Jump to content

User talk:Shirahadasha/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Archives: Archive 1

Bible

Shirahadasha, don't act patronizing to me by saying my test worked and that I should go to the sandbox. I am serious about the wording on the Bible and oppose all christist propaganda. I am sympathetic to jews, but unless I get support from wikipedians against those who remove facts posted by me, I will post facts on popular pages like that of the Bible. It *is* mythology and I will state it again and again. If you want me to go away from this page and let you post religious stuff without me interrupting it with scientific points, you will have to help me post facts not favorable to Communists and make sure they don't get deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.159.236 (talk • contribs)

Merging Occupation of Izmir into Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Can you re-visit these two articles? I have been convinced by NikoSilver that there is little if anything in the Occupation of Izmir article that is not already in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article.

If you agree with us, perhaps you would consider changing your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation of İzmir from "Keep" to "Merge".

Thanx.

--Richard 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Orthodox Judaism

I would consider the random insertion of "(jewish bible = O.T.)" into a place that that does not belong (even in the context of the article, it could have gone elsewhere) to be at the very best a very poor edit without context, reason or rationale and at the very worst to be Anti-Jewish POV vandalism. I don't necessarily claim that it was one or the other, but as a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, my experience would indicate that it was someone being like 'ooo, look I can edit!'. The bulk of vandalism that occurs on Wikipedia isn't really POV-pushing, advertising, et al; it's kids thinking that we don't pay attention to what they're editting and think that if they insert nonsense no one will notice. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koine

I removed the {{fact}} tag, because the statement that the New Testament was written in the Koine strikes me as perhaps the single statement least in need of an inline citation in the article. If the article is to be converted to extensively use inline citations, then yes, but as given that there are only sixteen footnotes in the whole article, it strikes me as stylistically silly to footnote a non-controversial statement. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for your interest, a discussion of the importance of the Koine to early Christianity should be on this week's PBS College Home Course broadcast of The Western Tradition. Looking at my copy of the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, I don't find that the statement explicitly, but the point is made on page 516 of volume 3 that Greek was the language of nearly all Christians from AD70 to 150, and that no non-Greek versions of the gospels and epistles existed until well after that date. The tendency to name the Koine explicitly as a dialect, rather than to simply call it the "Greek" of the period is of later scholarship than the old burgandy-colored set, but I hope that this will suffice to remove any doubts you may have upon the subject. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a question of style. The article is lightly footnoted now, so asking for inline citation of one of the few points that is beyond reasonable dispute struck me as an odd choice. If your point is that the whole article should be more heavily footnoted, I suggest you make that point directly on the talk page. I predict a squabble over which authorities to cite, even (or perhaps especially) for those things on which there is wide agreement, because each sect will want to see its favorites. Good luck, and happy editing. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re WP:CJ

As an observant Sfaradhi, I find myself far more frequently in agreement with Ashkenazi orthodoxy than I do with any of the other "streams" of Ashkenazi "Judaism" [placement of quotation marks carefully considered]...but I have stalwartly refused to join WP:OJ precisely because I don't want to give "aid and comfort" to what I feel is a project created to further division rather than to genuinely promote Judaism-related articles. I have no problem actively supporting betterment of articles that deal exclusively with Orthodox Judaism, but cannot, in good conscience, lend support to what I regard as the exact opposite of Tiqun ha`Olam, even if in such a "peripheral" forum as WP. It is for the exact same reason that I am so unsupportive of the proposed WP:CJ, which promotes splintering among editors, at the very least, and which can, in my view, ultimately lead only to no good end. If this idea gains enough traction, I foresee, and shudder to think of it, such disastrous ideas as Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Buddhism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Judeo-Paganism being given sanction. It's bad enough that Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam has spawned Wikipedia:WikiProject Sunni Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Shi'a Islam ... and the truly obscene Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, a model I'd prefer not to see emulated at WP:JEW. I'd have no problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish History, for example, but that's not at all the constructive kind of proposal the WP:CJ idea is forwarding. My 2 agoroth. Kol tov, Tomertalk 06:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Jewish services

