that people will not attack and want to delete them. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bhaktivinode: I have now nominated two of the articles myself, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of Brazos Valley and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch. You need to proceed with greater caution. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

right the way to go is with the strongest possible articles--combination articles if possible. guide yourself by what you have for real sources. Once they are established, look to se what more you can find. many good plans have failed because people tried to introduce too many borderline articles at the start. See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chabad_of_Brazos_ValleyDGG (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

Your page has been on my watchlist since last week and I realized five years is a long time here. I'm working on a proposal to address part of the fair use image issues here User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal and am now looking for comments and/or an editor smarter than me who could code them. Since you've been here longer than me, I'm hoping you have greater insight and/or can point me to someone. Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Mbisanz. Who says I am "smarter" than you? And who says that five years on the job makes anyone "smart"? Hmm? I do greatly appreciate your confidence in me. However I am not expert enough to help you with your request/s, in spite of my "5 year tenure" on Wikipedia. Let me explain why. Firstly I am a writer first and foremest and I concentrate on editing written copy. I am not "into" images and photos as such, and certainly not into formulating new policies about such things. In 2004 I noticed that there were few good images to enhance Judaic and Israel articles. So I searched for as many available images and I posted a few of them here and there. Nothing dramatic, perhaps about thirty of forty photos. Since then many of them have been deleted for one or another new-fangled deletion policy which I have not kept track of and which I do not usually resist. At that time Wikipedia was more lenient in its requirements and while it was still an effort it was possible to find good rationales for posting pictures. Since then Wikipdia has tightened its rules and introduced many guidelines due to copyright concerns. I took note of the trend and I have not posted new photos in about three years now. However, the over-all situation has improved because many users have joined and have contributed their personal creations about which there are few copyright doubts. So Wikipedia has been experiencing a bounty crop of an influx of pictures the last couple of years. In response to this new influx of photos and sketches etc, I recently decided to give attention to the "Categorization" of Jewish images to gather up and organize the flood of new photos so that a reader would be able to find them rather than the impossibility of trekking all over Wikipedia to find a needed picture. Thus I have started to work on categorizing Category:Images of Orthodox rabbis; Category:Images of Jewish cemeteries and such things as Category:Images of cities in Israel and a few others. I have really gotten a kick out of this and this is where I intend to put my energies when I can. So I cannot and am not able to get involved with what you are proposing as my focus and interests are not in that direction. I hope I have conveyed my views well enough. You may want to post a notice and seek some help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, and I know there are some really smart editors there. Perhaps you may want to contact: User:Java7837; User:Yahel Guhan; User:SlimVirgin; User:Shuki and User:Shirahadasha who have great expertise in policies and technicalities in varying degrees. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just looking for a smarter coder (didn't say you were :).) I seen SlimVirgin's work, so I'll prob contact him, maybe after all this RFAR drama in the new year. Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zev Vladimir Jabotinsky uniform.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Zev Vladimir Jabotinsky uniform.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, ok, it's a {{PD-Israel-Photo}}. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Soldiers_at_night_at_KOTEL.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Soldiers_at_night_at_KOTEL.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media 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 media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media 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 description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Building_Aish_HaTorah_Jerusalem.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Building_Aish_HaTorah_Jerusalem.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media 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 media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media 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 description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jacob(Ya'akov)Valero

Tks. for taking the time to add usfull links to this new article.Ronval (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Ronval: Thank you for contacting me. I have some questions for you:

1. The Jacob Valero and Haim Aharon Valero articles state that their Valero family was involved in founding the first modern bank in Palestine in 1848 "Jacob Valero & Company" about which information is lacking, (see the Jacob Valero article) does such a private bank even exist, as I cannot find any information on it via Google?
2. The Haim Aharon Valero article also asserts: "The Bank itself has expanded its partnership with the Bank of America" but can you explain, if it is so significant, then why is there no results for such "Jacob Valero & Company" private bank on Google?
3. The Haim Aharon Valero article makes a big leap and says that the "Jacob Valero & Company"...:

"It has now expanded to an energy company, Valero Energy Corporation is a Fortune 500 company based in San Antonio with approximately 22,000 employees and assets valued at $33 billion. The largest refiner in North America, Valero has an extensive refining system with a throughput capacity of approximately 3.3 million barrels per day. The company's geographically diverse refining network stretches from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast and West Coast to the Caribbean. they have opened a shopping mall in Texas as well they’ve invested $20 million in the project, created more than 200 new jobs and donated $30,000 worth of food and other merchandise to the San Antonio Food Bank." This is taken directly from that company's website at http://www.valero.com/AboutUs/ so what else is there besides this cut and paste to prove any connection between the Israeli "Valero family" and the Valero energy company in America?

