You emailed me a few things and asked me to vote. Sorry I never got to them. I've been very busy recently. Anyways, I'm reviewing this "allegations of Israel" thing now and, unless I feel neutral, I'll vote in a minute. --Yodamace111:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to note that I don't vote very often on the things you send me because the cases that really interest you aren't something I have much experience with. I can't really defend my opinions very well when it comes to cases which involve antisemitism and zionism...I'm simply not well-versed in such things. I'm much better when it comes to things which involve Judaism as a religion. For example, I was just looking at the Judaism Wikiproject and noted that you requested a mediator cabal for a certain Hasidic dynasty. ([[1]]) These are the things I'd be happy to drop in on. --Yodamace113:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regeane Silverwolf has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Hi, IZAK, I hope it's OK that I'm adding this thank-you to someone else's thank-you section. I just wanted to say, er, thank you, for adding a welcome message to my talk page. As a newbie, that was a pleasant surprise. It was also helpful to get that added insight to some of the behind-the-scenes effort. --Rich Janis13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Carlebach
I'am one of the authors of the article about this great Rabbi in german language. My problem is: my english is not good enough to help the english article out of the stub status. Can we co-operate? Leschinski12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Izak, thank you. I'll start the next days to work on the englisch version. Do you think there is a mutual interest outside Hamburg to his actual honorship? Or should this be very short? The state Instutut für jüdische Geschichte (Institute for Jewish History [in Hamburg]) has the complete files of the Jewih Communnity incl. more that 400 artictles of Carlebach. Shall we make a little more about the Rabbi Carlebach? For Example his time in Palestine and his contacts with (and inspiration through) Rabbi Samuel Salant, Rabbi Jakob Schaul Eliaschar und Rabbi Abraham Isaak Hakohen Kook? Leschinski10:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, everything, especially his contacts with those significant rabbis as he was first and foremost a rabbi. All aspects about him can and must be written up. PLEASE contact User:SlimVirgin and explain the subject as best you can, tell her I suggested you contact her, and tell her that you have all this great material at your disposal, she is a great writer and researcher and if one can combine your sources with her style and abilities to use it, you may even produce a Wikipedia:Featured article as she did with the article about Rudolf Vrba who was also an important Holocaust figure. Best wishes. Now I must get some sleep. (P.S. You may also want to contact User:Jayjg and User:Humus sapiens to help out with this.) All three are also admins who know their way around Wikipedia, and they have a great interest in Jewish history and the Holocaust. IZAK11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Izak, thank you for your interest and you activity. I used the time to discuss to read more (Vrba etc.)and to discuss with some german participants to the Joseph Carlebach article. I hope you allow me to give a historical basic Background why J.C. has still such a honorable name in Hamburg and why you can still study the Jewish Language on the Germanistic Institute of the State University of Hamburg (i try to do it as short i can) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leschinski (talk • contribs) :
The City of Altona (Hamburgs beautyfull sister) was up to 1863 the 2nd bigest town of the liberal Denmark. After the danish/german war, it comes from 1864 to Germany. The Nazis finished the years of Independence 1937 and integrated Altona to the City of Hamburg. When J.C. become Rabbi in independent Altona, there were a young Lord Mayor, Max Brauer. Brauer were, to say it in our todays words a "Fan" of J.C. He visit very often his public talks and discussions. J.C. likes the liberal Altona and his young Leader mainly for the open gates for a lot of jewish emigrants from Eastern Europe (a lot of them on transit to Palestine and America). No surprise that even May Brauer has to emigrate (to New York) 1933. There he refreshed the contacts to jewish Hamburg Emigrants. When he came in power after 2nd WW as now: 1st Lord mayor and president of the senate (the official title, Hamburg become now an intependent state of the Federel repupblic of Germany), that means he become Governor of the state of Hamburg in the first democratic elections, he ask some emigrants for reimmigration. One of the important one was Herbert Weichmann, from an old yewish family from Slask (Schlesien), for eight years as Brauers scretary of finance. Than Weichmann become for six years the first jewish governor in the old city-republic of Hamburg in all the times. In this time the yewish community growth from 90 remaining people to 2500 (today about 4000). 1960 was builded a new Synagoge.Leschinski07:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leschinski: While I appreciate this information, let us stick to the subject and try to be VERY focused and disciplined. Therefore it would help if you post as much information about the life and accomplishments of Rabbi Joseph Carlebach to build up the article about him. Please try to quote references. Thank you, IZAK07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IZAK, to hold you informed: we work at first with some people to complete the german article. We have now even a retired teacher with a lot of time for the institute of yewish history. They have only a presence Library, make it difficult for people with regular work, but fantastic original material. We are still moving... Leschinski15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IZAK, sounds like an interesting project. Not sure I'll have time to do much Wikipedia work this weekend. Shabbat Shalom and happy Purim. --Shirahadasha16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What to do, what to do, what to do?
