User talk:IZAK/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Regarding the Beth (letter) article

I'm sorry to let you down here, IZAK, but I think the original version was better than your version. It also matches all the other Hebrew letter articles, so the issue (if it exists) is much more widespread. Perhaps some sort of compromise can be worked out. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article could use some expansion, but I agree with Jayjg and others that the previous version, as stubby as it is, was more NPOV. I also think that the article should be at Beth (letter) since that is how it is most widely known outside the Hebrew-speaking world. Tomer ^TALK 20:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed-back guys, but my intention was to start with "Beth" and then work on the other letters, which I still hope to do. The question of beth vs. bet depends on whether the goal is to convey the letter as it's used in the actual Hebrew language or how it "developed" according to the academics. How are the letters of other languages treated on Wikipedia by the way? Do they also focus on long-defunct forms, or is it the common (modern) usage that counts. And how did an article about the Hebrew language get lumped with "Phoenician"? This discussion will probably unfold in good time. Thanks again. IZAK 05:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Beth" is regarded as the "purest" original pronunciation of the Phoenician letter (notice: not beta). Why? Because that's how it was pronounced in Hebrew the good old days. I see your point, but perhaps this is something that should be brought up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics, or more specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems, as I'm sure there are a few people there whose guidance and input would be very helpful for the development of such an article. Incidentally, I say "beth" probably half the time, and never "bes".  :-p Tomer ^TALK 05:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Question: How do they know "Beth" is the "purest" if the Phoenicians have been dead and gone for over two or three thousand years? So maybe that's what they said, what's it got to do with the Hebrew language as a fully functional and functioning language TODAY. "Beth" as it's used by some today is nothing more than an Anglicisation. The bottom line for this letter today is that Sephardim and Israelis say bet and the Haredi Ashkenazim say beis or bays (and many Hasidim say buys -- as in "bye bye".) Why is reality so hard to grasp? IZAK 06:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copying this to Bet (letter). Further discussions should continue on Bet (letter). Thanks. IZAK 06:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling that we're not going to agree on this issue until we can agree on (a) what the issue at hand is and (b) what the proper approach to WP editing, i.e., descriptive vs. prescriptive, is. For now tho, I'm going to bed. If I don't talk ya tomorrow, have a good shabath.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 08:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh Tomer, don't be silly, we will come to an agreement (you know why and how? ...the people who know more-or-less nothing about the nature of the Hebrew language will decide it for us by "vote" or whatever...Wikipedia is truly marvelous...) I agree with you, it's time for a nap (the night is gone for full sleep) and yea sure, Shabbat Shalom !!! IZAK 08:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Jewish history

Recently Category:History by nation was deleted and replaced by Category:History by country after a discussion that attracted three votes and virtually no discussion. I am concerned by this change. One of the aspects that most bothers me is that several national history categories were removed. One of these was Category:Jewish history, where I know you have done much work. In terms of the history tree that cat is now only in Category:History of religion, which I find deeply misleading. I have brought the matter up again on cfd and would be interested in your opinion. - SimonP 23:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. IZAK 05:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thorny geo-stub issue

Hi IZAK - I would welcome your input on something that I have proposed at WP:WSS/C (the stub sorting wikiproject). I am largely responsible for the split of geography stubs into separate categories. At the moment, Category:Middle East geography stubs is getting fairly large, and the most obvious split of it is to make a separate category for Israel. BUT - and here is where the problem lies - understandably, several of the stubs could be just as easily stubbed with a template for Palestine, especially if they are to remain NPOV, and especially given the volatile claims to different parts of that troubled region.

I am proposing a category called Category:Israel-Palestine geography stubs, with two separate stub templates {{israel-geo-stub}} and {{palestine-geo-stub}} both leading to it. The resulting stub category would be a subcategory of both Category:Israel and Category:Palestine. It is, quite honestly, the only way I can think of to get around this delicate problem.

