User talk:StevenJ81/Archive 2

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Talmud/Gemara

Hi, this is user --Btk13 (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Btk13. I'm highly knowledgeable regarding Judaism, as I am an orthodox Jew myself. A few weeks ago, i put a link in Talmud to Gemara, as they are both the exact same thing. StevenJ81 reverted this and holds that this was a "disruptive link". I'd just like to warn everyone that he clearly has no idea what's flying when it comes to Judaism.

OK.

1. I'm Orthodox, too, so get over that.
2. You had best check with your rebbe as to whether Talmud and Gemara are the "exact same thing." In fact, every masechta of Talmud begins ... not with Gemara at all, but with Mishnah. The Gemara then follows. Then there is more Mishnah. Then more Gemara. And so forth. And both of those together are the Talmud. If your rebbe disagrees, he is welcome to dispute that with me in any forum you and he choose ... but I'd be willing to wager he wouldn't disagree.
   • For what it's worth, somebody besides me reverted your latest attempt to add the same text. On the same grounds. Before you try a fourth time, would you please ask your rebbe a shailah?
3. The link is somewhat disruptive in that it is simply incorrect. But if you read what I wrote at Talk:Talmud#Btk13's recent edit, you will know that what was really disruptive was how you did it. See in particular points 2 and 3 from the discussion at Talk:Talmud#Btk13's recent edit. You need more experience with understanding how we do things around here, even when you are correct—and all the more so when you are not.
4. Finally, for you to start stating things like "... he clearly has no idea what's flying when it comes to Judaism" when you don't know anything about me is, in my view, loshon hara.

Now, if you want to have a civil discussion about the edit you feel you would like to make at Talmud, by all means meet me at Talk:Talmud and start discussing. You are close to what we call edit warring, which can result in your being blocked from editing on this subject. I'm not calling in an administrator on that yet, and if you want to discuss your ideas further at Talk:Talmud, I won't. But if you try to force this "Talmud is the exact same thing as Gemara" idea into the article again directly, I will.

Respectfully,

StevenJ81 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's btk13. I never said that Talmud and Gemara are the same exact thing-originally, I just made a link in "Talmud" to "Gemara". You, for reasons unbeknownst to me, reverted it. In terms of what you said about it being Loshon Hara, it's not - I'm simply warning people to beware, and in no way, shape, or form is that Loshon Hora. When you use the term Gemara, it refers to the entire thing - Mishna and actual Gemara text together. Have you ever said "I'm going to learn Talmud"? No - you say "I'm going to learn Gemara"! As for why you want to report me, I really can't understand. Feel free to contact me at my talk page (talk:Btk13 —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Velas

Steve, I didn't know if you wanted me to reply on my page or yours, so here it is on your page as well:

Can you get him to revert you three times in a day? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I believe I am reverting him. But I'll go for 3 if it will make you happy...:) I really don't know why Malik didn't just leave that article deleted. He's such a nice Admin, but he didn't know who he was dealing with with Mr. Rodriquez. Also, I find it hard to believe that he didn't re-delete it, after he saw what Rodriquez is doing over and over again. Just the fact that Rodriquez just copied and pasted the exact same article back up there after promising to re-write it differently, should be enough to eliminate that article for eternity. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Don't know if you saw the latest on my page. Rodriquez contacted me to say he would re-write the article, and this was my reply: OK lets talk. First, Does your resort sell timeshare units? I just want to confirm this, because you were linking it off of the timeshare article. As far as re-writing the article, you must first realize that this is an encyclopedia, not an place to advertise your resort. To make it an encyclopedia article, it must have a reason to be written in the first place. Just telling everyone, what a wonderful place Velas is, is no reason for an article. You are going to have to be quite creative to keep that article from being deleted. You may want to add the history of what the site was before it was a hotel. You can explain why the building of the Hotel was so important that is deserves an encyclopedia article. My suggestion to you is to read other articles about historic hotels, and use their format. If your Hotel isn't historic in nature, why do we need to read about it. You'd be better off just buying add space somewhere and saying whatever your money can buy. Best of luck.. ////////////////////////////////////

That's the latest in the drama Steven. Pocketthis (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• We'll see. That's the right instruction to give; we'll see if he follows the rules. If he does ... good. I'm not looking to censor, per se. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• • If you get a chance, drop into my talk page, and read the latest. I'm sure you'll find it as entertaining, as it is informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pocketthis#Re:_Velas_Resorts Pocketthis (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way: the way to give a wikified link for that is this: [[User talk:Pocketthis#Re: Velas Resorts]] parses to this: User talk:Pocketthis#Re: Velas Resorts. And the way to push a bullet point in without leaving a trail of them behind is to put colons in front, instead of consecutive asterisks, like this:

• First (*)

• Second (:*)

• Third (::*)

• Fourth (:::*)

• Third (::*)

• Second (:*)

• First (*)

StevenJ81 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

1635 in Quebec

Hello, I aimeraius this page are remaining 1635 in Quebec, but you can put one of your events and when you want users to this page. Warning, these sentences is coming from google translation, I speak French.