Shavua` tov, IZAK,
I came across this link tonight, and I don't know what to do about it. While I have a great deal of respect for Chabad, waning somewhat in recent years with what I regard as the verging-on-`avodha-zara` "mashichist" tendencies of way too many Lubavitchers, I think this website's "Lube in Ditch Movement" remark (completely without context, and, indeed, using an appropriate google search, unique slur against Chabad), is grossly inappropriate. Any suggestions you might have would be most welcome. There's also a bizarre "Rush Eminem" remark there...which I don't understand at all... Cheers, Tomertalk10:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tomer: Nice to hear from you. Just looking at the fisrt paragraph you can see that whoever wrote it is a TOTAL moron! See this: (my comments in italics inserted):
Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people, who currently number at around 5 million (where is this figure derived from? Do they mean the number of Jews in Israel? What a bunch of morons if they don't know that the accepted number of Jews is about 13 million, see Jewish population on Wikipedia), mostly dispersed across Israel (the Jews are NOT "dispersed" in Israel! Israel is the Jewish homeland AFAIK) and the United States (calling the Jews "dispersed" in the US makes it sound like they are cattle roaming aimlessly on the range, sheesh, these guys are fired as our PR agents!). However, a great number of Jews have very little to do with the beliefs and practises of Judaism itself, and merely seek to maintain their Jewish identity as an indication of culture. (ok, so far this is the most intelligent thing said so far...) Less than a third of the 7 million American Jews (oh so now we are "7 million American Jew" are we?, so let's do math. If there are "around 5 million" Jews in the world how does America get to have 2 million more than the total? Or maybe the Jews are so "dispersed" that they cannot be counted and then you can make up any numbers you want as you write and hope that the people reading it will be intimidated by this "voice of authority" and ignore the fact that idiots are talking here?) are actually members of any religious movements related to Judaism. (What kind of English grammar and syntax is being used in this last sentence?) These guys are clowns! Don't pay attention to their misinformation (and also disinformation) and ignorance. "Religious Intelligence" (their "supposed" name -- they are NOT!) So does that answer your question for now? Take care, IZAK10:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, hahahahahaha, I just saw this that you "cry" about:
The Lubavitch Movement
The Lube in ditch Movement
Reconstructionist Judaism
Aleph: Allaince for Jewish renewal
HumanisticJudaism
The Havurot Movement
Gush Emunim
Rush Eminem
Meshihistim
Just instances of a total moron at work. "The Lube in ditch Movement" and "Meshihistim" hmmm, let PinchasC deal with that!!! They can't spell "Alliance"!! What's "Rush Eminem" is that Rush Limbaugh eating M&Ms? Gimme a break. IZAK10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey IZAK, thanks for the M&Ms...I'm not Ashkenazi, and somehow automagically missed out on the obsession with sugar as well, coincidence? I THINK NOT! :-P OK, so back on topic...it seems me that a lot of your criticism derives from what I regarded as a typo...I assumed their statement of "5 million" was supposed to have been stated as "15 million". I agree the article is utter crap... after all, "[Judaism] lacks many fundamental beliefs that have shaped Christianity to its modern state"...which indicates that Judaism is somehow shortchanged [or shortchanging] its adherents...or, given the majority of [especially early] Zionist philosophers' grossly anti-Judaism views, the assertion that "Zionism is a key movement within the faith", rather than "of Jews who despised the faith but couldn't find any way to realistically extract themselves therefrom"... Also, the assertion that "‘Zion’ is of supreme importance as the protector of Jewish people and their culture." Tziyon is now Hashem? Hashem promises to "protect [our] 'culture'"? They go on to say that "They believe that to disobey God’s law is sin, and the individual is judged and punished accordingly after death.", completely ignoring the fact that Torah applies only to Jews, and that "punishment" is only half of the equation (where's mention of "reward"?)