The original citation to Berakhot 2:3 was intended to provide evidence that it is acceptable to pray in a language other than Hebrew... Per WP:CITE, I think it's relevant to include. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shirahadasha, thanks for your message. While I would usually agree about mentioning specific prayers on their relevant pages, I don't agree with the removal of the Shema clause in this specific case. As the text stands now, I feel it is natural for people to wrongly assume that the Shema must be treated more strictly because of its status as the most important prayer, and therefore must be in the small class of prayers that must be said in Hebrew, rather than in the majority class that may be said in the vernacular. On principle, I won't revert, but I thought the text you removed served an important purpose. Zargulon 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - saw your note on "Orthodox" about giving sources -- unfortunately I have no idea, it's just something that I and others have heard for many many years -- if it should be deleted I'll leave it to you. Thanks. --ChosidFrumBirth 15:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like Greenbrook has a problem or an ax to grind. Thank you. Good Shabbos. --ChosidFrumBirth 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW

OK no problem. Elizmr 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (It is just one of my pet peeves that some claim that Sharon "caused" the uprising, but you are right, the language did not suggest causality). Elizmr 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome! Please could you avoid linking terms in section names in articles? This can look jarring. (Links in section names elsewhere, particularly in talk pages, are fine.) It's almost always possible to link the term in the sentence below, and this looks much better. -- The Anome 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me: regarding the MoS, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking. -- The Anome 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted articles

Hi Shira. It appears that Holy of Holies is still right where it has always been, and that Kodesh Hakadashim was never an article. Are you sure about the spelling? Lemme know asap. Kol tov, Tomertalk 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai

I have a slight concern. The fact that R' Moshe seems to be using a different defintion of Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai may constitute WP:OR. Do we have a citation that says he is in fact doing so? JoshuaZ 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianics again

Hi Shira: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

Hey thanks so much for the heads up regarding the merge template tags! Much appreciated. --yonkeltron 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism

Hi Shira: I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page [2], and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." [3] and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." [4], and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Main categories: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Isaac Lichtenstein

Hi Shira: You left a lovely "comment" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Lichtenstein but you did not vote either "Keep" or "Delete" -- any reason for that? IZAK 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic "Halakha" etc?

Hi Shira: On 25 October 2006 [5], User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" [6] thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized [7] the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome the NotJudaism template

Hi: In view of the above, please see the new {{NotJudaism}} template:

Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and Christianity

You may care to comment here: [8] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide Laws cleanup

Hi, I was hoping we could collaborate on cleaning splitting and writing up more articles related to 7mBn. I've tagged Noahide laws for a cleanup. I'm not rushing in, I've read them all up, I'm waiting for the readiness of a few others so we can take this on together, and have it featured on the main page sometime. Its possible, there are quite a few of us and will potentialy be a subject of interest. Again, I'm one for words and think the parent article should be Seven Laws of Noach, as in 'Sheva Mitzvas Bnei Noach'. Anything that is should be another 'ism'. Chavatshimshon 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user page

Re: My edit of YCT and the "sourced" paragraph that I replaced. That paragraph was highly speculative at best, facile and tendentious at worst; either way, it was unscholarly. That it was published in the journal Judaism, alas, makes no difference; the article you linked itself does not present a single source to provide justification for the assertion. Regarding the content of the assertion, it is patently self-serving for supporters of YCT-- among whose ranks, I assume, ShiraHadasha counts herself-- to ascribe the controversy to YU's fear of competition. Beyond the fact that there is no evidence to justify such an ascription, it is also almost certainly incorrect. The statements, on and off the record, of the relevant YU figures consistently point to the "radical" nature of the YCT agenda as the reason for the disaproval. Until any actual evidence to the contrary is presented-- and, sadly, publication in Judaism alone is not sufficient-- we should take them at their word. this was on your user page, posted by 141.157.212.2 I've moved it over here JoshuaZ 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Shira, if there some way that we can put a lock on the YCT page that only people who contribute to Wiki can edit it? It seems like once a week there is a new sock puppet of the same few people who keep adding their opinions. I am not against puting up all the criticisms, but this sock puppet game is a bit silly. Usually the comments appear on a blog with the same wording. I know that you do not want me to bite. --Jayrav 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Also, the IP numbers can be checked and the comments keep coming from a few specific locations, so I do not see them as newbies. --Jayrav 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanhedrin

Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Christian

I do not disagree with you about the social reality of Judeo-Christian (and I hope you didn't think I did disagree with you). For that reason we do need an article on "Judeo-Christian." But once we have that, NPOV requires us to include views that are critical of the Judeo-Christian concept. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your many "current" tags

Conservative Judaism may have held a very important meeting on 6 December, but the event, though important, has not really attracted any serious "fast moving events" that warrant the deployment of the Current template. It might have been thought in advance that a debate on the ordination of openly gay rabbis and the blessing of homosexual marriages might have created a small wikistorm and a great deal of fast moving editing, but it seems not.

I was thinking that you might look at your relatively wide deployment of this template and rein it in somewhat? I've already removed a couple, which your watchlist will no doubt show. Fiddle Faddle 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Judaism

Hi, thanks for the note. You're right that I should have added an explanatory comment in talk. I will do this next time and appreciate the reminder. However, I have read the Vandalism page and I'll stand by the "vandalism" description for the third attempt to delete that line as a "deletion... made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It is likely that many people disagree with the recent decision by the CJLS, but these people should not remove the stated principles of Conservative Judaism from the Conservative Judaism page. Certainly, if NPOV means anything it should at least mean that the POV of Conservative Judaism should be represented on the Conservative Judaism page! The deletion violates at least three Wikipedia policies including NOR, "do not delete cited material", and NPOV. EqualsMCSquared 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we have both cited the vandalism policy and agree that vandalism requires deliberate intent. Obviously, it is a matter of judgment; the policy even says that not all vandalism is obvious. Since your judgment seems to be that those edits were not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the page, you should not refer to them as vandalism. However, I will stand by my judgment that it was deliberate intent -- on the third deletion -- to remove a sourced POV with which the other editor seemed to disagree, so I will continue to call it vandalism. EqualsMCSquared 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that? Do you want me to take your personal messages to other wikipedians and place them into discussion pages? Those words are mine - and I do not want them on the conservative discussion page - they were meant as a personal appeal to Nkras.Guedalia D'Montenegro

Edits to Talk:Conservative Judaism

User Nkras - took a personal message I wrote to him and placed it on the talk page. I know this is not vandalism, but I never intended my words to be there...I simply erased what he copied from his talk page (my comment to him). No other change was made. But I weary of this...I thought I could have a more personal discussion with Nkras - but apparantly not.Guedalia D'Montenegro

My thanks to you. I should never get involved in a hot issue like this one - it gets me too upset, and I end up writing things I shouldn't. Live and learn I guess.Guedalia D'Montenegro

Bodily Disappearances

Easy to verify. Check references and links. Any problem give me a call. What thrills you tickles me to death. Thanks for pointing out my Mecca error. I'm not perfect. User:Kazuba 13 Dec 2006 Quickly connected a few refs. Will get to the Sikh gurus tommorrow. Info is down in the dusty archives. Thanks for your interest. User: Kazuba 14 Dec 2006

Category:Palestinian rabbis

What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion

Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis

Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korban assessment

Comments at Talk:Korban/Comments. Badbilltucker 14:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

  1. No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
  3. So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
  4. What will members of other projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
  5. Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
  6. It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
  7. Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi Shira: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law: CERTAIN types of sexual immorality

Hi,

I notice you edited "Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law" to certain types of sexual immorality. I'm interested in finding out exactly what that includes (and also what it does not.) Do you have a reference or could you elaborate?