Godinpédia (talk) 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bien sûr. Peut-être que je puisse expliquer en français. (Mon français est courant, mais pas pratiqué.) Toutes années dans tous pays ne sont pas (nécessairement) notables leur-mêmes. Par exemple, les articles pour chaque année historique pour tout le Canada ne commencent pas jusqu'à 1700. Je reconnais que le Québec est différent d'autres provinces; à même temps, il n'y aura pas plus d’événements au Québec qu'au Canada.

Je veux suggérer: Changez l'article de 1635 in Quebec à 1630s in Quebec, comme 1630s in Canada. (Aussi, peut-etre combiner toutes les articles "161x in Quebec" à 1610s in Quebec.) Il vaut mieux faire comme ça, je pense. Bonne chance! StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Holocaust Memorial Days

You have set out the discussion at talk beautifully. Thank you for your efforts. I look forward to the ensuing discussion. I am however rather perturbed by a user’s decision to revert my edit at this early stage. It seems your effort at hoping to reach a decision and resolve this amicably is not viewed as necessary by some. Chesdovi (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I tried. Just a couple of points privately for you, if I may:

Debresser (talk · contribs) is a good guy, but his views on what should be included here and at the article Jewish holidays have always been pretty narrowly construed. He would really rather that the four Israeli holidays not be included, as they are not historically Jewish holidays (i.e., from the Torah, Talmud, Shulchan Aruch, and so on). He's stopped fighting that battle because too many people oppose that narrow a view. However, if you'll notice: in both the article and the template the Israeli holidays are separated out so as not to appear on the exact same footing as the classic religious holidays. To some extent, that compromise was the price for ongoing peace. I'm ok with that, though. It's not an inaccurate way to organize things.

I think you'll find that people think of Yom Hashoah differently from the rest for a couple of different reasons:

1. Even if one doesn't want to consider it a Jewish holiday, it is an Israeli holiday, so it survives that way. (Notice: there is a link in the template in the Israeli holidays section.)
2. Maybe you'll correct me on the following. I have the distinct impression that most times when Jewish communities themselves organize Holocaust remembrance events and activities, they do so on Yom HaShoah. Accordingly, that makes Yom HaShoah a Holocaust Remembrance Day observed by Jews everywhere (or at least in many, many places). But maybe that's only true in places that didn't have a direct experience of the Holocaust, like UK, US, and Israel. If Jews in Romania, Bulgaria, and so forth commemorate the Holocaust as much on the dates indicated as on Yom HaShoah, then you may have a case. Try to bring some evidence on that.

Please be careful not to be too emotional about this on that talk page. It will hurt, rather than help, your chances.

StevenJ81 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lad:Shabbat

Working on it :-) --Maor X (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks and good job on your comments made on Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Musdan77 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! (It's been pretty cold here lately.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Shabat (diya de la semana)

Go for it, it makes total sense to me! --Maor X (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Knesset speakers

As you asked me not to respond to your comment on the talk page, I thought I could do so here (I am getting rather annoyed by Sundostund thanking any editor who agrees with him as it seems very childish, but is seems churlish to say so on the page itself). The reason the colours bother me so much is that they are original research. Your idea of using "ish" colours to represent past parties doesn't solve the problem. Likud was formed by some very different parties - Herut and the Liberal Party. One of the three parties that formed the Labour Party was also formed as a deliberate alternative to Mapai (which with it eventually remerged). There are also several instances of alliances (such as One Israel) which combined different parties with different colours.

Aside from that, my other main concern is usability. The coloured/pictured lists are very difficult to actually read because there are so few rows on every page (six compared to close to 30 for the alternative). And why do we need a key if the party name is displayed in the rows?

But thank you for actually bothering to respond to my concerns about original research rather than just stating that you think ones looks better than the other. Number 57 21:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for not cluttering up the RfC page. I think his thank-yous are kind of annoying, too.

Again, I'll say that the colors are only original research if you think they represent some official representation of something. Otherwise, they're not research at all, just a graphic representation. It's convenient for people to make Democrats blue and Republicans red, but (a) there's nothing formal/legal/official about those colors, and (b) for the purpose of what the colors are trying to accomplish here, they could be green and gold. It's really, really not about whether the colors are "right".

As to usability, and I am simplifying a complex point here, some people are verbal learners, some are visual learners, and some (as far as it goes) are audio learners. For some people, the fact that the party names are there makes the colors redundant or even irrelevant. You clearly fall in this camp. My wife and one of my sons would find a text-only table to be very, very difficult to use, and would get much more meaning out of a colorful table. So why not allow for both, even if you have to scroll around a little more?