The problem is compounded upon further searching that same company's website http://www.valero.com/AboutUs/History.htm that gives a different reason for the origin of the company's name "Valero":

"1980 a natural gas gathering subsidiary of the Coastal States Gas Corporation. The company’s formation was far from a smooth one. LoVaca and Coastal had contracts to supply natural gas to utilities around Texas. Due to the natural gas shortage in the 1970s, LoVaca was unable to honor its contracts. After more than six years of litigation, a $1.6 billion settlement was reached, which included the formation of Valero as a new company, separate from Coastal. At that time, it was the largest corporate spinoff in U.S. history. Based in San Antonio, Texas, Valero derives its name from that city's most famous landmark, the Alamo. Founded in 1718, the Alamo was originally called Mission San Antonio de Valero."

So could you please explain the above gaps and clear-cut contradictions, and what if any connection there is, between the story as given in the Haim Aharon Valero article and what the Valero company says about itself on its own website at http://www.valero.com/AboutUs/History.htm as quoted above?

Your replies to these questions would be greatly appreciated otherwise we shall have to conclude that the Jacob Valero and Haim Aharon Valero articles contain misinformation and may in fact be partial or total hoaxes. Thank you very much, and I look forward to an early reply. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Verification help please so that I can get some outside input to this. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bank Valero

Thank you for bringing to my attention the most "Bizare" connection between the Texas basedValero Energy Corp. & the Jewish, Sephardi,Old Jerusalem Valero family.I can assure you I have nothing to do with it! The information contributed by me to the Chaim Aharon Valero Article was based on research done by Kark&Glass from the Hebrew U.and a recently published English Hard Cover. I would welcome your involvement to rectify the error.Ronval (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what to say. Please do some research and sort it out since you are the one dealing with it. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• NOTE: Please do not edit or remove my comments on this page as that may be classed as WP:VANDALISM. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The edits that inserted this obviously incorrect information are these two by Aekbal (talk · contribs) who hasn't edited since 22 November 2007. My guess would be that it's either a mistake due to the name being the same and that the information regarding a link to the corporation should simply be removed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the bank, it does seem to have existed, see here. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elipongo: Thanks for doing this detective work. It does provide the missing links. I just don't have the time to trace the truth of every statement in each article, it's tough enough just picking up on them. Hope that the article in question can be corrected and updated soon. Thanks again so much! Great job! IZAK (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the information regarding links to the energy corporation, and I've also removed the reference to the Bank of America as unreferenced. At some point I'll see about fixing up the references into proper citations and footnotes. Right now I've got to stop having fun on the wiki and get some studying in for some year end CEUs. Be well. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and all the best with your studies! IZAK (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elipongo & IZAK: Thank you both for your time spent on the Haim Aharon Valero& Jacob Valero Articles. I have no clue as to why Aekbal (talk · contribs)so fit to connect the Jewish Jerusalem Valero family who`s history is well described in many academic publication`s, with that of the Texas based Valero`s.The link to Bank of America raises even more ???.Ronval (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronval, maybe it was an antisemitic conspiracy theory nut at work as they like to imagine that Jews "control or own" all the world's banks and corporations. Who knows? But I think that we can safely conclude that it was indeed a case of vandalism. Be well, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves

Re your note at User talk:Jayjg#Help with double redirect: -- Double redirects are easy to fix. You don't have to be an admin to fix them. If you ever have trouble with double redirects, feel free to ask me for help if you want. But what seems to have happened with the articles you mentioned there is not just double redirects, but a cut-and-paste move. Cut-and-paste moves separate the article history from the article content, which can create problems with the GFDL license. Once they're done, and once some more edits have happened after the cut-and-paste, it's a situation that can be difficult for even an admin to fix.

Sorry if the tone of this message sounds too critical. I'm just trying to let you know something about how Wikipedia works. If you ever need to move a page, please always use the "move" button. If you accidentally move it to the wrong name, it's not a big deal. You can use the "move" button to move it back to the original name if you want; or you can just use the "move" button to move the page from the new, wrong name to the new, correct name. Either way you may end up with some double redirects, but as I said those aren't a big problem. You can use the "move" button several times and get triple redirects. Again not a big problem. Easy to fix. Just don't cut-and-paste the content from one place to another.