Any help you could offer would be great.

--Jlebar 03:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi

Hi, thanks for participating and contributing to Noahide Laws. I'm unsure as to what exactly your point is regards denominations other than the Orthodox having a take on Noahide law and and how it is expounded in the Talmud. In Google searches for "Noahide" - "Reform" or "Conservative", will not show results contending the Orthodox community's sustenance of an independent Noahide Community, or further that a non-Jew in Jewish law, has any other means to attain paradise. As for a mention of the community in the LEAD, please also see Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, I think it would fall short of consistency not to mention them in their small number. I am reverting "some" ommisions made from the LEAD and hope we can establish together whether certain statements curtail the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. Cheers. frummer 03:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Place

Hi. I understand your reasons for deleting the addition. My intent was to clarify any misunderstanding.

That tidbit of information regarding the terms Holy of Holies and Most Holy Place being synonymous--different constructions for the same idiom--does not appear elsewhere in any of the articles, and seems [to me] to be the key to resolving the debate over whether Most Holy Place and Holy of Holies should be merged.

There must be a way to demonstrate that there exists a proper name Most Holy Place that is both different from a most holy place, and synonymous with the Holy of Holies. I would think that this should appear early on in Most Holy Place, and that it would resolve the merger debate. Do you agree? If so, would you like to work on it together? Thanks--Rojerts 17:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I added the disambig to Most Holy Place, and then added a section to Holy of Holies on the KJV usage. Regards,--Rojerts 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kavod HaBriyot continued

Hi Shira: Thanks for contacting me and jogging my brain. I have replied at length at Talk:Kavod HaBriyot#Origins and context of the notion of Kavod HaBriyot. Let's keep all talk and discussions of this topic centralized over there. Thanks a lot. IZAK 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Zimetbaum

of possible interest to you, see also User talk:IZAK#Mala Zimetbaum. Cheers, Tomertalk 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggest withdraw

I suggest you withdraw from your current RFA. As it stands, it's unlikely you'll even break 50%. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that; I changed my vote soon after. I was having problems with Interiot (I fail at copying and pasting) and so I assumed the worst. After I found it, however, I decided you are qualified technically but your questions are severely lacking (see the RFA of Kinu just below yours) and you really have no current use for the tools. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions

I added some optional questions to your RFA. You are not obligated to answer them. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some too. Yuser31415 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG??

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. --Green-Dragon 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your RfA