If you can think of any better way of working this, I would welcome any suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Israel-Palestine. Thanks - Grutness...wha? 10:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Grutness, thank you for requesting my input. I will respond soon and will circulate your request to others for further input. IZAK 21:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The more voices the better - if you know anyone willing to comment from the Palestinian viewpoint as well, it would be appreciated. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hi IZAK - I note that you've made the two new stubs (a few days early, but never mind!)> I've put a list of all the geo-stubs I know of relating to Israel and/or Palestine at User:Grutness/Geo-stubs (Israel and Palestine) - I'll take out the more obvious ones, but I'd appreciate it if you could go through and help with any which are likely to cause problems (you know a LOT more about the area's politics than I do!)> I understand that several will probably be particularly contentious, and may need to be double stubbed to go in both categories (unless that will cause even more problems...) Grutness...wha? 07:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Hello Grutness, will do, and I was actually working on it, but your list makes it easier. Thanks. IZAK 07:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I have completed the job from the list you gave me. IZAK 11:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias

Hey IZAK. Mind taking a look? I don't know how much value the project has (at least in its present form), but you might be very interested in standing up to the inciter of this VfD. See my comments there, and I may follow up with a Keep. Feel free to spread the word. Ironically this is probably a quintessential example of what the WikiProject was created for; this VfD itself may prove the very raison d'etre of the Project! Gut Voch, HKT 06:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hi HKT, I have noticed and noted the discussions about this, but honestly, I have no opinion either way. The real problem is that someone originally went ahead and started this project without any consultation with others, never developed it, and left it hanging in the air, so it was bound to get shot down eventually, by friend or foe. I think that there is plenty of room in the original Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for this sort of discussion (or project, whatever you want to call it) if needed (even though User:Jfdwolff objected.) Surprise, I am staying out of this one. I cannot vote for dead wood either way, because this thing was DOA from the start. A gutte Voch. IZAK 06:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editing My Articles

thank you for editing my articles Daat Torah and Isha Katlanit. I had been very disappointed when no one had edited them for some time. SHASHAZ 14:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Bevakasha, you are welcome. Keep on trying and don't give up. IZAK 04:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Query re: editing of category

Shalom, IZAK, pax!

... it is there that the tribes go up, the tribes of the LORD ...

Thank you very much for correcting the categories in the case of the Reginald C. Fuller article. Please forgive my ignorance; but in that case should Biblical Criticism not also be removed?

A different point altogether, prompted by a comment on your site. One of the few memorable moments during my student years was the invitation to join the "campaign" for the promotion of the reservation of the verb "to believe" for the religious context, e.g. "I believe in G-d", "I believe in the Resurrection" etc. Everywhere else the use of "to consider", "to assume", "to be convinced" or similar is more appropriate, e.g. "I think I may be responsible for introducing this subject into the discussion".

... Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! May they prosper who love you ...

Portress 28 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)

• Hello Portress: Thank you for contacting. I am however very puzzled by what it is that you are trying to say. Thanks. IZAK 29 June 2005 08:57 (UTC)

• Shalom, IZAK, So sorry, I did not mean to be obscure. – The couple of quotations I gave had been called to my mind by the photo and quotation on your user page. – As regards the point of interest to me, on the criterion you kindly pointed out to this ignorant newcomer to Wikipedia, should the category Biblical criticism on the Reginald C. Fuller page not also be deleted? – Concerning the other point, you say on your user page: "I do believe that I have been the primary creator and builder of most of the categories...", hence my suggestion. But not to worry about it; it is simply a hobby horse of mine. – Again, many thanks for your help! Portress 29 June 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Image:John Glubb Pasha.jpg

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading John Glubb Pasha.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Admrboltz 4 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

• Dear Admr: Your message here appears to reveal a lack of familiarity with the range of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. This image was tagged as {{Fairold}} which is a "fair use" type: See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use: "{{Fairold}} - For use with images from old sources where copyright may have expired but not quite old enough for this to be certain, but where use would be contended to be fair use if still subject to copyright (eg, advertising from companies that have been out of business for 50 + years)." The rationale being that this image is well over 50 years old, from the days when Glubb was in active military service, probably from the 1930s and 1940s. IZAK 5 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
• Sorry, I didnt even tag the image... I was running through the Uncited images list fairly quickly yesterday morning, sorry! --Admrboltz 5 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

Mishnah stuff

See Keilim Danny 4 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

• Dear Danny: Thank you so much for this notification. I will look into it soon. Best wishes. IZAK 5 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Jewish Polish history

Trying for Template:JewishPolishHistory

Nice, but it has its share of problems - pointed out at talk of main history article. Please, don't let our discussion degenerate into revert war. Summarising is good, I agree it would be prudent to shorten the article to 50kb or so, but moving the ENTIRE content except lead, see also, refs and templates to subarticles is not helping. Let's try to summarise it so it would pass FA, deleting only the EXCESS material. Copying (not MOVING) all content to subarticles is a good start, but we need to improve their names (periodisation), I feel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 5 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism VfD

