en User talk:Eliyak Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eliyak. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Graveyard orbit and disposal orbit

Hello. While I agree that redirecting disposal orbit to graveyard orbit was the right thing to do in the long run, this is usually done by putting a {{mergeto}} template on the article that you want to turn into a redirect, a {{mergefrom}} template on the article you want it to point to, and waiting for comment from other users before implementing the redirect (if nobody responds in a few weeks, you can assume nobody's objecting, if you don't get direct comments to that effect).

"Articles for deletion" is a different mechanism, mostly used when an article isn't a duplicate _and_ doesn't have any redeeming content.

You can find more information at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion process, and Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages.

Welcome aboard! --Christopher Thomas 07:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I did the same to Inclination angle and Inclination, but from now on, I'll follow the process you described. Thanks.

--Eliyak 08:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Eliyahu, it seems that I've found you. :) --DLand ^TALK 06:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.

You inspired me to actually put up some sort of user page last night. Eliyak 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a small formatting pointer - In order to indent, you can put a colon at the beginning of the line. --DLand ^TALK 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Neat. Eliyak 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice edits

Good work on explaining the complicated laws of the korban Pesach! Yoninah 18:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Eliyak 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Etam and Etham

Etham and Etam are entirely different words. The former is spelled with a tav (ת), and hence transliterated with "th", while the former is spelled with a tet (ט), which is never transliterated as "th". Could I suggest that you retract the request to merge the entries? Waitak 05:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you could. And I will, because you're absolutely right. I'll also add Hebrew for "Etam" page --Eliyak 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on both counts! :-) Waitak 09:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Balochistan

Thanks for the message, Eliyak. Blanking of sections without an explanation is simply unacceptable. I've rolled his edits back. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

VfD

Slaom Eliyak and Shavua Tov! See:

Best wishes, IZAK 07:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Eliyak 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Midian

Thanks for restoring the template box to Midian, which I inadvertantly removed while revamping the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on converting the citations for JE articles and making them more comprehensible. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Eliyak! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Most excellent. --Eliyak 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mazel Tov

Mazel Tov to User:Eliyak on making a good start with the long-overdue Template:Mishnah! Thank you Eliyak! IZAK 11:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

talmud or tractate

you wrote:

I felt that Sukkah (Talmud) would be the better place for that page, since it seems to me that "tractate" is an outmoded word which most people do not know, whereas "Talmud" would be more informative, to let people know what the topic is.
--Eliyak 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted it to be consistent with Sanhedrin (tractate) and Avodah Zarah (tractate). Frankly I perfer tractate, but it is much more important to be that it be consistent than anything else.
Jon513 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, do what you want. I think that tractate makes the subject very clear. talmud can be understood as "a topic in the talmud".
Jon513 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

_ _ Worrying about consistency among the Dab'g suffixes of supposedly related articles is ill-conceived. To paraphrase Lenin, the purpose of Dab'n is to Dab'ate: the suffixes for the pages with Sukkah as "base name" should be considered together, independent of what has been done with other base names that have something in common with that base name. For instance, while Sephiroth is a Hebrew term, its suffixes need first and foremost to work together in light of it being used in contexts where its Hebrew origin is irrelevant: they should not sow confusion between the Kabbalistic usage and the apparently gentile occultism, and the video-game related usages that may need to be factored in will not apply to other Hebrew terms. Further, while there can be little question that the Talumud-unit articles form a natural group, few if any of us have the insight to reliably decide which is most relevant among the presently identified groupings that an article is in, let alone among those it may become eligible for next week -- so, for example, should the suffix for the Talmud unit "Avodah Zarah" be consistent with those of other Talmud articles, or with those of other traditions' views of idolatry?

_ _ Further, not every Talmud-unit article is eligible for a Dab'g suffix. I am for instance moving [[Avodah Zarah {tractate)]] to Avodah Zarah since the topic of how Judaism views idolatry is not really a contender for the title "Avodah Zarah", in an English-language 'pedia. And delivering those who type it into the Go pane to an article on the tractate (with a ToP Dab) is far from violating the principle of minimum surprise. So Avodah Zarah does not match either Sukkah (Talmud) or Sukkah (tractate).