Well, Shira, truth be told, I think you'd make an excellent admin, I just don't know why you'd want the added responsibility, nor do I really understand what use you'd make of your newfound abilities if you were promoted. Right now, I'm looking at it from basically the same perspective I approach ppl who come to me and tell me they want to convert to Judaism... you don't have to convert to be a good person, all converting is going to do is increase your obligations and responsibility to the world around you...and once you do it, there's no going back. OK, so there's a bit more "going back" w/ an RfA, but I still don't see what the point is. Yeah, there are times you find yourself in a bind where you wish you could block a disruptive editor, but the obligation to explain yourself once you've done so is far more arduous than the task of eliciting help from your fellow editors, something I've witnessed you doing numerous times, and with great success. At this point, I won't counsel you to withdraw the RfA, unless trying to defend it is taking too much time away from you when you should be sleeping or you'd rather be editing. I'm leaning toward changing my own vote to "support" simply because I can't imagine you'd ever abuse the tools adminship would give you. At the same time, however, if you were to be promoted to admin, you'll find that other editors constantly expect your assistance, and you have to play a careful balancing act...one that even the most balanced of editors prior to promotion imagine can exist...and the time you wish you could devote to editing is taken up by trying to resolve seemingly unending disputes, not only on the 'pedia, but even moreso off WP. There's a very good reason why IZAK has turned down at least a dozen offers people have made to nominate him for adminship, and I can't say I necessarily disagree with it. Perhaps the best advice I can offer you at this point, is to recommend that you ask him the question you've asked me... IZAK is probably the one wikipedian with whom you've had the most frequent disagreements, and simultaneously, the most fruitful collaboration. In a lot of ways, the two of you are, in my view, peas in a pod, as they say. I wish you the best in whatever you decide, and will be happy to give you more concrete advice on the matter come January 11th. :-p Tomertalk 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think one of the foremost signs of an excellent wikipedian, is balanced solicitation of input. This can obviously go over a fine line, sometimes drawn arbitrarily, but Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and so sometimes that fine line has to be pushed. I think you're doing fine with your reactions to inquiries on your RfA, for what it's worth, and I'm quite impressed by the level-headedness with which you've approached your [overwhelmingly mild] opposition, and especially your [not excessively kind] detractor... the vast majority of RfA candidates I've witnessed would have long since gone into complete meltdown in the face of such overwhelming [albeit mild] opposition. I think that if your initial RfA does fail, it will go down in history as the fluffiest and friendliest RfA failure ever.  :-p Tomertalk 08:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did, Shira. - crz crztalk 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I supported you, too. Daisuke-Matsuzaka 11:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...where did I recommend that you withdraw? Tomertalk 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feh! In my exhaustion, I seconded the whole comment instead of clarifying which parts I was agreeing with... Tomertalk 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This diff was pointed out to me as something that may render my opinion invalid and perhaps those of other voters on your RfA too. Can I please ask why you have not indicated that you have revised your application since it commenced? Your reasons for doing so are germane to the discussion. It is because of the opinions given in the 'oppose' section? My opinion is based upon your original application, as it appeared at 0620 GMT this morning. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the AMA!

File:AMA logo.png

Hello Shirahadasha, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Before heading into your first case, please take some time to familiarize yourself with the AMA FAQ's, the Guide to Advocacy, and the AMA Handbook.

Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel, which reports new cases and alerts to us. It can also be used as a place to ask for advice on an issue. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out AMA Requests for Assistance, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocate's talk page, including our coordinator Steve Caruso or deputy coordinators Wikiwoohoo and Aeon. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mami Wata mediation

Hi, Shirahadasha. I thank you for your help in mediating the ugly mess at Talk:Mami Wata. I'm concerned about one conclusion you seem to have reached about the Mami Wata Healers Society and their being "recognized religious leaders of a religion [and] the experts on matters of what constitutes the religion's faith" and, therefore, their right to present their view in the article. I'm inclined to call upon Wikipedia's undue weight rule here. In all the research I've done, neither MWHS nor their founder, Vivien Hunter-Hindrew (Mama Zogbé) is mentioned, and I can't find any reference to the organization or its founder via Google Books or Scholar. Hunter-Hindrew is an American, while the vast, vast majority of Mami Wata devotees live in Africa, the Caribbean, or South America. She has written a book describing her own revelations and postulating an ancient origin for Mami Wata, but none of the informants spoken to by the anthropologists and historians in the scholarly literature seem to be concerned about such matters. In fact Houlberg makes the point that Mami Wata followers see the spirit as a distincly new entity: "Both spirits [Lasirèn and Mami Wata] are associated with foreign contact, times of rapid change, and new technologies," (Houlberg 33) and Drewal makes this statement that completely goes against what MWHS claims: "Mami Wata is everywhere regarded as a foreigner." (Drewal, "Performing the Other: Mami Wata Worship in Africa", 171)