I'll get to it tomorrow hopefully. It's really annoying that every single "keep" vote shows an utter failure to grasp the rationale behind my VfD nomination, and in fact, seems to show a blatant POV in favor of equating this neologistic crybabiness over warcrimes committed against Poles with antisemitism. I've got a lot on my plate right now tho, including potentially failing a class (a new experience for me), which will prevent me from getting my degree, which will prevent me from getting a job, which will...and it goes on.  :-/ Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 09:43 (UTC)

• Thanks for the speedy reply. Please take care of your personal needs first. Unfortunately, too many Polish editors (like most of the pro-Arab ones and many English-speaking ones) seem to be outright revisionists of history, (I am being nice here), and cannot face up to their own guilt and liability by trying to hide under the cloak of "victimization", a nice trick they must have learnt from America's false "culture of victimization". None of them ever give respite to the Jews nor do they respect Jewish history, ...but hey, that's all in day's (volunteer) work on Wikipedia, so enjoy it, what the heck... IZAK 6 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

Evil decree and response

Thanks IZAK for your work on wikifying Alhambra decree and Abravanel's response thereto. I've been meaning to get to it, and they could probably still find room for a few more links, but you've done an excellent job of legitimizing part of my long-ago rationale for keeping both texts here rather than summarily moving them to wikisource. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 09:54 (UTC)

• No problem at all. They are very important documents and I hope they remain. My view is that short original documents (anything under the 20-30K suggested page "limit") should not be shoved into Wikisource. This was the first time I actually read the Abrabanel's official chilling response. A very profound document indeed. (In fact someone had just recently asked me about the Jews' "ban" [cherem] upon Spain, and this provides the actual source from the mouth of the leading rabbinic sage who was there at the time.) IZAK 6 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)
  • I remember the first time I heard it, it terrified me that a Jew, by pronouncing, words could demolish so mighty an empire (which is essentially what happened to Spain). I heard it again last year at the YI in Woodmere, New York on 9 Av and when I found that it wasn't on WP, decided it was something that should be more readily accessible to ppl. I'd like to get a link to the original (and very eloquently-worded) Spanish version, if, for no other reason, than to have a decent original instead of a back-translation from the English, to work with in creating an article for es:WP. Anyways. It's beddybye for me for now. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 10:18 (UTC)
    • BTW, please review Talk:Isaac_Abrabanel as it has some information that may be useful for refactoring the lead of both articles. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 10:22 (UTC)

Christian opposition to anti-Semitism

Yeah, this one's a real doozy. First of all, it displays Roman Catholic egocentrism, as if the only Christians were Roman Catholic. Secondly, it's very limited in scope historically. Thirdly, and much more importantly, it's one of the most egregious displays of whitewashing that I've seen recently. The author just keeps pasting info from newadvent.org (or something). I hardly know where to start.... --HKT 6 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Next thing you know, there will be rabbis and reverend cantors showing up to "help"... Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 15:42 (UTC)

I've been purposely avoiding that article, it's a terrible mess. Now you're trying to drag me in? :-P As for Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Article division, I'll go there and take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

Wojsko Polskie

At the risk of being called an "anti-Polonist", I would recommend that Wojsko Polskie be moved back to its English name. I'm just going to bite my tongue on the rest of my comments about this bunch, who seem to be the "Wszystko Polskie" equivalent of Merlinzor and his sockpuppet army. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 17:59 (UTC)

• I see you haven't weighed in yet at Talk:Wojsko_Polskie#Final_vote. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 18:14 (UTC)
• OK, I'm changing the redirect from Polish Army to go to Land Forces of Poland instead. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 18:25 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether or not you noticed, but that completely sensible change of redirection was reverted w/in about an hour. Pathetic. Tomer ^TALK 04:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Tomer: Sorry, but I have been away this week. Need to catch up now... IZAK 05:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm back

Anything that I need to get my editing muscles flexed for?--Josiah 03:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Josiah: I was away a while, so look around the Israel and Zionism, always something brewing in those areas. IZAK 05:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Take a look at Aaron ben Elijah (as requested of me by User:Danny)...as you know, I am "allergic" to Karaites. IZAK 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Cruise

A "kosher tax" conspiracist appears to have show up; see edits at Kosher and Kosher tax. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I thought Cruise was only into Scientology??? IZAK 05:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Aaron ben Elijah