I do take your point that the splits and mergers of Israeli parties are not always so obvious. I'm not sure what to suggest on that. Again, my take is that the colors are intended to tell a story, rather than being "official". The problem boils down to what story you are telling, and whether colors help or hurt that.

At the level of President, PM and Speaker, the high-level story is a relatively straightforward one, and the colors should reflect same:

• Coalitions of the left, whose leadership has been Mapai, which evolved into Labor (which fact, at a very high level, is WP:BLUE, IMO)
• Coalitions of the right, whose leadership has been (Herut, which evolved into) Likud (same)
• One coalition of the center, led by Kadima
• Governments of National Unity, where that fact should be noted, but where single or rotating leadership is itself significant

To tell that story, you only really need three colors (or -ish variants of three colors).

At the level of individual Ministries, however, with Ministers coming from many different parties, how to tell that story with colors is far less clear. Center and religious parties have been part of many kinds of coalitions; what to do about that? Very tricky. I'd support trying to find a way to do that in color, but not if it is more confusing than enlightening.

Anyway, my two cents. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Preceisely, I look forward to finding out from Sundostund what party colours Sephardim and Oriental Communities, the Progressive Party, Gesher – Zionist Religious Centre and the New Liberal Party used if he gets his way, as all of them had ministers. Number 57 10:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Number 57, all the parties you listed above already had its party colors before you remodeled lists of ministers into your ugly, oversimplified preferred version. I look forward to see them reverted to their previous versions, which I think were great... Anyway, my main concerns are well known:

Keeping the lists of Israeli Presidents and Prime Ministers in their current form;

Implementing Option 2 for list of Knesset speakers.

I'd strongly agree with Steven that lists of Presidents, Prime Ministers and Knesset speakers tells a relatively straightforward story, and that can be far more tricky when it comes to individual ministries. So, the solution for lists of ministers can go either way, as far as I'm concerned... I'd also totally agree with Steven when he says: The colors are only original research if you think they represent some official representation of something. Otherwise, they're not research at all, just a graphic representation. That explanation is perfectly acceptable to me. I'd also repeat that party colors can certainly be determined by a party's ideology, history and place in political spectrum. --Sundostund (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So, can you give me the sources for those colours? And if you really believe the last part, then I do not think you should be editing political articles on Wikipedia. Number 57 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention to turn Steven's talk page into yet another battleground for our futile discussions, Number 57. I never claimed those colors were the official party colors, they were meant to be a graphic representation of succession of various ministers. Yes, I definitely believe the last part of my statement, and you'll certainly not tell me what I should or shouldn't do on Wikipedia. --Sundostund (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You are misleading readers into thinking those parties were represented by those colours. And if you really think you can define colour by ideology, then I suggest you look at Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) for a start. Number 57 17:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not misleading anyone, Number 57. I said my opinion, and that's how things usually work on other lists here. I repeat - usually, not always. --Sundostund (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are. If you are inserting colours into articles to represent parties, and those colours were not in fact used by those parties, then you are misleading readers. It doesn't matter how things work - if things are wrong, they should be corrected. Number 57 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Things can work like that, but not in all cases. Definitely not in cases of all Israeli parties, formed since 1948 to this day. --Sundostund (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sundostund, concerning "colors by ideology [etc.]," I think you are really over the line on that. I do not agree with that at all.

You would need reliable sources as to whether Party A was to the right or left of party B, and at that I'm not sure you would have much outright consensus between sources. I think you could probably get away with loosely dividing parties into categories of "generally left" (say, red), "generally center" (say, green) and "generally right" (say, blue) and then make different parties of those categories be different shades of the base color. And at that, at least in Israel, "generally religious" parties don't really live in that spectrum at all, and would need a fourth color. Certainly earlier in Israel's history they didn't. But trying to micro-fit each party into a specific color? Really?

If you start pushing this too hard, I might have to change my mind about the whole enterprise of colors. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Steven, I hope you saw that I agreed with you that marking parties of various ministers with colors can be way trickier than doing the same thing on lists of Presidents, Prime Ministers and Knesset speakers. Those lists are of my great concern, lists of ministers can go either way. --Sundostund (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're only bothered about Prime Ministers and Presidents, then why are you fighting so hard on List of Knesset speakers? Number 57 17:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I did see that. I'm just encouraging you not to make this too complex.