...and that "after death" plays a far less-important rôle than "during life" in the teachings of Judaism. This, I believe, is a reflection of their [obviously Christian] canard-viewpoint that "Judaism's God is a God of retribution and violence, while Christianity's God is a God of Peace and Love". If ever there were a bigger lie, it has never been heard by the ears of mankind... They go on to dispel any rational doubts about their ignorance by beginning their conclusion with the statement that "The widespread belief concerning the ‘Messiah’ is that the Jewish people are yet to see God on earth, and yet to be liberated." ... As though mashiach is the only way to see God on earth...they are apparently unfamiliar with Psalm 19, which puts the lie to this assertion... even moreso, their writing further demonstrates their bias with the assertion that "[Jews are] yet to be liberated", without bothering to state "from what" we need "liberation"...if "from Torah", they don't understand their own religion, if "from sin", they suffer an abject failure to understand the purpose of Torah. The culmination of their conclusion, that "[T]hey reject the New Testament of the Christian bible, and refuse to accept Jesus’ death as a sufficient sacrifice for human sin." bespeaks a complete failure to comprehend that the NT is written in such a way as to preclude any Jew who believes in Hashem and in Torah me-Sinai from believing anything it says, and that our refusal to "accept Jesus' death as a sufficient sacrifice for human sin" utterly fails to grasp the concepts of forgiveness and atonement, and indeed the rôle of sacrifices in Judaism...and especially Judaism's abhorence for the idea that "sacrifice forgives sin" or that saying you believed someone was killed for you makes God happy to let you do whatever pleases you, ח"ו. The long and the short of it is, now that I look at the rest of their "keywords" at the bottom of their "article", I seriously question whether any links to their site should be permitted to remain in WP as WP:RSs... I don't know whether their obscene mistreatment of Judaism is characteristic of how they handle all the other religions they have pages for on their website, but I think there is sufficient grounds to either demand that they change their article[s?] or that reference to their website be banished from WP. Rather than "Religious Intelligence", based on a thorough review of this article, their website really should be called "Antireligious Idiocy". TIAFN, Tomertalk11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer: The site is utterly useless (typos -- and this case its more hostile belittlement than typos really -- on professional sites are not excusable and that must be held against them, especially if they speak for "religion" -- a very serious subject, don't you think?), in fact it borders on sheer rubbish (probably blasphemy also, but let's not get too carried away), and I am nonplussed that anyone could regard it as credible, let alone use it as a "reference" for anything, except perhaps for "Purim Torah" (it should only merit it). At any rate, if the question is whether it's suitable as a reference for Wikipedia articles about ANYTHING to do with any religion, the answer is NO! No way that such a foolish collection of tripe can in any way be regarded as a "reliable" source, link, or reference for anything! Nothing to think about, just remove any links to this site and cite their sheer Tomfoolery on this article as proof, if any is needed. That should be enough for any sane editor. Of course, one can't speak for the "crazies." Sincerely, IZAK08:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
argh
Hi IZAK, before I fly too far off the handle, could you please look in on the disagreement User:Redaktor and I are having wrt Isru Chagh? The "discussion", such as it is, is on our respective talkpages and in the edit summaries of the article. I'm afraid I'm treading awfully close to a WP:CIV violation. Tomertalk22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IZAK, I was wondering why the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination), and I noticed you had made this edit: [2] which introduced bullets, which is fine. However, you have also changed the relative indents quite a bit, e.g. sometimes replacing two colons with three bullets and sometimes replacing four colons with ten bullets; I assume the discrepancies were careless mistakes. Could you please revert your changes so the indents are as they were? In general, I think refactoring contentious discussion is more trouble than it's worth because it can be error prone. If you must refactor, please use a detailed edit summary; you didn't use an edit summary at all here. Thanks, Kla'quot16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: First time I've had such a complaint. If I have made errors that effect the contents of the discussion in this case, let me know and I will correct them. Otherwise I think you are just nitpicking. Such long discussions often start meandering all over the page and it frequently becomes impossible to follow the comments in the order that they were made in the discussion, and while you have focused on "colons" and "indents" that were yo-yo-ing the discussions back and forth, my aim was to help the reader so that the comments followed one another in a flowing coherent