User talk:MPerel/Archive 2006

Note: This is an archive. Please post new comments at my live talk page User talk:MPerel

Vote for deletion

You may be interested in this vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_wife_confused_for_a_sister --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said something about Meatpuppets - where people round up their friends to rig a vote. Hmmmm, I wonder what the definition of hypocrisy has to say about that? --User talk:FDuffy 02:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that vote, MPerel, do you consider ANY of

• Israel Finkelstein (2002). The Bible Unearthed. Free Press. ISBN 0684869136.
• Robin Lane Fox (1992). The Unauthorized Version. {{cite book}}: Text "PublisherKnopf" ignored (help) pp 409f
• Richard Elliott Friedman (1987). Who Wrote The Bible?. Harper and Row, NY, USA. ISBN 0060630353.
• Richard Elliott Friedman (2003). The Bible with sources revealed. HarperSanFransisco. ISBN 0060530693.
• Jewish Encyclopedia 1906 version (the encyclopedia, not the article)
• Footnotes in the New American Bible (again the bible, not the article)

to be "credible source"?

If not, why not?

If so, then why did you vote delete when these were listed both at the article AND on the AFD itself?

--User talk:FDuffy 02:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War/War of 1973

Maybe you can help with the discussion section. I feel that voting on a page move is not a good way to resolve a POV argument. Maybe a better way would be to discuss the arguments one by one, then put a statement for and against. I feel that this would be more beneficial than long drawn out discussions. Can you help fill in the blanks? I'm convinced though, this debate will continue unless there is a more politically and culturally neutral title. ;-) - Spaceriqui 03:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... MPerel, you are not exactly unbiased are you?  :-)

What would you think if it were named the Ramadan War? It may not be the most common term in the English language, but then again, it's a valid name... it's not a question of Language, Race, or political orientation. The fact is that there are two names, one is Israeli, the other Arab. Which is right? The one that is Culturally Biased?

- Spaceriqui 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'll think about it... ;-) in the mean time, please put your comments in the discussion page under the appropriate argument (support/against) Thanks for being civil and open to discussion. = Spaceriqui 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very good argument (but don't quote me on that). Spaceriqui 04:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping! - Spaceriqui 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments elsewhere, I wanted to stop here and mention that I never said that "Yom Kippur" itself was in any way offensive to Arabs or Muslims either as a term or as a cultural event. I've only ever reported that in my own personal relations with Arabs and Muslims, calling the "1973 Arab-Israeli War" the "Yom Kippur War" has been offensive to them, just as referring to it as the "Ramadan War" when speaking to Jews met the exact same hostility and derision in personal conversation.

I've visted the local Islamic center and had discussions there. (It's a large mosque about a half mile from my house. I put a photo of it on the commons.) I've spent a lot of time at our local Jewish Community Center (JCC) because they're in union with the local YMCA, which I'm a member of. I've seen both sides of this, and I really don't think Wikipedia should favor one side over the other, especially given that we KNOW that having the article titled "Yom Kippur War" offends some of our readers. Unfocused 14:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. Thank you for your words. - Spaceriqui 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again MPerel. I would like to get your one on one input on the latest situation. My biggest question is this... Why is it so hard to compromise and pick a NPOV title? It can't only be that it is the most common name in the English language, because other terms are maybe not the most popular, but they are widely used. Did you see the research I did on other encyclopedias? It seems that most of those which have a balanced view... have the NPOV title as the main title, the use Yom Kippur War as a subtitle. -Spaceriqui 23:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again... I made a few errors on the encyclopedia thing... please ignore. Take care, Spaceriqui 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made it official

I thought that the discussion for the Yom Kippur War should be more organized, so I copied the listed format. The obvious change was adding the move header on the top of the page. I guess I should have separated the ongoing discussion into support/oppose, but I wasn't thinking very clearly at the time. Hbdragon88 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the discussion. I apologize. Hbdragon88 06:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello MPerel. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bureaucrat nomination

Thank you!

Thank you for your kind words on my nomination for bureaucrat. I'm disappointed with the results, but heartened by the support I received by so many fine Wikipedians. You're "one of the good-uns", as they say. – Quadell ^(talk) (bounties) 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

All is well, thanks for your concern! I just needed to take some time off, I have a lot of work and Wikipedia was consuming too much of my time... I added my support, thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Doron 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for your support and your congratulations! (Now, am I glad I'm continuing... well, that remains to be seen. :-)) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

Thank you for your kind words, and for your support! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redesigned template.