_ _ All that being said, whether or not "tractate" is "outmoded", it is so specialized and ambiguous as to be too confusing to appear in titles: it suggests tracts of land and evangelistic Gospel tracts and even the digestive tract, before a unit of religious scholarship. (The term may be valuable within the articles (especially accompanied by a lk to Tractate -- if as i assume that can be more than a dictdef -- or a {{wiktionarypar}} tag if i'm wrong). The text of an article has plenty of elbow room for making otherwise confusing terms clear and useful.)
--Jerzy•t 05:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for yeshivas

Hi Eliyak: An important discussion is taking place at Talk:Telshe yeshiva that concerns issues relating to naming conventions for yeshivas. Your comments and observations at Talk:Telshe yeshiva would be very helpful. Perhaps it should become part of a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Naming conventions for yeshivas. Best wishes, IZAK 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yom Ha'atzmaut

Please wait for consensus before making mass moves like that. In this case, consensus has already been established, and it overrides convention. For it to change, you have to initiate a discussion first, on the talk pages. Good Shabbos, DLand ^TALK 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The reason that I didn't elaborate on the issue itself was that I was rushing before Shabbos. You are correct that the current spelling does not conform to the naming conventions that we currently have. However, it is generally agreed that the naming conventions are only invoked in cases where there is no "accepted" spelling, or if it is ambiguous. In this case, the accepted spelling is overwhelmingly "Yom Ha'atzmaut" (just check Google) so the whole discussion of convention is not applicable. Another example of this kind of thing that I was involved in is Shulchan Aruch. If it were according to convention, I imagine it would be Shulhan Arukh, but that looks ridiculous. Hopefully you get the point. Take care, DLand ^TALK 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Deepening the LoPbN El tree

_ _ Hi and welcome, E., and thanks and congratulations for your unusually competant work in inserting a great many welcome Elliot(-etc.) entries. My practices (the virtual & de-facto WP:MoS) for LoPbN are grossly underdocumented, and (while i think it's important for editors to work on what interests them rather than their colleagues) it's tempting to explore whether you wouldn't manage to do a better job than i have (or can) in writing it all down!
_ _ But i'm really writing to be sure you don't misunderstand the priority i gave to "undeepening" the page by breaking it up. The deepening you did is exactly what i do in the same situation, in order to to keep the page usable without taking time immediately to break it up. But there are two reasons for regarding it as a stop-gap measure:

There is a well-established disapproval of using the top (single-equal-sign) headings for anything, since (perhaps depending on the "skin" one chooses on their "My preferences" page) they can render as big or bigger than the page title, and (no matter which skin) they tend to undercut the presumption of two-equal-sign headings as the natural top of the hierarchy, which is propagated by the "Subject/headline" function of talk pages' "+"- or "Leave a comment"- tool.
Treating 6-level pages as a temporary measure restores their availability as an "emergency" measure: with the Ell page at 5 levels, any further expansion of the El subtree can again be dealt with by temporarily "deepening" a page as you did.

(The other, lower-priority, further work that is in my mind is that i'd prefer to eventually have a heading that collects the names in which "Elliot" is a unit (rather than just the start of "Elliott"), without lumping them with the "Elliott" entries. That is, i'd like a "People named Elliott" heading embracing "Elliot as whole surname" and "Elliot as first unit of compound surname". (Avoiding a 6th level would require breaking Ell into Ella - Ellh, Elli, and Ellj - Ellz pages). That is not just low priority, but also a little distasteful: i grit my teeth a little each time create a page with, e.g., just 6 Elle... entries or 1 Ellr... entry, tho i have concluded -- after trying alternatives -- that such pages are necessary (as are even pages that as yet, and maybe permananently, have no entries).)
_ _ Thanks again; i don't know much about the Judaism-related articles (tho i dabbled, i guess to little effect, with the Soloman/Sulamein problem), but i'd bet your interest there will be valuable.
--Jerzy•t 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you've guessed, I had a special attachment to the El page, and I'm sorry to see it go. Seriously, though, I thought about breaking up the page, but wasn't confident that I would do it correctly, or that it should be done at all. The "deepening" was due to my recent exciting discovery of "level 1" titles. --Eliyak T·C 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LoPbN Pas - Pat similar-name annotations

Would you mind holding off on adding further "sounds like" annotations while we discuss how broadly they should be applied? I haven't even been doing e.g. "Pattison sounds like Patteson", and so far i think that degree of resemblance is the least that should justify such aids on LoPbn pages. I'm also concerned about the open-ended scope of "the following names" in contrast to "this name". I suggest we launch this as a topic in the LoPbN talk pages.
--Jerzy•t 01:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi Eliyak: Your "E - mail this user" feature is not enabled. Could you please Email me [1] via my user page. Thanks. IZAK 06:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