manner. If I have not succeeded in doing so in any instance please show me the exact place where I harmed the discussion and I will be glad to correct it, otherwise seems to me I did a rather good job of getting each comment to follow in the chronological order that it was made. I tried to be as careful and precise as I could. Thanks for your feedback. IZAK05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IZAK. Yes, now that the debate is done, I wouldn't ask you to modify it (I'm sure you have better things to do with your time!). To explain my concerns, indents affect how the dynamics of a conversation are read, as described in Help:Talk_page#Formatting. For example, after Jayjg voted, three people, including myself, responded to his vote. After changing the indents, it is not so clear that we were all replying to Jayjg. In my case, I wasn't replying to G-Dett; I was piling on to ask Jayjg to explain himself. Does this make sense? Cheers, Kla'quot06:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kla'quot: I am sorry if I created any unintended confusion for your edits. Seems in your case you were "on top" of the string of comments in question. But very often I find that in such debates some editors are not as careful as you are and they just "drop" their comments at an "approximate" spot and not being careful to conistently use either indents or bullets so that the actual flow of the conservation is visually distracting and makes it hard to read, unless you are willing to untangle the chronological times comments were made, which many editors don't have time for, which was why I tried to tidy up the thread, so that it looks a bit more like a threaded discussion (such as on Usenet discussions) and not a chaotic Wikipedia mess. But to be quite honest, for me it is a labor of love, I have nothing to gain from it, and when I spend time doing it it detracts from other things I could be doing. By the way, I get very frustrated when I see that people use both indents and bullets within one discussion which makes the pages wiggle and wobble all over the place and creates blank spaces and inconsistent spacing that runs counter to my sense of orderliness. I think that some rule should be instituted that either indents or bullets should be used in votes, but not both, so that Wikipedia vote/s and even talk pages move closer to a conventional threaded discussion format and appearance, perhaps we can suggest this someplace, if it has not been done already, and perhaps the Wikipedia technicians could add an extra button or two on such pages for "[click here] to add a follow-up comment" or something like that. I will try to keep an eye out when I see your name in votes so that maybe we can co-ordinate this better. Thanks, IZAK07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bachrach44: Could you please Email me via my user page at Email User:IZAK. Thank you so much. IZAK 08:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I choose not to have an email address associated with my wikipedia account because I don't want people emailing me. (Conversely, this also means I can't email anyone else using that feature). I think that wikipedia related communications should all occur in the wikipedia space. If you want to communicate with me, my talk page is always open. --Bachrach4414:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-Judaism category is being considered for deletion here. I thought you might want to weigh in on the discussion. It is part of a campaign to delete all of the categories that relate to religous based bigotry. Mamalujo18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of what I wrote on techeiles? Will you keep that page on your watchlist also? I think people are going to try to change it back. The previous version was VERY non-neutral in favor of the 'techeiles' people. --Rabbeinu08:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sure. Your edits at Tzitzit are bound to be disputed, but I will not get involved in the "pro" and "anti" modern-day findings/rulings/applications/mitzvas of techelis. The YU crowd seems very into it nowadays, and the mainstrean Haredi world is not into it, so there is lots of room for discussion, but are you sure you should have deleted so much? IZAK09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti Judaism