Mami Wata beliefs are extremely diverse and different from region to region, ethnic group to ethnic group (this is largely why the rewrite of the article is taking so long to complete; it's quite a challenge to meld it all into something resembling readable prose). In short, I strongly question whether MWHS's interpretation of the Mami Wata faith has any right to be presented in the article when all the evidence points to it being a minority view, even among Mami Wata followers. Why do they get to use Wikipedia as a mouthpiece simply because they live in a developed country and have reliable access to computers and the internet? I'd also like to clarify that I have no beef with the MWHS or their founder, nor am I somehow anti-Mami Wata or African religions. Quite on the contrary, I wrote the original draft of the Mami Wata article specifically to counter systemic bias and spread knowledge about African religious beliefs. I do have strong feelings about Wikipedia being a reliable and scholarly source, however, and I'd be opposing User:MWHS-style inclusions if they were being made by anyone, whether American voudounists, Baptist preachers, or Shinto priests. (I'd post this at Talk:Mami Wata, but the MWHS people seem to view me as Enemy #1, and I would prefer to largely stay out of the debates going on there for the time being.) Thanks for listening, — BrianSmithson 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Jewish?

Daisuke-Matsuzaka 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hello!

Since you amended your questions and demonstrated a secure knowledge of policy and guidelines, I modified my vote from "Oppose" to "Support". You will be a good admin. Yuser31415 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 3RR warnings

Thanks for responding to my question in your RfA, and posting a note on my talk page about that. I'm not going to respond further on the RfA (at some point, the value of public discussion of this has rather diminishing returns), but I did want to respond to you, so I'm doing it here. You'll welcome to continue the discussion, or drop it, at this point.

My understanding of 3RR warnings is that they are about as objective a matter as can be - "Hey, you're about to get in trouble - you should read the policy." Even if one editor were involved in a bitter content dispute with another, my feeling is that posting such an objective notice in no way violates WP:CIVIL or [[WP:NPA] or WP:AGF - it's simply a statement of fact, and a constuctive suggestoin. And if the person receiving the notice feels that he/she isn't in fact close to the limit, that doesn't necessitate any further response - when 3RR violation is reported, an admin gets to decide who is right.

In short, I don't understand why an outsider would need to weigh in about giving a 3RR warning - that is, why your posting the warning yourself could be taken as a violation of some Wikipedia rule. John Broughton | Talk 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

retract vote

anyways i retracted my oppose vote. good luck. --Foundby 07:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA_1

Not bad considering it was a self nomination, and that ultimately, the opposition, even the "strong" opposition was pretty weak. Better luck next time.  :-) Kol tov, Tomertalk 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shirahadasha

Thanks for welcoming me! I'm a Spanish speaker and I love English, but I can't do well with it in writing and, the worst, in speaking. I try to do my best, though. I met en.Wikipedia in December 2006, and I was captured by it! Then I met es.Wikipedia, and I found that the "Faith" article was a mess; in fact, the wikipedians were discussing the posibility of erase it. Then, I began to translate the English article. I went on with others, until "Revelation", which didn't like me. So, here I am, "pasting" portions from other related wiki articles. I'm very glad you're interested in Judaism (I think also in Jewish Religion). Do you think you can help with the "Revelation" article?. Did Rabbi Abdimi de Haifa or/and Amemar say what there in the article says they said? And what about Rabbi Louis Jacobs?. Thank you. I'm pleased to meet you! --Elianita 04:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva

Hi. Can you please wait until I remove the "inuse" template before you make your critique? Now I have an edit-conflict. When I'm done, let me know what you think. Thanks. —Dfass 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Humanism Afd update

I appreciated your vote and comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism (second nomination). Meanwhile, as original nominator, I think the situation has sufficiently changed to appeal once more to your interest. Kind Regards. — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 04:09 (UTC)

Re:Closure

Sorry, it was in the January 14 log. It obviously shouldn't have been there. Cbrown1023 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Yechi

Hi, regarding this edit, I hope that this is due to a misunderstanding of what Messianic Judaism is, as opposed to the Jewish belief in the Messiah and those that want to claim that a certain person is. Although you don't agree with them, there is clearly no connection between the two. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZaDa Rider?!