LoPbN lo-res trmnlgy

_ _ In looking at the prolific series of edits you did on LoPbN Hal early this month, i was impressed with the number of entries you added, but concerned to be sure that the touch-up i'll be doing on many of them not be misunderstood. As i hint in the section title above, "Low Resolution Terminology" is the watchword involved; what underlies it is the role of LoPbN as purely navigational pages, subject to much the same considerations that have led to formalizing WP:MOSDAB, and that were discussed on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) (found now, probably in many cases, on its talk archive pages).
_ _ Summarizing those considerations: The indispensible purpose of LoPbN is to assist users who have at least a rough idea of the spelling of the surname of the person whose bio article they seek. (Or of the given name of one who lacks surname, or whose surname is likely to be omitted when referring to them in the media.) For example, the female star of "Splash" might be under Hanna or Hana or Hannah, or maybe even Hanne, but visually searching the Han page(s) for given names beginning with D under those neighboring four surnames pretty reliably guarantees finding her bio. LoPbN has more than lked names only bcz sometimes of the user's knowledge of the name does not yield a single article different bio'd people may have identical names, or names that differ insufficiently to help the user spot the right one. Thus each standard entry consists of

Name
Vital statistics
Nationality (for moderns, the source of their passport)
Occupation of notability

For 99% of entries, anything more would be not only redundant, but a distraction. The other 1% are people with the same name and notable occupation, (since dates and nationality are often not known to the user seeking the bio); usually there is something else pretty sure to do the job: a pair of American politicians get supplemented with their respective states -- or with their highest offices, if geography isn't clear enough. Or with the two Boxers (20 years apart) named Davey Moore, the fact that one died young from injuries in the ring and one was killed young by his own car is more likely to be known by someone looking for either, than is, say, their hometown or their weight class.
_ _ I mention all of that really just for context. More to the point, any detail that doesn't help disambiguate is more reading to slow down getting to the desired bio, and runs the risk of being too specialized to be understood by some users (who don't need the detail to find the right bio anyway). For instance, i regularly remove "union" from in front of "rugby", "(soccer)" from after "football", "ice" or "field" from in front of "hockey", and the positions played or events or distances swum or run: no one is likely to give up searching for their field hockey player when there is at least one hockey player of unspecified sort at hand. Terms specific to particular religions are especially troublesome: i change "bishop", "cardinal", "saint", "prophet", "lama", and "rebbe" all to "religious leader", partly because repetitions of one term load the brain less than multiple terms, and partly because some readers will not recogonize all of those as varieties of religious leader.
_ _ The point is not that any of these distinctions don't matter, but that they don't matter on the navigational page, and the place where they do matter is one click away, in the bio that the user is seeking. So before i go thru eliminating the distinction you made, on LoPbN pages, as to Hasidim or Shintoists, i want to emphasize to you that i welcome that information within WP, even tho such details are no more helpful on a nav page than the distinction between mayor and senator, or between CEOs and COOs. I hope you'll keep adding names, and not be offended that LoPbN is not the place for the full detail that you're willing to contribute.
--Jerzy•t 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't recall many shintoists on that page... ;) . Thanks for the overview. I'll try to adhere to it in future edits. Ideally, of course, I'd like to make edits which don't require your going back over them. I'm sure you have enough work with LoPBN without my dumping in a hundred new names every now and again. --Eliyak T·C 06:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This guy sitting on a park bench is repeatedly going thru this weird, neurotic-looking ritual. Guy on the other end of the bench finally asks about it. First guy says, "it keeps the elephants away!" The other guy says, "What, there aren't any elephants within a hundred miles of here." First guy smiles proudly and says, "There, you see how well it works!"
--Jerzy•t 06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LoPbN stuff

You're too polite. The reason so much of the long stuff is so unfinished is that when i reread it, i can't bear the struggle to clean it up & end up abandoning documentation projects. When need arises, i try to deal with it ad hoc. I hope what i've put on this page is not as dreadful!
--Jerzy•t 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism

Hi Eliyak: Thought you would be interested in the latest adventure that has started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism (perhaps you may want to join) and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

High Holy Days vs High Holidays

I've restored it the way it was prior to the cut&paste. You may wish to inform the guy who made the mess to begin with, that this kind of editing is unacceptable, regardless of how much he, you and/or I might prefer that the article be at High Holy Days. Tom e r ^talk 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to "use the "move" button (found at the top of the page). This will ensure that the edit history of the article in question remains intact." There are two reasons why I can't do what you want -- even though it sounds like a very good idea. First, if you try doing this on a non-admin account, you'll see that you get an error message because the other page already exists. Second, if I were able to complete the move like you suggest, I would end up destroying the history for the destination page. Maybe I'm missing something -- I've been a member for 2 years, but obviously it's not every day that I get to move a page -- but I think that you're just going to have to do the page move yourself instead of asking me to do it, because as a non-admin, I can't do it the way that you want. --M @r ē ino 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Berakhot (Talmud)

I've responded to your message on the talk page. Frankly, one of the hardest things about writing a good article on it is that the Mishnah is horribly disorganised sometimes. :\ Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Simeon and Levi in Category:Mass murderers