I did not delete any category; I added a category to the artices. I did this so the collection of articles would not disappear. I do not think the anti-Judaism category should be deleted, but every other anti-religion category has been deleted in the last few days so I expect this one will go also. I was trying to be helpful. Why all the excitement? Hmains03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hmains: You cannot take it upon yourself as an individual editor to decide on your own that a category should not be deleted by renaming that category when there is in fact a vote taking place about it at that very moment. Once the voting has started, we must await the results of the vote as individual editors. Only when the vote has ended and has been closed by an admin, can an individual editor proceed but only in accordance with the results of the vote and following procedures. You jumped the gun and did none of that, which is why people are screaming at you. IZAK07:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your problem here and on my talk page, nor do I appreciate your questioning my motives. I deleted nothing. I added a category and put articles into it. Surely any editor can do that any time; no editor needs permission to do editing. The voting going on is about deleting a category because of its name, nothing about the fact that articles are grouped together in a certain way. I harmed nothing. Get on with your defense or deletion of categories if that is what you want. Talking to me will not change the outcome. Thanks Hmains21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goldstein
Dear IZAK, I read the original French version (complete with Goldstein, Menachem Begin and the Irgun) of Tintin au Pays de l"or Noir years ago. Where I'm living now I can't get French-language comics or graphic novels, so alas I can't help you on this, but I wish you bonne chance. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Warsaw Uprising has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, IZAK. I tried sending you an email in response to your concern, but I'm not sure it actually got sent. Did you receive an email from me? If not, I'll try to resend. --Rrburke(talk)18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what happened is you accidentally deleted the case box which the bot uses to add the page to the new cases list. In the future be sure to leave the preexisting parts of the preloaded case page alone. --Ideogram21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've been somewhat unfair to me, but if you thought I was uncivil, I totally apologise. It was totally unintentional. Having said that, responding to perceived incivility with incivility isn't really going to leave you looking like the good guy. I'm not a fly-by AfD contributor and I like to think that all my contributions are properly considered... I wanted to properly understand the nomination. Now I do and I'll be happy to respond once I've finished the "homework"! --Dweller15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dweller, pardon my abruptness. I greatly appreciate your honesty. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Sincerely, IZAK19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New article to tickle your fancy
Izak -- long time no contact (from me), just dropped into wp with a slew of little of things. But I think you will be most interested to know that I added a Bible verse! The Lord protects the simple. Check it out. (Pls rsvp to me, if you'd like.) Anyway, take care. Shalom, l'hitraot. HG19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HG, good to hear from you. You have not provided the link to that article using [[ ]] All the best, 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the user's edit history. There are some questionable calls, but the result is light-years away from obvious vandalism. Given that editors in religion areas tend to be opinionated folks, my intention as a beginning administrator is to focus on obvious vandalism and disruption (we have so much of it) and to become involved in specific edit disputes between established editors only when called for. If there's a specific dispute involving this editor and a specific article or category, I could take a look at that. Best, --Shirahadasha20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your thing with BHGirl at the pump, where you say: " it goes against procedure for any editor to empty a category during a CfD vote ". This is an issue in another debate. I'm sure you're right (or should be) but I can't see anthing to that effect at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy or anywhere else. Do you have a reference? Johnbod01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johnbod: Thank you for taking an interest. The isssue I was complaining about was the reverse of deletion, it was about the propriety of "preserving" information/articles in a category by creating a listing with the same articles in the category transferred to a list at the very moment a CfD vote is underway about that category. The thrust of my argument is that just as an editor should not empty a category when it is being voted upon (which is definitely policy), it is likewise, by way of logic and procedure, out-of-line to listify a category's contents to "save its contents" which is what BrownHairedGirl did. In my view for her to do so during a CfD vote complicated things even