Let's decide on the first three first. After that, we can have a separate discussion. For my information, I assume that lists concerning other ministries always include the Prime Minister served under, right? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Number 57, I clearly stated that I'm bothered not only about Presidents and Prime Ministers, but also about Knesset speakers. I wouldn't even look into lists of Israeli ministers if you, Number 57, didn't tell me that you plan to remodel all lists of Israeli officeholders (including Presidents, PMs and Speakers) to look like lists on articles about ministries. Again - lists of ministers can go either way, keep Presidents and PMs in their current form and implement Option 2 for Speakers. --Sundostund (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you differentiating between them? Why is a Knesset Speaker equivalent to the Prime Minister of President but a Minister isn't? Number 57 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd advise you to look what Steven said on that. Heads of state, heads of government and heads of legislature certainly aren't the same as heads of various ministries. --Sundostund (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, cool it, guys. Let's sit tight for a while and see what (if anything) happens over at the RfC. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with that, Steven. If you take a look above, you'll see that I didn't started this discussion on your talk page in the first place. As for the RfC, if I saw it correctly, 4 users so far (including you and me) supported Option 2. 1 user (Number 57) supported Option 1. It pretty much looks like a consensus to me, doesn't it? --Sundostund (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

My last response on this topic today, as I will need to start getting ready for Shabbat soon.

1. Sundostund, Number 57 came here to talk because I had asked the two of you to stop arguing at the RfC itself—and you kept talking. He and I were having a calm conversation until you turned up the temperature. So, please: stop feeling a need to answer absolutely everything.
2. I want to leave the RfC open until next Wednesday, which is one week after you solicited input at WikiProject Israel.
3. Unless things change from present, Option 2 will prevail here. HOWEVER: This applies only to Speaker, and I think Prime Minister and President. As things now stand I would not support this option for a broad set of ministries, and even if everyone else absolutely stayed the same 3-2 doth not a consensus make. I have a proposal in mind for the other ministries, but let's just wait until this RfC is done.

With that, Shabbat Shalom, and a good weekend to all. Why don't we plan on reconvening here (or better, at the RfC), next Wednesday?

StevenJ81 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wednesday

Hello again, Steven. As you can see, I fully obliged to your request from 12 July to wait for 5 days. As you know, today is Wednesday, exactly one week since I asked for input at WikiProject Israel. Having in mind all of that, and having in mind everything said in discussions so far (especially what you said in your last message (in the Point 2 and 3)), I'm asking you this:

1. Do I have your support for keeping List of Presidents of Israel and List of Prime Ministers of Israel in their current form?
2. Do I have your support to implement Option 2 for List of Knesset speakers? If your answer is "Yes", when should I do it?
3. In order to avoid any possible misunderstandings, disputes etc in the future, I'm asking you to take a look at Leader of the Opposition (Israel), and tell me do you support keeping it in its current form? I truly believe it should be. It is the last article about Israeli officeholders in which I'm interested.
4. As for lists of Israeli ministers, I'll repeat what I said before - I'm not bothered at all what will be their final look. As far as I'm concerned, it can go either way - with colors, without colors... Whatever you think is the best. But, I must say that I'm really curious to see what proposal you have in mind for ministries!

In the end, I must say that I'll be really happy when this discussion is finally over. Yours truly --Sundostund (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - If you find it appropriate, transfer everything what I wrote here to the RfC page. This is your talk page, and you certainly can do here what you think is the most suitable. Cheers!

Steven, I just saw your proposition for closure of RfC and I'm inclined to accept all of it, including the removal of placeholders for missing pictures. But, if that's not a problem for you, I'd appreciate if you give me your answer to my 4 points here, just for clarity. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My answers to all 3.5 out of 4 are quite clear on the other page. Let's leave the discussion over there. The only thing I didn't lay out specifically was on how to handle the other ministries, and I will wait until we are finished there. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

IP address

Done, with pleasure. --Dweller (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

If I understood our agreement correctly, we now only need to ensure that only number box and party box are colored, at all four lists. Nothing else is to be changed at those four lists, right? (Answer either here or at Speakers talk page). --Sundostund (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Answered there. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Steven. I just wanted to apologise personally for missing the party column part of the close. I skim read the tail end of the discussion (I have very little patience for long-winded debates and would far rather be creating articles on 19th century Bulgarian political parties) and totally missed that, so sorry for causing some confusion at the end. Thanks for all your help though. Number 57 17:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Templates

If you check Wikipedia:Subpages, you'll note that Wikipedia specifically disallows subpages from ever being created in articlespace for any purpose whatsoever (the function, in fact, is specifically disabled, such that every page in mainspace functions as a complete article in its own right no matter how many "subpage" slashes are present in the title.) Pages of the type you created at "Hebrew calendar/c" in fact have to be created in templatespace, regardless of how much or how little broad application they have otherwise — accordingly, I just wanted to let you know that I've moved your page to {{Hebrew calendar/c}}. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shemini Atzeret/sandbox

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ReconditeRodent (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shemini Atzeret

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shemini Atzeret you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shemini Atzeret

The article Shemini Atzeret you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Shemini Atzeret for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shemini Atzeret, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karaites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shemini Atzeret

The article Shemini Atzeret you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shemini Atzeret for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)