In the case of Occupation of France by Nazi Germany: Apparently this has been fixed by User:Agathoclea. Note that Agathoclea has reverted to the last edit prior to the history merge; you might want to check whether any useful edits need to be reinstated. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Coppertwig: Thanks for contacting me. In spite of what you may have read, I am well aware of the "cut and paste" rules. You can check my edit history over the past five years, maybe it happened once in my first days. But at this time, when I edited that page I was moving so quickly and I wanted to back track so quickly too that I got into that tangle and I was counting on User:Jayjg to give me assistance before any problems happened. Sorry to alarm you and please let me know if you see any other issues as I welcome feedback. I am happy that the problem was fixed by User:Agathoclea and I am even more grateful that she did so without giving me a lecture. But thanks all the same. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

can you help?

Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism (and, at this point, about Shirahadasha and other Jewish editors active on the page) here?

It applies to the article for which the link provided is the talk page, i.e. this. Someone wanted to add "fig" or "fig tree" to the glossary, claiming that it is a notable and important symbol for Christians. Someone wanted to add that it is a notable and important symbol for Jews. Perhaps you should read the discussion and draw your own conclusions.

However, if you want my summary of the discussion, here it is: When several other editors commented on the talk page that it is not an important symbol of Jews, Bikinibomb replied that (1) these Jewish editors are secular atheists and do not have the right to speak for religious Jews, (2) these Jewish editors are violating WP:NOR because they have no verifiable sources for their claims, whereas Bikinibomb has provided multiple sources - the first one on 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC), which is a post at the very top of this section of the talk page (3RR), but then in his 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) post to the talk page, and (3) these Jewish editors are trying to embarass Judaism by making it look like Jews do not know their own religion. Bikinibomb by the way has stated that he is not Jewish. In the past 24 hours several Jewish editors have responded but he persists in his claims. My hope is that you can provide for him a more compelling argument or proof, but minimally, I think we need to show that there is a consensus among Jewish editors that his claims about Jewish beliefs are wrong. (assuming you agree with me that he is wrong, either in his specific claims about figs, or his more general claims about Jewish sources, or Judaism) (of course, even if you do not agree with me, I would welcome your comments/thoughts concerning the discussion if you have any!!) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Slrubenstein: Thank you for contacting me. I took a good look and I see that the problem is much bigger than just "figs" -- the entire misbegoten "glossary" is a nightmare and it will always be a POV magnet and an open invitation to WP:EDITWAR! So see Talk:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms#VOTE: Split the glossary into two for a proposed solution that could help bring the heat down from its ongoing unceasing boilingpoints. Otherwise this "glossary" and other efforts like it will be a source of constant fights and friction. The editors behind such ideas must be informed to stop before even more fighting and damage ensues. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I agree with you that there is a bigger issue. I am not sure if I agree with you about splitting it ... but I am not strongly opposed to your proposal either and won't oppose it; I think what is important is as you point out discussing this larger issue, and I am glad you addressed it. That said, I still think there is a specific issue with Bikinibomb's claims (specifically about figs, more generally about his use of Jewish sources, and, derech hagav, his apparent refusal to respect other editors enough to take seriously their remarks to him) so if you have time I still hope you will add your thoughts to that specific thread of the discussion. (Put another way: even if the glossaries were divided in two, Bikinibomb could still claim he has verifiable sources to support including "figs" as a key symbol in Judaism. In other words, whether it remains one glossary or two, I believe he will make the same comments, so they still call for some response). Thanks again, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Jordan

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of the Jews in Jordan, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/drug_information_online.asp?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Jordan. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nuts! How crazy is that! The "site" you quote is actually a mirror site that uses Wikipedia images to sell pharmacy products! All the material is from other Wikipedia articles and not from any other outside source. The citations from those other articles may need to be added, but only Wikipedia was used. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Qatar

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of the Jews in Qatar, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/drug_information_online.asp?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Qatar. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Again this bot runs wild. Nuts! How crazy is that! The "site" you quote is actually a mirror site that uses Wikipedia images to sell pharmacy products! All the material is correctly cited and sourced. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/drug_information_online.asp?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Again this bot runs wild. Nuts! How crazy is that! The "site" you quote is actually a mirror site that uses Wikipedia images to sell pharmacy products! All the material is correctly cited and sourced. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NIRC logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:NIRC logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian Jewish history

Yes, this is a consistent problem with Bless Sins. I'll see what I can add to the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Joachim Gans

Hi - thank you for cleaning up this article. I have a couple quick questions, though, why you removed several categories:

• Jewish American history changed to American Jews - Gans was not American - he was born in Bohemia and lived at Roanoke for a year. He is significant in Jewish American history, though.

• Year of birth/death missing - Is there a reason to remove these tags? Both dates are missing.

• History of North Carolina - the first Jew to live in America lived in what became North Carolina - I think that this is significant for the history of the state.