further, so that it has the same result as "moving the goal post." I think this is a grey zone that needs to be clarified. Thanks again, IZAK20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it all the time, it's in ALL the text produced by templates placed on any category's page when any category is nominated for deletion or renaming or merging: For speedy renaming {{subst:cfr-speedy|ProposedName}} Template:Cfr-speedy; For deletion {{subst:cfd}} Template:Cfd; For a merger {{subst:cfm|OtherCategory}} Template:Cfm; For renaming {{subst:cfr|ProposedName}} Template:Cfr they all end with the request: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." And in {{subst:cfc|ProposedName}} Template:Cfc (for converting the category text into an article) it requests even more: "Please do not empty the category, delete the text, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Those are very clear policy guidelines based on the consensus that has been accpeted about their usage for many years. IZAK21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So they are - sorry I suppose I stopped reading them some time ago. I was asking in relation to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_27#Category:John_Constable (2 down from the Category:Judaism-related controversies discussion), where the nominator removed I think 8/12 of the articles before nominating it. Very sharp practice, but I can't see where it is specifically against policy. Of course in agreed re-organisations I have transferred articles to a new category & then speedied the old empty one (anything to avoid the CfD madhouse), but this is certainly very different, as he is not involved with the category at all (or remotely interested - he seems actively hostile to all non-cinematic art). Thanks again. Johnbod22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the nominator to remove the articles before nominating them would seem to be bad faith. Or, he may have not intended to nominate it and then decided that the heck with it, just nominate the whole thing, so it's hard to figure out what is going on in people's minds and their intentions. If the guy is hostile he may be sick in some way so that complicates matters when you have a normal editor dealing with a deranged one. Again all this is part of life on Wikipedia. But over time we do get a good sense of who we are dealing with, since we are smart enough to write and edit, I guess... But you know, this reminds me of a cat and mouse game sometimes or of squirells hiding their food before winter comes. Human nature is pretty odd. IZAK22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's his explanation; then he nominates the category because "the content doen't seem to justify it" without mentioning what he'd done. Then when challenged on it he throws a hissy fit. As you say, all part of WP, or AfD anyway. Johnbod22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Input needed about Hasidic dispute
I'll try to take a look when I can, though I have some major things going on IRL that will likely preclude my being able to participate much at WP. Best, --MPerel ( talk | contrib)06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Izak. I hope and assume you don't mind my disagreement on some AfDs. Anyway, there's a doubling of the AfD comments due to pages for both Chanukah and Hanukhah Harry. See, we should all be writing in Hebrew, must easier, eh?! Kol tuv, HG17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no response or even a small apology to make to me after accusing me of "gloating" over the Holocaust [3]? The least you could do would be to delete your copying/pasting of that message all over those 10 or so userpages, thus doing your part to partially retract the spreading of your poisonous lies and pathetic slander about me. --Wassermann13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasserman old chap, this is what I wrote: "...Death of Adolf Hitler article where he adds "NOTE: Hitler's eyes were actually blue, not brown" [4] and this doozy: "Fairly definitive quote from Hitler on the "Final solution to the Jewish Question," stating that if another war occured Nazi Germany would 'annihilate' European Jewry."