Hi. I created this article based on the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, but I did a substantial edit to make it readable. Your comments and insights would be greatly appreciated. Danny 02:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• This is probabaly a job better suited to User:Yoshiah ap, he knows more about these guys (Karaites). I try to stay clear of them... IZAK 05:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving bet (letter) to ב

I don't know about you, but I'm quite happy with Violet's taking up Angr's recommendation that the article be moved to ב instead of to either or the previous options. If so, please proceed with your previously-mentioned desire to expand all of the letters of the alefbeith (:-D) articles, which I would recommend moving to the actual Hebrew character names with appropriate redirects pointing there. Tomer ^TALK 04:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• An interesting solution indeed, very "Solomonic"...IZAK

That category on Hebrew Bible verses

There are two related votes

• A survey at Wikipedia:Bible source text on whether the entire text of a bible chapter should be included in an article (on Wikipedia) or not.
• A VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, on whether every single verse deserves its own article (rather than just the noteworthy ones).

~~~~ 11:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have voted now. IZAK 05:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Your vote on the VFD appears a bit ambiguous. Do you believe that Matthew 1:9 (part of the Genealogy of Jesus) should ever have its own article?

One of the issues that the articles have is that they can easily be filled with worthless fluff (e.g. Matthew 1:9) which explains what time period the people in the verse are likely to have lived in, what that environment was like, etc. ~~~~ 07:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• I was "ambiguous" on purpose. I am not an expert on New Testament material. But in the Hebrew Bible any verse can be found to have much meaning with the right research and commentary. IZAK 02:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

New articles

Please have a look at Rabbah bar Nahmani and Nethanel ben Isaiah. Thanks. Danny 02:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user keeps reverting Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews

Hi Izak, Could you take a look at Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews if/when you have time. Thanks! :) Olve 06:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Religious persecution by Jews

You mak want to keep an eye on Religious persecution by Jews to keep it in a NPOV. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for this note. I have voted now. IZAK 07:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Nissim Cahn vandals

I've blocked them all, and a couple of other related sockpuppets as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK

Thank you for your welcoming remarks on my talk page (talk). 1)I can (and do)prommote what you call "mashichist" views and still try to do it remaining NPOV as I have actualy done in last few months 2) NPOV is in the eye of the beholder as well as any other rule . See for example the Gil Student's page deletion proccess to view examples of extreme bias against him by some of the Chabad WikiPedians and their attempts to hide that bias by quoting the WikiPedia rules. Or see the reverts of the Chabad page and the Rebbes page by various people and some of the things they posted on the corresponding talk pages to "prove" the "anti-mashichist" agenda or "anti-mashichist" "domination" of the "official Chabad" Ariel Sokolovsky

• Hi Ariel: Thank you for your response. I am very familiar with what you mention...I have been active in the Jewish articles of Wikipedia since 2002, long before most people got involved here. I am not a Chabad Chosid, but everyone on Wikipedia is obliged to at least try to live up to the mechanism of "NPOV" and not just brush it aside as being "in the eye of the beholder", otherwise all hell will break loose as each person will fight to have only "one" (i.e. their) POV to exist alone, and that will never happen on Wikipedia. If you can convey your beliefs in correct scholarly English then it is possible to insert views from any serious perspective. You have to think of how to do this on Wikipedia so that you will be taken seriously and not shoved aside as having "weird" views that no-one can understand or relate to. You cannot expect the world to jump to attention when you shove extreme Kabbalistically-derived ideas onto them, most people do not know how to "eat" such a concoction. IZAK 07:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Shalom Izak

I agree with practicly everything you say. I'm curious though, why did you chose me in particular to give this advice to? Have you read my bio [[1]] and assumed this aplies to me or have you read my previous contributions and felt they were full of NPOV extreme mashichist propaganda?:-) When you mention kabalisticly derived ideas I assume you mean something like "atzmus u'mehus elokus hamelubash be guf - Rebbe being the esence and being of G-d clothed in a body" since other "controversial" Chabad ideas are not realy kabalisticly based eternal life of Moshiach as explained by the Rebbe King Moshiach Shlit"a for example has sources in Tanach in Talmud as well as here:[[2]]and also explained here: [[3]] mostly nigla sources:-) Ariel Sokolovsky

• Ariel: I know that you are a convinced Meshichist, and I do respect you for it, but please, since I, and most other Jews (both frum and not frum) do not share your views, you need to be very careful how you convey ideas that that will open you up to attack. IZAK 07:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:81.129.203.10