I freely admit I got category crazy when working on this article - thank you for cleaning it up! BWH76 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi BWH76: Thank you for contacting me. There were far too many broad categories in that article. I tried to whittle them down to those that were most suitable for a person. He was not a movement or a period in history. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking some time to respond. So, do you disagree with inclusion in the categories listed above? In the Jewish American History and History of North Carolina categories, there are individuals listed (as opposed to events, movements, etc.). For the year of birth/death, I thought it would be good to include in case someone, somehow, stumbles across some more specific information for Gans and can add that to the article. Thanks again! BWH76 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi BWH76: Editors do all sorts of things that they should not. The ones you mention should and will eventually all be taken out of the general categories. I was in the process of doing that kind of sorting out when I came across this entry. Otherwise, it becomes chaotic and meaningless. The idea is to stick people into specific people categories and not put them into every last general category that they could be connected to. Events, movements, historical periods, ideas and more general articles are part of general categories. It is usually later that categories of people are hooked up with more general categories of periods. But people start out by being in people categories first and foremost. IZAK (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 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.
Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing articles with categories

Hi Tariqabjotu: You are confusing "articles" with "categories" because there is both an article about Jerusalem and a category for it at Category:Jerusalem. Therefore all parent categories belong under Category:Jerusalem and not under the Jerusalem article. To have it only under the article limits the categories which include far more topics relating to Jerusalem. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Grouping categories and Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "confusing 'articles' with 'categories'"; I meant what my edit summary said and I don't even believe my edit was incorrect. Take a look at Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ, and specifically the question "How do I categorize categories which have a main article?". The answer to that question is "The article should be left in those categories it would belong to if it had no category of its own". Well, that would include Category:Capitals in Asia, Category:Cities in Israel, Category:Cities in the West Bank, and (not sure on this one) Category:Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church – and those are the categories I re-added. The first three categories most certainly would belong in Jerusalem because, as I noted in my edit summary, there is no daughter article (sub-article) that could conceivably accommodate those categories better. That's as opposed to, say, Category:History of Jerusalem, which would be better suited in History of Jerusalem. I'm not entirely sure about the Titular Sees category because I honestly don't know much about the subject, but from what I could ascertain, the same was the case for that category. I didn't re-add any of the other categories you removed because I either didn't know enough (or could find enough) to make a judgment call or because, like with Category:History of Jerusalem, it truly doesn't belong on the Jerusalem article. (P.S. There's no need to re-add Category:Capitals in Asia because it's in a transcluded template.)

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule. -- tariqabjotu 07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Tariqabjotu: Thanks for giving this matter your serious attention. I honestly think that you are interpreting categorization guidelines far, far, toooo broadly. The way you are saying things, then one may as well take all the parent-categories that are placed below the Category:Jerusalem page and just put them under the plain Jerusalem article. That would make no sense! The purpose of having an article match a category is that the article becomes the lead article for the category by the same name so that subsequently all parent categories for that article are placed only under the category page, leaving the lead article uncluttered. Otherwise you would be defeating the purpose of categories which are meant to serve as stronger vehicles than a simple page. Thus to place the parent categories under the Category:Jerusalem strengthens them, whereas having the same parent categories under both the article for Jerusalem as well as under Category:Jerusalem makes it redundant and in fact any editor would know that it should be trimmed and that categories go to category page as much as possible. I have been working with categories for a long time and your errors and misconceptions are unfortunately common, but few people continue their mistakes after I point it out to them. Please give this your thoughtful consideration. Thank you very much. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't present a straw man argument; I did not take all the parent categories under Category:Jerusalem and put them in the main article. I did not advocate such a thing, but if there were other categories that would, as the FAQ stated, clearly be put in the Jerusalem article had there been no corresponding category, they should indeed be placed there.

You must not have read the FAQ link included in my previous statement because you totally disregarded what it said. Specifically, you stated:

The purpose of having an article match a category is that the article becomes the lead article for the category by the same name so that subsequently all parent categories for that article are placed only under the category page, leaving the lead article uncluttered.

Aside from noting the unnecessarily patronizing tone created by the italics, I must say that your position above clearly contradicts the piece I quoted in the FAQ:

The article should be left in those categories it would belong to if it had no category of its own...