The page does have sources, I don't know what you are talking about. Hangfromthefloor 17:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:AMA Request:laurenjf

Hello, I contacted both users involved and suggested they attempt to discuss and resolve their dispute informally first. I'm a new AMA member and if it's inappropriate for me to contact requesters without having been assigned the case, please let me know. Also, I noted the contact on the request, this notation may also be inappropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, welcome to the team! :-) Second, if you are willing to take on a case and feel that you are ready, go for it. If at any time you hit a snag, first consult the WP:AMAFAQ and AMA Handbook, then feel free to contact another fellow Advocate for assistance, and if all else fails, leave me a message. :-) (I may be really slow to respond these days as, with the aid of my wife, I'm juggling a 3 month old daughter, several home businesses, and am trying to make some headway on the Aramaic Wikipedia, but I promise I'll get back to you as soon as I can.) Good luck! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Gotta be careful when touch typing -- sometimes the fingers of one hand get off by one key! —Angr 07:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

Shira, I know you do a great job of handling those who want to add persoanl criticism w/o a source. Someone added some material to the Johnathan Sacks page, which I removed and asked them "who noted it?" "Please give a source." They returned the material w/o using the words "Noted by many." Can you help me on this one so it does not turn into an edit war? I have seen you handle these commentors with grace many a time. Cheers and have a good shabbos.--Jayrav 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Query

Shira, can you please look at this one and make a final resolution? We have had a flurry of people leave wiki after taking on too much responsibility. You have become one of the senior editors in Judaica. --Jayrav 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_22#Bet_Shira_and_Micah_Caplan[reply]

Shaare Zedek Medical Center

I see there is no article on Wikipedia with that title, though there is Shaare Zedek congregation. Should I start an article on that? Are individual hospitals notable? (It shows up in List of hospitals in Israel.) YechielMan 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David?

What are you talking about? First of all, I have never edited the article on David. Second of all, I have never added content to Wikipedia in a foreign language. Why did you post that message on my talkpage? KazakhPol 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

First off I did not know delting warnigns in considred vadilism consifering I left them there for a while and I answered them to defend myself. Next time please let me know in a nicer way.

I point you to

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

on my userpage


Troll trying to steal my name

Shirhadasha, it seems that we have a new user who is pretending to be me, User:RobertKaiser. He follows me from article to article, deleting every minor comment, and attacks me as a "troll". It is a sad joke, one that unfortunately has occured before. This user is not Robert Kaiser.

I find it bizarre that he would even do such a thing now, since I have no time for Wikipedia. For all intends and purposes I haven't been here for a year. What little I do here has to do with stuff like the Renaissance Faire in Tuxedo, New York. Occasionally I check the physics articles. That's about it. I don't have the time to do much more than that. What can we do about this guy?

I do have some material that I want to contribute to Wikipedia, in regards to criticism of Conservative Judaism, and Siddur Sim Shalom (an entire article). This is work that I did elsewhere, but would like to contribute. Maybe this Sunday I might have some time. Keep an eye out for those two ideas. RK 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rachel Adler.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rachel Adler.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Edits

Hello, you left a message claiming I posted about Christ in the Hebrew section. I tell you, you are quite mistaken. I did the opposite. I made no mention of Christ or Jesus in any section. What I actually did was revert to where the Christian definition was removed from the Hebrew defintition. Creating first a Hebrew definition of the word Bible and then a Christian one, as per history and as per article organization. I'm sure after you review this you will approve. Thank you, have a nice day. --69.244.153.46 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Holy of Holies

Thanks for the messages. I understand the situation better now. It seems that Holy of Holies should be merged with Most holy place since both articles take a universal view. I have no opinion on which title is better. I think your suggestion to redirect Kadosh Hakadashim into Holy of Holies (Judaism), instead of the other way round, is good. My strong feeling is that wherever possible, the English Wikipedia should use English names. YechielMan 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David

What are you talking about? Please check the diffs; all I've done is revert two pieces of vandalism and add an h to Ish-bosheth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good night; have some sleep and have a look at the changes in the morning. Some of them are, I think, improvements, and bulk reversions win no friends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Kashrut

<<The sources in both the Shmita and the Kashrut article refer to Tevel.>> Tevel is untithed produce. Shviis is produce from the Shmita year. If you need, I can find you references in the original Hebrew from the Mishnah.Davidyonah 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to respond?