[5], not quite clear if it's meant to be gloating or mourning over the Jews? (so which is it, "Wassermann"???)" -- which baffled me so I asked for input from a few editors and admins who have dealt with you in the past. Why the self-righteousness now, do you think you can post ambiguous statements about Hitler and the Nazis and not get called on it? IZAK05:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And talking of apologies, you should apologize for this attack against me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices when you personalize and now seek to change the subject of your atrocious record (confirming my serious concerns about you): "obviously...User:IZAK is a delete-happy user (for whatever reason); therefore, his/her edits and nominations should be watched more closely. This was a POINTLESS nomination for deletion, a blatant waste of everyone's time. Again, we should all urge User:IZAK to get his editing/deleting behavior under control a bit." [6]. Couldn't you stick to the subject of that debate instead of attacking me personally? But then again, I will not feel bad, I will just feel that now I am in good company because you have done nothing but attack and attack, as I have already said: "...Since he officially assumed a user name in February 2007 [7], he openly espouses an anti-Admin outlook, see User:Wassermann#Censorship Watch -- Administrator Watch, has already been blocked for attacks, see User talk:Wassermann#Block, has been reprimanded for linking to attack sites, see User talk:Wassermann#Don't link to attack sites, has attacked well-established editors and admins, see User talk:Wassermann#"User Jayjg's policy" and User talk:Wassermann#Censorship as examples..." I look forward to meeting you along the road... IZAK06:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we have a lot of the same people on our watchlists, since I just saw you post that message 3 times. While it probably could technically be put as a speedy for recreation of deleted content, I would personally suggest renominating it, since the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16#Category:Jewish diaspora was not one-sided and the category has sat for almost a year with no complaints. --tjstrftalk10:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shavua` tov, IZAK, I hope your 33 `Omer is going well. Regarding Category:Jewish diaspora, I agree with tjstrf here and JFW on his talkpage. My feelings about the category haven't changed since I !voted in the original CfD. Specifically, I said:
Keep only if clarified. I really don't feel very strongly about this category: whether it stays or goes, I'll sleep fine tonight. That said, if it ends up being kept, its scope [whatever that may end up being... I agree, as it stands, this is a pretty wide open cat...] should be carefully and succinctly outlined in the category text itself. Tomer TALK 20:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Humus, I don't think what you cite here applies because what happened is not a "change of consensus" but rather, Hmains (talk·contribs) went ahead and (re)created the category in July 2006 without knowing that it had actually once already existed and that it was nominated for deletion and then deleted in October 2005. It is only now, in 2007, that I came across all this and I am not certain what the procedure should be. A de facto "change of consensus" may have taken place, but it's not derived from any official vote. IZAK20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Thanks for letting me know. It should be deleted; I'll take care of it. Fortunately it had only four items in it anyway. Jayjg (talk)01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to let you know that I have nominated Category:Orthodox Judaism by city and many of its subcategories for deletion. I feel that they only serve to add another layer of categorization to their parent categories, which are not especially crowded at this point. The deletion discussion is here. --EliyakT·C02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, greetings. How about changing the collaboration of the week? Weeks have gone by and Tikkun Olam is not attracting many edits, nor does it look like it's about to become a great article. Or is WPP:Judaism not very active now for this kind of collaboration? Take care, HG12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IZAK. I notice you posted a question about Joel C. Rosenberg's religious and ethnic background. Did you ever get an answer? The reason I ask is that he has been included in the article List of notable converts to Christianity. Despite his inclusion in this list, I have not seen any evidence to confirm that he was ever observant, in which case, while he might be ethnically Jewish, he can't, in my opinion, be considered a Jewish convert to Christianity. Moreover, an unsourced claim in the article on him asserts that his mother was not Jewish. If this is true, then from a Halakhic perspective he may not have been considered Jewish in the first place.
Moreover, it seems to me that the inclusion of any Jew who was not never observant in the first place mixes apples and oranges: a person who is ethnically Jewish but non-practicing and who adopts Christianity might fairly be considered a convert to Christianity, but not a convert to Christianity from Judaism because that person never practiced Judaism in the first place. The inclusion of such a person in the list confuses Jewish ethnic identity with Judaism as a religion. --Rrburke(talk)18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