This sentiment, in regard to categories which have a main article, is corroborated by Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule and Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines, number 5. If there is another part of the category policies and guidelines that negates the piece I quoted, please present that. However, at this point, it looks like you are just trying to tell me how you believe categories are supposed to work (again, in a patronizing tone, as if I just started editing here yesterday) instead of how they actually are supposed to work. The fact that you have been working with categories for awhile does not mean you're correct; I would like to see something that supports your position. I'll give you a couple more chances: if you can provide some evidence, fine, I'll drop it (although I'd certainly request a clarification on this matter). If you can't, I'll proceed to revert your removal of these categories. -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: (1) Can you explain why you would want to place a parent category under both the Jerusalem article as well as under the Category:Jerusalem? What would be the point of that? Usually, when some main articles are crowded up with parent-categories, those parent-categories could and should be placed under the same category for which an article is the lead. (Most editors are not interested or familiar with the methods of categorization.) (2) I do not see from anything you cite that says if there is already a main category, like Category:Jerusalem, that is built directly upon an article, like the Jerusalem article, that some categories should go under the article instead of the category while most are not. Sure, if there is no main category that matches an article by the same name, then by all means lump as many categories under that article's page, but not if that page (article) has its own category. (3) Often when categories are only under article pages, they are limited to that one article. But when parent categries can go under a category that is built upon the lead article, both the sub-category and the parent categories benefit because they are then part of a system that links with other categories and not just articles. IZAK (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to question one:

Well, first, I'll start with a pragmatic answer: when someone arrives at the Jerusalem article and looks at the bottom of the pages for categories, it is of little use to them to just see Category:Jerusalem. (Let's ignore, for the moment, Category:Capitals in Asia, because that's embedded in a template.) Of course Jerusalem is an article related to Jerusalem; that tells someone nothing about the city, and is useless when it comes to helping the reader navigate to similar articles. New or inexperienced users may have no idea that they could click on that category, and then click on the categories at the bottom of the Category:Jerusalem page. And there is no reason they should: the categories are not here primarily to categorize categories; they're here to categorize articles. Important categories that directly relate to the city (i.e. would most likely be in the article had there been no Category:Jerusalem) should be in the article.

Okay, now the answer based on policy. From Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule:

When an article and the subcategory with the same name end up in the same category, the double listing sends the message to the user that there is an article about the topic, and there are also more articles to be found in the subcategory of the same name. It makes it easier to find main topic articles (by eliminating having to go to the subcategory). It also creates a complete listing of articles at the higher level category. It points readers of the topic article to the category and vice versa.

In response to question two:

See the piece I quoted from the second half of my answer to your first question. Furthermore, note the following (also from Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule):

When an article is the topic article for a category, articles should be placed in the category with the same name. However, the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way. The article belongs in categories populated with similar articles. The category should be put into categories populated with similar subcategories. For example, see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush.

Note how it says "the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way." From the example involving George W. Bush, you'll see that there are only two parent categories that overlap between George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush – Category:Bush family and Category:Presidents of the United States. George W. Bush includes many more categories that just those two, and it still includes those two. It is also interesting that you said, "Sure, if there is no main category that matches an article by the same name, then by all means lump as many categories under that article's page..." YES, and the FAQ says that if an article has a corresponding category, you're supposed to add categories that would be on the article had there not been a corresponding category.

In response to question three:

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but I believe my answers to your first two points should be sufficient. I am not suggesting that all of the categories you put on Category:Jerusalem should be removed from there and put back on Jerusalem. I am not excluding the possibility that this should occur with some of the categories, but I'm mostly talking about putting categories on both the category page and the article page.