Please review Template talk:Jewish language#redesign. Thanks for your time. Tomer^talk 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Article, Second Paragraph

I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited to come. --CTSWyneken 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Rob is Back

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk

Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Well, you're welcome. I'm glad my attempts at mediation have been recognized, although sometimes I find myself playing the middle against both sides. Trinitarians vs nontrinitarians, Christians vs. Jews, Everyone vs. Robsteadman, it gets a little tiring after a while ;) Arch O. La 04:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

I think we're approaching a consensus that will stick. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 15:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Talk Runoff Vote

Our hopefully last vote on this paragraph is underway. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you! Hi MPerel/Archive 2006 thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 15:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek and Hebrew in 1st Paragraph being discussed

Dear MPerel: Would you drop by the talk page for Jesus The greek and hebrew received positive reviews there. Thanks! Bob --CTSWyneken 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! I'm look for a well done article that everyone can live with -- even us fideist reprinstinating priest types! ;-) --CTSWyneken 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Aiden

The reason I blocked for 48 hours is that he actually "offended" more than once (i.e. on multiple articles). I don't have the diff links on me, but I believe he also 3RR'd on Islam. I may reconsider if you still think a 24 hour block is in order. Cheers, — FireFox • T • 17:23, 9 March 2006

Ok... I just blocked him for 4 hours, which will make the total block duration 24 hours. — FireFox • T • 17:43, 9 March 2006

Thanks

Thank you for your helpful contribution to Talk:Rachel Corrie (if this isn't presumptuous of me). I really appreciate it. Palmiro | Talk 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we now have a much better intro, even if much ink was spilt in anger over it, and my issues with it are largely if not completely addressed, so thanks again. Palmiro | Talk 12:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seudah

Looks like a great start to me, but I'll canvass others for copyedits. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See talk there for a couple points. Good work. HKT 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Anytime. HKT 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks for voting on my RFA and helping me become an admin. The final tally was 108-0-1 (putting me on the WP:100 list). I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, Gator (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshua

I would very much like to be on "your side" on this matter, since I know the personalities and the backgrounds of those involved in this discussion. However, I'm not going to comment because I'm not sure that I agree with you. My immediate reaction was to reject Haldrik's proposal without a second thought, but he has since quoted more than enough sources to back himself up. You and Jayjg argue that this is speculation, but it seems like it's more than that at this point. Jay stressed that while, admittedly, a majority of scholars agree on ישוע, a minority would contest this - but where is this minority?? He, nor anyone, has found any reputable source that explicitly states that ישוע was not Jesus's Hebrew name, and while it's true that proving a thing's existence is much easier than proving its non-existence, I don't see any reason not to accept this. Why should etymology be different than anything else and require documented proof beyond scholarly consensus? So, I'm not going to argue either way on the discussion page, since I'm not totally convinced. Also, I will try to dig up sources showing that ישוע was not his name - but I doubt that I will find any.

Take care, DLand 15:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request re Jesus

Hi Miri,

just in relation to your request on my talk page, I was slightly surprised to see that you appear to believe that I am a Muslim. I don't particularly want to go into my convictions regarding matters of religion, so I will only point out that I have never stated myself to be a Muslim.

I hope all is well with you; you will be in my thoughts. Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I certainly don't object to people thinking I am knowledgeable about Islam, though whether that is true or not is another question! Palmiro | Talk 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've just read the last section of your userpage, and found it very ... thought-provoking, I suppose, and beautiful. Palmiro | Talk 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let the games begin

Go ahead and post the RfA. Thanks! I think... 8-) -CTSWyneken 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup

Thanks for supporting my RfA!

--Rockero 23:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin College and references

Thank you for changing these, even if it was automated. I'm very glad to know that there is a simpler way of doing that now.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 00:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of refconverter

Unreflective use of refconverter is causing many problems, and in many cases actively harming Wikipedia. The tool is nice to have—in fact, it's the impetus for me creating my own "Citation Tool" (still alpha). But it is nice to have to aid editors who are actually involved in editing a specific article, and who have reached consensus about making a given type of change to an existing article. Unfortunately, the semi-bot is largely being used to make "drive by 'improvements'" to articles where editors either have not considered the citation style, or where they have actively decided on something different from what the tool produces. This is extremely disrespectful to other Wikipedia editors, and a gross violation of process.

I have not looked at your specific changes made using the semi-bot, but I strongly recommend that you follow a guideline along the lines of: "Use this tool only after consensus for a change has been reached on the talk page of the article to which it is applied!"

You may also want to take a look at User:Evilphoenix/ref conversion. This is a sketch of an RfC that may be filed to try to resolve this problem (I see no reason you might not opine there, even while it lives in userspace). Ideally, Cyde will back off his insistence on changing all articles, even where against editor consensus. But unfortunately, his attitude has only become more belligerent when I have repeated requests in this regard. I think a positive involvment of well-meaning users of the semi-bot might help matters resolve amicably. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref converter RFC

You are receiving this message because you are on the Ref converter spamlist.