I thought you might want to keep an eye on 81.129.203.10 (talk · contribs). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, he seems to have left for now..another day another vandal...IZAK 07:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment.

Your recent comments at this VfD quite clearly violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am willing to accept an apology for your poor assumptions and cavalier tone. Shem^(talk) 09:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Your recent comments evidence insensitivity to the Jewish people. You are also avoiding the debate by using this pathetic smoke-screen. IZAK 09:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Feeling that foot in your mouth yet, IZAK? Shem^(talk) 08:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Shem old boy: You know, when I hear from you I am never sure if you're in one your notorious "I edit Wikipedia when bored, curious, or drinking" moods (as per your user page). Let's see, I think right now, you are probably "bored" & "drinking" because I can't imagine that you have any curiosity left since you seem to be so well-versed in Judaism etc, or so you tell me. Why don't you just buzz off and run along and enjoy your honeymoon instead of making a huge pest out of yourself? I'm going to get some shut-eye myself soon. IZAK 08:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Mrs. Shem Daimwood edits here, too. Honeymoon was two weeks ago, but thanks for the well-wishes regardless. :) Shem^(talk) 08:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh I know that by now, you have it splashed on your user page, nice picture too, you'll probably get over it in good time though, all truly loving newly-wed couples go through the early bonding jazz, let's see how you guys perform twenty years from now? Anyhow, I think the Mrs. is lovely, she probably has good values by the look on her face and I wish her luck in her attempts at "reforming" you. Only time will tell, as ever. IZAK 08:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume that's a "no" to any apology for your behavior, then? Shem^(talk) 09:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• One of your great problems is that you are constantly "assuming" things! You "assume" that I am saying things when they are not directed to you as such, they are part of a debate which is not about you or me, which you do not seem to grasp, so you then run about "assuming" that your interpretations which have nothing to do with what I am saying are correct "assumptions" when they are not! I cannot fathom what I am supposed to apologize to you about? On your user page you claim that you write when you are drunk ("I edit Wikipedia when bored, curious, or drinking") or did I make that up? You are confused! IZAK 09:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I assure you, my comprehension's just fine; dare I say my writing reads much more clearly than yours from the past thirty minutes. There're several comments you've directed specifically at myself, and your attitude now (on this Talk page) ain't much where civility is concerned either; regardless, whichever editors you were targetting, your comments violate a very purposeful Wikipedia policy. Shem^(talk) 09:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I just checked on how you linked "drinking" on your page, it's to Alcoholic beverage! How am I or anyone to know that you're not right now under the influence of a six-pack or worse? You also clearly state on your user page that you do not assume good faith, is that not a violation of Wikipedia policy by you?! Furthermore you have not specified any point that you deem requires an apology. This does not make you look too good. IZAK 09:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

To assume good faith is a Wikipedia guideline, actually, not a policy. Also, is there a point to your diatribe against alcoholic beverages, or are you simply attempting to make this a matter of image/personality politics? I've made very clear (and simple) my concern here, and can't quite see where you're headed with this (other than nowhere, which is entirely up to you). Shem^(talk) 09:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, you are "assuming" that I am making a "diatribe against alcoholic beverages" here, when in fact all I am doing is merely pointing to your own words that tell any Wikipedian that reads your user page that you may be "under the influence" when editing. That is all. So it is then best for any Wikipedian to be cautious when making comments around you since you may in fact be suffering from the editorial equivalant of "double vision" and no wonder then that you constantly make incorrect "assumptions". That being so, I forgive you for making a pest of yourself, and you had best get some rest and think about formulating a better introduction about yourself so that people can at least "assume" that they are dealing with a sober editor and not one who is perhaps inebriated. (P.S. Did you note my warnings to you NOT to edit my comments on my talk page which is a severe violation of Wikipedia policy!) Why are you running away from the truth when I quote your own words about yourself: That "I edit Wikipedia when bored, curious, or drinking"? IZAK 09:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has devolved into nothing but further personal attacks from yourself. Also: Edit your comments, warnings? Beg your pardon? Shem^(talk) 10:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well, take a look at this [4], you made illegal changes to my comments. And tell me, how in heavens name is it a "personal attack" when I quote you saying that you may be drunk when editing on Wikipedia? Are you not mature enough to face up to a logical discussion/s or do you always look for smoke-screens and excuses to avoid the real truth about what you yourself support, either about how Jews are performing imaginary "religious persecution" of others or making "assumptions" that