Again, please prevent some evidence from guideline or policy. Otherwise, I'm going to proceed to revert your category removals. -- tariqabjotu 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tariqabjotu: Here are my responses: (1) You say: "when someone arrives at the Jerusalem article and looks at the bottom of the pages for categories, it is of little use to them to just see Category:Jerusalem." You are citing a case of someone who has no clue about how Wikipedia's category system functions. Such a person will have to learn. Can you imagine if every last parent category and parent-of-parent categories would be placed under articles with their own categories. There would then be situations where articles would have fifty categories under them that could well exceed the length of the article itself. So this "pragmatic response" is totally unreasonable and has no validity. (2) Your answer based on "Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule: When an article and the subcategory with the same name end up in the same category, the double listing sends the message to the user that there is an article about the topic..." does NOT say that you have the green light to place ten categories under a main article when that article has its own category. And this is not talking about the categories under the article. It is decribing how a main article and its own category by the same name function and that would mean the helpfulenss of proceeding to the category. There is nothing here that says that one may place twenty parent-categories under an article that has a category of its own with the name. (3) This quote is very ambiguous and you are really twisting it to fit your wishes: "When an article is the topic article for a category, articles should be placed in the category with the same name. However, the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way. The article belongs in categories populated with similar articles. The category should be put into categories populated with similar subcategories. For example, see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush." Note how the words "should" and "do not have to be" and "should" again showing that these are not hard and fast rules and it assumes that editors will use good organizational and categorization skills that will not clutter up pages. Sure many people love to slap multiple categories all over the place, but that defeats the purpose of categorization. Indeed you quote something that backs me up here, that: "When an article is the topic article for a category, articles should be placed in the category with the same name" which is the first point. You want to rely on exceptions, as many do, to clutter up article pages with all the category pages they can squeeze onto it, then it's a game, but is is not the mark of devotion to "pure categorization" because what you are proposing in this instance is to use the system of categorization to defaet itself by making it meangingless to categorize, and I just cannot see how that helps (except for the poor person who does not know how categoriztion works on Wikipedia...so they will have to learn.) (4) What's this supposed to mean: "...YES, and the FAQ says that if an article has a corresponding category, you're supposed to add categories that would be on the article had there not been a corresponding category."? It means that you are suppoed to add the (parent) categories to the articles category and not to the article. Please do not use language as if it has no meaning but only to suit your agenda. I also don't follow what you are saying about "Category:Bush family and Category:Presidents of the United States" because they would clearly be parent categories for Category:George W. Bush. It's not even a question. But I am not editing over there and I cannot speak for other's errors. I am dealing with our subject of Jerusalem. (5) Your final quote that "I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but I believe my answers to your first two points should be sufficient. I am not suggesting that all of the categories you put on Category:Jerusalem should be removed from there and put back on Jerusalem. I am not excluding the possibility that this should occur with some of the categories, but I'm mostly talking about putting categories on both the category page and the article page" -- just shows that you have no guiding rules and that you are making it up as you go along. Are you now the "judge" of parent categories that you can find under the Category:Jerusalem page should be placed under the Jerusalem article. My position is simple: ALL parent categories (unless they are attached and result from templates that cannot be moved without changing the template on the page) go under the Category:Jerusalem page. And you are saying that, as a result of misreading and misapplying half and partial statements in FAQs, that out of EIGHTEEN parent categories (Category:Amarna letters locations; Category:Ancient Pilgrim Centres; Category:Canaan; Category:Capitals in Asia; Category:Christian history; Category:Cities in Israel; Category:Cities in the West Bank; Category:Crusades; Category:Hebrew Bible cities; Category:Historic Jewish communities; Category:Holy cities; Category:Islamic history; Category:Jerusalem District; Category:Jerusalem Governorate; Category:Land of Israel; Category:Orthodox Jewish communities; Category:Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church; Category:Torah cities) you will pick and choose some of those parent categories and leave out others, based on confsued and and unclear reasons, and put then under the Jerusalem article page while you leave the others out. IZAK (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is being reposted to Category talk:Jerusalem#Placement of parent categories. Please continue all discussions and add comments at that page.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

appreciation

Thank you, Izak, for that very heartwarming award. That someone has noticed my contributions and sees them as noteworthy makes all the hard work worthwhile.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Gila: Yes, you make beautiful art and I appreciate it as I am sure many others do. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IZAK, I was wondering how to save the barnstars, because my talk page is really too big now and someone suggested that I create an archive. After reading all the instructions on how to do that, I didn't understand a word... But I did copy and paste the barnstars to the page you started. The problem is, I don't know what to do next. How do I put at the top my talk page, for example? After that, I guess I would archive everything up to this week. Please advise...--Gilabrand (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

« שמועס »

Dear friend please come to ‎« שמועס »‎ to see if we can use this channel as a place for Yiddish chats. This form should work at ‎װיקיװערטערבוך‎ when you are using Firefox, Konqueror or Opera. Unfortunatelly if does not work yet in Internet Explorer.‎
Please search in ‎װיקיװערטערבוך:הויפט זייט‎ at the seventh item in נאוויגאציע.‎ It is ‎« שמועס »‎.‎ I assume that you agree to add such an « שמועס » item at ‎װיקיפּעדיע‎‎ to נאוויגאציע as soon as our friends m:n:en:user:bawolff ... have fixed the code. Please do not hesitate to write your comments in the comment section.‎
Please make proposals about translating of the text / help: Only Latin characters and Latin numbers are allowed as « Your Nickname: » . Exceptions are « tekhniker|avek » , « ales-viser » etc. Please add some explanations about accessing the channel « #kavehoyz » by using the page chatwikizine: One should select the channel « #kavehoyz » from the channel list, select a Nickname and hit enter. All other fields are optional.‎
Thanks in advance and Good luck! Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for template:Yiddish-stub! Best regards

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tayerer Izak! I want to let you know about Yiddish Library Thingers created tonight. I informed more people, mainly community libraries at LibraryThing about the group. First almigwin joind the group with 6,060 books; see her catalog.