Why did you revert this category inclusion? I'm talking about Genesis 34, where Simeon and Levi murder all the men in a town while they were sleeping after a circumcision, in revenge for Dinah's rape by Shechem. Is this not understood to be an unrighteous act? This is the only context I'd ever known it to be judged in. The category should stay. - Gilgamesh 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Maftir ommitted in afternoons

Hi, I don't believe your statement in Torah reading that the maftir is ommitted in the afternoons is always correct. A maftir (and Haftorah) are said at minchah on fast days. Best. --Shirahadasha 01:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, true. I'll do something about that. --Eliyak T·C 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RYBS

I do not believe your decision to revert the article was appropriate given the discussion on the discussion page. I ask that you revert your change until the discussion is resolved. Your assertion is certainly valid in the sense that Rav Lichtenstein makes a similar claim. However, if you went to Brisk, as I have, it would be very difficult for you to see how RYBS was even "essentially" a Brisker, not merely because of his hashkafa (and in Hashkafa I refer not merely to his Zionism), but even his chiddushim. I recall at least one shtikkel in Iggros HaGrid where R' Moshe writes to him that R' Chaim already answered the question, so why give something new. R' Moshe was echoing the way R' Velvel, R' Dovid, R' Avrohom Yeshuva, and their springboard yeshivas view how Torah should be taught (RYBS's Torah is very different structurally, as well, but that could because his talmidim are different, not him), and what should be emphasized. Please do not get me wrong, NO ONE can say that RYBS contributions were not significant, they were very significant. But to call RIETS a Brisk Yeshiva is just not true. To call him a Brisker is debatable as well. This, however, is not the topic of the article. The article is about Brisk Yeshivas. How could you call RIETS a Brisk Yeshiva? Please respect the discussion forum, and wait to see what happens. If the title of the article is changed, no one would object to this addition. DavidCharlesII 15:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page remain as it was until the conflict is resolved, instead of first changing it, and then deciding whether to do so? --Eliyak T·C 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If this would be about influences on Brisk thought, you would undoubtedly be correct. However, this is about Brisk Yeshivas. Because RIETS is not a Brisk Yeshiva, this cannot be included in the article. However, if its changed, the addition should be made. I would love to help out writing an article more about Brisker thought, and give explanations as to where RYBS was different (in thought). That, too, is a different article. Let's wait, though, to see the change in the name of the article, first. 66.93.254.200 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, perhaps, that the article Brisk yeshivas is also about the Soloveitchik "dynasty" (possible location for a split-off) - about the Rabbis, and not just their yeshivas. --Eliyak T·C 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we can call it that. It may be beneficial to add how RYBS's yeshiva is different from other Brisk Yeshivas as well to highlight the points at which they broke off. But, as it stands, its still not Brisk. Brisk has a very precise meaning to it, like all things Brisk. It cannot mean a very dicdactic reading of a Rishon along with hashkafos, methods of presentations, and political leanings wholly alien to the concept of Brisk as it has been preserved (which is another aspect of Brisk) for decades. It can be sympatheic to the Brisker mehalech, or apperciative of aspects of it. But it cannot be called Brisk. DavidCharlesII 16:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lebedev

I left a comment here. Nrets 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Palestine flag

Is there really a need to create a local image at wikipedia rather than use the commons image, just for the exact naming of the image? Kevin_b_er 05:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was duplicating Image:Flag of Palestine.svg, which was already on wikipedia, as I assume are the rest of the flags, by country name. --Eliyak T·C 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't keep too close with the mideast conflict for various reasons, but since the flag is used for more than the administrative organization, it may be acceptable to just use the existing image, rather than create needless duplication. Palestinian flag would seem to indicate that its been used extensivly for a sort of ethnic or cultural identification. I don't see a huge issue with the image name, even though a "non-country" happens to use it for representation The template schema seems to also permit the flag to named something other than "Flag of <name>", which would allow for the sharing of common images hosted at the commons:Image:Flag_of_Palestine.svg (where all the wikipedias and other wikimedia projects can use it, rather than just english wikipedia). Plus I can imagine a state where the name of the organization could be in dispute, and an edit war erupts over an image name. Kevin_b_er 05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded image:Palestinian flag.svg, since that name will not claim or deny the existence of a country called Palestine, a highly contential point. I'm not much involved with Wikimedia, so I will leave the issue of bringing the flag files there to someone who has more to do with a) flags and b) Wikimedia --Eliyak T·C 06:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Eliyak, please have a look here Palestine (disambiguation) and see if "State of Palestine or the desired Palestinian state" is clear enough not to mean that it's already a state. I think it is ok... I think. On a different note, nice category Gush Etzion... maybe we shoud make the other matot/authorities of other regious... gush edomim for instance... etc. Amoruso 12:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Flag of Palestinian National Authority.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag of Palestinian National Authority.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Troll?

Wondering what you think of this? Pete.Hurd 18:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Eliyak/Archive 1