people are making personal comments about you when all that's happening is that your own words are coming back at you. I have to go now, I have been up too long trying to show you the light. IZAK 10:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And here's the warning (for) [5] and for [6] Where I had to insert what you edited out. Not nice on your part to break Wikipedia's rules at the very same time that you purport to be reading me the "riot act". That is what we call in Yiddish Chutzpah! IZAK 10:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh, that must've been one of those "edit conflict" screens I've been getting recently; I believe it's called "stomping" when two people publish a page at the same time, and one's most recent comments are accidentally overwritten in a copy-paste? I'd apologize, but you seem to be turning a (fairly typical, apparently) accident into further attack. Shem^(talk) 10:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, you seem to be fixated on me too much, and willing to make excuses for yourself. But that is ok, I suggest you stick to the original subject (whether Jews --as Jews-- are really "persecutors" or not) and STOP making "assumptions" that I am "fixated" on you in any way shape size or form because I am most certainly not! And now I will truly sign off. So long! IZAK 10:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Simeon ben Shetach

I copied this over with a few minor changes and wikification from the Jewish Encyc. I could use some help with it when you have time, and please pass it on to whoever else might be interested. --Briangotts (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The VFD debate

Hi IZAK. I responded to your question on my talkpage. I closed it as a no-consensus keep since there was not a two-thirds majority for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's best to get another admin to look into this (I am not an admin yet). --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, I have commented on the VfD page. The article is ridiculous and anachronistic. On the other hand, it would require a 2/3 majority to be deleted. Unfortunately, many of the people voting do not appreciate the flawed history in the article. I would strongly support reopening the VfD. Danny 11:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Danny: I read your message. If you could go ahead and re-open the VfD or do what is needed it would be greatly appreciated by many people on Wikipedia I am sure. I left messages with some important Users who should get involved. I will be away the next number of days, so I cannot give this matter more attention at this time. All the best and zai gezunt. IZAK 11:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to reopen the debate, but I strongly disagree with Sjakkalle's flawed math. It's close enough to two thirds (only a very very small number of votes would have tipped it over), and this is despite a near-record number of people voting. It's a very bad call on his part. Ambi 11:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Reopening the VfD debate

User:Danny has called for the VfD to be re-opened. See Talk:Religious persecution by Jews#Reopen debate, please voice your opinion. Thanks, and be well. IZAK 12:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you tak eanother look at my talkpage? I suggest asking a couple of other administrators for advice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Sjak, yes I did already. Thanks for your response. I must sign off now. IZAK 12:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Israeli terrorism" vote for deletion

You commentary would be appreciated.

Guy Montag 22:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are you repeatedly deleting my talkpage comment?

Please stop my deleting my talkpage comment in the "reopen debate" section of Religious persecution by Jews. Please stop. I am enjoying our other conversation and don't understand this bizarre behavior. Babajobu 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am not! As I replied, it was not me doing anything deliberate. It seems in the course of editing the page and inserting new talk, some stuff got left out, how I honestly don't know. No fault of mine, and as you say why would I delete anything (as I never do) in the midst of our other longer dialogue. IZAK 15:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, got it. Misunderstanding. Take care for now. Babajobu 16:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

OK Baba, it was real as they say, I have to be away too. Take care. IZAK 16:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi

You left me a message on my talk page, and I was just wondering what I did to deserve that message. Also, who are you and how did you find me to send me such a message? From the looks of things, it appears as though you are in charge here in Wikipedia-land, with all of these people asking you for help. ~Dale (please respond on my page so that I know when you respond, even though you like to put it on your page. I suppose you can cut and paste if you want a running thread.) user talk:DRosenbach

• It was a "welcome" message. Your line that "From the looks of things, it appears as though you are in charge here in Wikipedia-land, with all of these people asking you for help" is HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!! IZAK 13:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yiddish Wikipedia

Hi IZAK. As a Yiddish speaker, you might be interested in my half-baked plan to revitalize the moribund (only 121 articles) Yiddish Wikipedia. Please see my idea at Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_Wikipedia, and thanks.--Pharos 05:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• I cannot get involved in the Yiddish project at the present time...too busy with the English version/s. IZAK 13:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)