See the links to my profile and the books I have listed.

The page LibraryThing is both used by individuals and community libraries; these use it to catalogize their books.

Please do not hesitate to ask if you have further questions. Zayt gezunt

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 07:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Orthodox Judaism#Recent photo

The photographer, User:David Shankbone, is an accredited photographic journalist who took it as part of his trip to Israel on behalf of Wikinews for which he received some publicity. I see no reason to doubt his statements as to how he took it. If you don't think this matters, suggest saying so. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Shira: I have commented that the photo is not connected to the topic of Shabbat as such, it may as well depict two goats walking through Jeruaslem on Shabbat, as that would have zero connection to the topic of Shabbat per se. If someone took a photo of two Christian priests on Shabbat, would that connect such a photo and the priests to Shabbat? Obviously not. The photo depicts a young male and female Hasidic/Haredi couple. Nothing more nothing less. Thanks, and now truly, Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history of Belgium during World War II

Regarding your 27 Dec comment on the need for this page (at Wikiproject Belgium), you may wish to look at Free Belgian Forces if you haven't seen it. It is the post-1940 story. I haven't seen a good English language source on the Belgian Army in 1940. Do you know of one? Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect 'Iraq Suwaydan

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 'Iraq Suwaydan, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 'Iraq Suwaydan is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 'Iraq Suwaydan, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome

Hi IZAK, Thank you for your encouraging words. I find the wonderful world of wikipedia both exciting and depressing. Knowing that I can make a difference is a great feeling - seeing how my work can be deleted in an instant is sometimes hard to accept. Ultimately if my additions are helpful and useful to the community then I hope they will be received as such. Best wishes! --Itsabouttime (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. Yes, your concerns are real. But you can avoid the problem you mention by getting a better feel for the articles you want to add to by at first not being so pro-active in big articles that may have heated discussions or overly watchful editors attached to them and get a feel and knowledge of what has been happening there and the types of editors involved. Use article and project talk pages as much as you can when you are unsure. You may want to start or edit articles that are not in the limelight and that will not be deleted provided what you write and contribute meets Wikipedia's criteria, see Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:Manual of Style as introductions. (Don't worry it's not compulsory "homework" but it's a good place to know about.) IZAK (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Great advice. Thanks --Itsabouttime (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Done. --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rabbi Bar-Ilan (Berlin) Israel stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rabbi Bar-Ilan (Berlin) Israel stamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have responded there [3]:

1. This is a stamp honoring Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan, issued by Israel in 1983.
2. It was uploaded primarily to enhance the Meir Bar-Ilan article.
3. No similar free image can be found and
4. This is a low-grade depiction that fulfils that purpose.
5. Wikipedia allows the use of postage stamps when possible, per {{Non-free stamp}}.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See also sections

Hello, I have noticed that you added some large "See also" sections to WWII articles. May I suggest that it would be better to use a navigational template (created using {{navbox}}) in such cases? I know that many editors dislike laundry lists in see also and try to keet it to the minimum. Also the template looks better: instead of a long bullet list a template is a neat color box with all needed links. Renata (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Renata: Thank you for the creation of the {{Nazi Germany occupations}} template. You have done an excellent job that will help navigation for an important part of the history of the Second World War. IZAK (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Tnx. Zeq (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. IZAK (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for Award!

Hi Izak, Thank you for the award and your warm praise. My husband is the Talmid Chacham and I consult with him when I have religious queries. About the citations - I have tried to follow the standard reference practice on the page. I was trying to edit a faulty citation the other day to Benny Morris's book and that's where I might have erred. I will review the other pages you mentioned. "It's About Time" is the name of my book. I'm glad you've found another meaning for the phrase. Have a great day --Itsabouttime (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are welcome! IZAK (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Israel_M_Kirzner.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Israel_M_Kirzner.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel575

Izak, Daniel has posted at ANI regarding his account and my "witchhunt." Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Gancwajch‎

Hi, IZAK, I'm curious why do you think that the article about Abraham Gancwajch‎ is propaganda ? Do you think that a prominent Nazi collaborator in Warsaw Ghetto has no place in wikipedia ? I have also noticed that you had problems with another article I created, Tykocin pogrom. I'd be really interested to hear more about what's wrong with that article. --Lysy^talk 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Lysy: There were more than three million Jews in Poland before the Holocaust and most of them were murdered by the Nazis (with help from many Poles and Ukrainians, as is well-known, they were the true collaborators.) My question is why you think it's so important to dig up very doubtful information about a so-called "rabbi" when there were more than three million good Polish Jews and tens of thousands of righteous rabbis who were killed for Kiddush Hashem (Sanctification of God's Name) by being martyrs for Judaism. If you need Polish rabbis to write about, take a look into Category:Polish rabbis for a few good ones rather than looking for rotten apples that maybe didn't even exist at all. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that you think that I'm being an anti-Semitic idiot, who cherry picked Gancwajch‎ to prove a thesis that "Jews were collaborating with Nazis" or something similar. Well I'm not (I may be an idiot, though). After a rather long time spent on wikipedia, I'm used to be considered anti-Polish, anti-German, anti-Ukrainian, anti-Lithuanian and what not. Why not an anti-Semite now for a change ?