You have not responded to my comments. Please respond. Comperr 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming and speaking of the dead in Judaism

I agree that the {{unsourced}} tag is deserved, as it is in most articles that lack them, but I'm curious as to what "disputes" you refer to. Best, DLandTALK 04:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tova Hartman

I've nominated Tova Hartman, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Tova Hartman satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tova Hartman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Tova Hartman during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

AfD nomination of Mendel Shapiro

I've nominated Mendel Shapiro, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Mendel Shapiro satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendel Shapiro and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Mendel Shapiro during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.


Hi Shirahadasha, I can see your dedication to keep this article but unfortunately I still cannot see where it meets WP:BIO. The article could be summarised as "Mendel Shapiro is a rabbinic scholar" with everything else being simple expansion of this...and that is hardly a notable basis. You need newspaper articles, multiple works directly discussing Mendel etc... - Peripitus (Talk) 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Daniel Sperber

I've nominated Daniel Sperber, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Daniel Sperber satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sperber and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Daniel Sperber during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

AfDs mentioned at WP:GS noticeboard

Hi Shirahadasha, thank you for listing these pages on the noticeboard. There seems to be a history between yourself an IZAK. I've made a comment teh AfD for Tova Hartman to the effect that User:IZAK needs to WP:AGF even in an AfD. But I'm afraid he makes a good point about your username which maybe a border-line violation of username policy because it 'closely resembles the names of a group.' (Policy on changing your username is here.) I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern. You have several options freely available to you:

  • If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
  • If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
  • If you decide to just go ahead and change your username, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under the new username: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account.

All that said, IZAK's query about your user name should not have been raised on the AfD as a point for deletion of an article. Thanks again for listing those AfDs on the noticeboard and happy editing--Cailil 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: No offence is intended by this. I'm not accusing you of WP:COI or anything of the sort. I do think a discussion of this might in fact benefit your case in these AfDs so that passers-by like myself are sure that there is no WP:COI. I have no doubt of your integrity or that you are not a single purpose account. Any one making such claims should be refered to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA--Cailil 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shira, thanks for your response on my talk page. I always feel it best to discuss accuations in a dispute - even if only to dismiss them. Considering the length of time you've had your username and your reasons for using it, it seems perfrectly reasonable to me. I have no doubt that there is no confilct of interest on your part. It is surprising in light of the length of time you've been editing & the length of time IZAK has been in contact with that they raise this concern now. If any more queries about your username are raised please mention this discussion - I'd be happy to back you up : )--Cailil 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendel Shapiro

I've replied to your posting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendel Shapiro and am satisfied with the sources that you've added to the article. Accordingly I have changed my vote to Keep. Incidentally I also feel that the AfD nominator was acting in bad faith, both in this case and at Daniel Sperber, and have said so in my comments; the nominator's argument seemed to be based more on religious views than WP policy. So I want you to know that I support you in these cases. Walton monarchist89 10:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad Messianism

Hi there, could you please help me out I don't know what to do. I am being chased around by User:PinchasC who will not let me add a single word or link about Michichism, let alone create a separate article.

Every time I try he pulls another deceitful slight of hand, reverting endlessly, nominating good articles for AfD just to confuse people and so on and so forth.

Chabad Messianism is one of the major controversies in Judaism in the past 50 years with numerous books on the subject yet PinchasC (and co) have ensured that there can only be 1 paragraph in all wikipedia about it - which is followed by endless of the point Berger-bashing.

He nominated Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch for AfD to create a smokescreen, when there was a clear consensus expressed that there should be a Chabad Messianism article I un-redirected it. He then redirected back again, without any debate and falsely claimed that all the info was in the other article.

How can this be resolved?

David Spart 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirahadasha/Archive_2&oldid=1143859124"