The organisations that Gancwajch‎ headed were the most notorious and despised ones in Warsaw Ghetto. He was a prominent person, known both to Czerniakow and Korczak. The Jewish Combat Organization sentenced him to death but were never able to execute him. I don't know how many Jewish people might had suffered because of his actions. And you're saying that he should be swept under the carpet? He certainly should not if only for the memory of all those, whom he betrayed. I'm all for exposing the prominent "rotten apples", regardless if they were Polish, Ukrainian or Jewish. Frankly, I'm surprised that a Gestapo collaborator finds so many "defenders" among the wikipedia editors only ... because he was a rabbi. Would you be still protesting if he was a Polish Catholic priest ? Give it a thought. Peace. --Lysy^talk 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lysy: I am not saying sweep anything anywhere, just that sometimes people lose focus of the big events and miss what really happened. This man is a nobody. What kind of "rabbi" was he? Were his functions that of a rabbi or of a "lone nut" who did harm? Your focus on this person as a "rabbi" shows a lack of awareness of the legitimate rabbis, many of whom were killed by the Nazis, so that is why I suggested you look at the notable ones and not at some crackpot nut-jobs. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I never had the focus on him as a rabbi. I fact I felt you had but maybe I misunderstood you. As for his notability, we differ on this. He was not an insignificant person, but clearly a very influential leader, also described as competitor of Czerniakow, so one of the most prominent Jews in Warsaw Ghetto. I don't know what made you think he was "nobody". I'm afraid I don't share the attitude that wikipedia should only describe the bold and the beautiful. Anyway, this settled, I wanted to ask you what did you think about Tykocin pogrom ? --Lysy^talk 15:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's besides the point. Izak, if he's notable, there will be an article on him. If he's not, contribute to the AfD. Please do not attempt to judge other people's motivations in this manner, or if you do so, do not do so visibly on-wiki. Eastern Europe on WP is a sewer of nationalist POV, but that does not mean that you add to it by throwing implications of antisemitism around. Relata refero (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Relata: Thanks for your input. You know, sometimes we lose sight of reality on Wikipedia. While Wikipedia may have many guidelines, sometimes they do not check out with the reality of things. The guy is atotal non-entity nut-jub who was responsible for some deaths it seems. Does that mean he desrves an article on Wikipedia for "notability"? We need to seek some balance, even though it may be uncomfortable to do so. IZAK (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that point of view, though I may not share it totally in this instance. However, I beg you to please refrain from making - or at any rate, expressing - assumptions about people's motives as you did in this case. It can hurt, and it can lead to worsening the atmosphere considerably, as well as driving out useful editors. Relata refero (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish Gestapo" and "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch?

Most of the worst of it seems to have been cleaned up. The "Rabbi" stuff is still dubious (apparently it's from someone's personal memoir), and they were still using an unreliable source in the Group 13 article, which I've fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for looking into this and for your help. IZAK (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Balabusta

Thanks for polishing the Balabusta article for me. I wouldda written more, but it's hard to find any citable sources. The inspiration for the article comes from Socalled's Ghettoblaster album, where a song is entitled "Balabusta". Jenda (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Jenda: Thank you for contacting me. You should insert the source you cite and keep searching for more. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Zionist question

Found this new article and the link bio of the attorney Zionist hunter, is this an actual term to refer to this or is it an advert like thing for this lawyer? MBisanz ^talk 07:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. It was an obvious violation of WP:NEO, WP:NOR and WP:POINT. IZAK (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation. Avi (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done! IZAK (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • MUCH better; well done! -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. IZAK (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:JH Template

What seems to be the problem? User:Avraham/Sandbox ? -- Avi (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• It was bloating up huge on talk pages, but it has recently been "back to normal" (maybe someone or something fixed it) so I will see what happens next. Thanks for responding. IZAK (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

Thanks for letting me know; it seems to have been mostly cleaned up. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Lee J Cobb.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Lee J Cobb.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, 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 08:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lee J Cobb.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lee J Cobb.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Rossrs (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)