Hello there, I'd just like to make you aware that Lulu has filed an RfC against me and "other users of Ref converter". Since Lulu has previously contacted you regarding Ref converter I think it is safe to assume that you are one of the people named in the "other users of Ref converter" bit, so you may want to get involved. Just a heads-up, Cyde Weys 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little something for you

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work in spreading knowledge to promote social justice, I hereby award you this barnstar. Cyde Weys 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear MPerel, I appreciate your vote, your support and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted You to Have First Formal Thank You

Thank you nominating me and for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MPerel! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of Sociopath Terrorists

The "landless workers something" is nothing more than a communist terrorist group. They sing the International Socialist Antheem, burn crops, kill animals and people, with disregard for everything. And they do everything they do without a reason! The government gives them money and they just keep killing people and burning crops, don't tell me they aren't terrorists because they are! Cuzandor 04:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand, even though everyone knows they are terrorists Cuzandor 16:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on my RfA!

File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg

A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thank you for your vote in my RfA! I appreciate your comments. The nomination failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted it. - Amgine 17:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Torah Jews

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for responding:

Firstly, as I said before the TTJ isn’t per se a mouth-piece of satmar – nevertheless because satmar doesn’t have an anti Zionist platform for the outside of satmar - meaning Jewish non satmar’s and non Jews - this group has become the de-facto satmar podium on anti Zionism in the world of non Yiddish - so to speak –, this can be seen thru several thing sited above,for one the satmar rabbis, the banner on the head table for TTJ by an official satmar demonstration, as I linked above.

This brings me to my second point:

Should it be the fact, that the TTJ is run – or for that matter in any way associated - to non-religious Jews, or even more, to a left wing socialist movement, you can rest assured not only wouldn’t you find any satmar rabbi signing a proclamation for the group, but also not in any circumstance letting the group grab any publicity on an official satmar event, given that satmar is not a political opponent to the state of Israel, but rater a morel opponent of it, in fact should the world - and for that matter Evan the Arabs - miraculously unanimously become supportive of Israel, it wont affect satmars opposition to Israel not one iota, moreover satmar has always maintained the position to not be seen in any way having an association with people or groups like the ones you mentioned, so much so that when a group like the Neturei Karta - which is an orthodox Jewish group and even has the same fundamental for opposing Israel like the one of satmar – but because they associated themselves with the political apposition to the state, satmar very openly and aggressively disassociated themselves from them.

Thirdly, as I said before the TTJ is regularly featured in the two Yiddish newspapers “Der Yid” and “Der Blot” that are the official newspapers of the two satmar factions (the Aron’s and Zalmons).The question is would it be considered a verification of TTJ works and structure if it is spelled out in the above newspapers?

If yes, I would be more than glad to present such writings and let the Yiddish speaking and reading editors here, confirm the content.

However I would need more time to do just that, since they don’t publish the newspaper on the web I would need to contact them, go to there office and get a hold of the articles.

17:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bloger 17:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Forcing Your Opinions on the Luther Page

You and your Jewish pals need to stop forcing your clearly non-neutral point of view on the Luther page. It is shameful and dishonest how you are going about this.--Ptmccain 07:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for more of Ptmccain's Jewish concerns [[1]]

[[2]] Doright 07:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence on NPOV

On my RfA, you stated that you were looking for evidence of me unable to maintain a NPOV. Were you also looking for evidence me able to maintain a NPOV? If you would like me to provide some evidence, I would be glad to do that. If not, I'll remain silent on the matter. joturner 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NPOV

Definitely, evidence of NPOV edits would be helpful as well : ) Mostly from what I've seen, I lean toward supporting your RFA, but since people have voiced concerns based on your obvious POV (which everyone has, you are just open about yours), I thought I'd provide opportunity for someone to show me evidence that your POV has interfered with NPOV editing. If no such evidence is forthcoming, and no other concerns are raised, I intend to support. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll presume you're looking for information about point-of-view as it relates to Islam-related topics. And so...

• Here is what I put in my last RfA:

In my request for adminship, above, I said "I try my best to make sure that I judge all articles and edits not on the character of the author but on the content of the edit." It's unfortunate that others will not do that for me. Up until this point, I've received only positive comments on my user page, but now it looks like it is causing large issues. If they continue and appear to be significant enough, I will change it, although I feel the prohibition of point of view and bias, even on user pages, shouldn't extend to a ban on individuality. We are all Wikipedians, but we are all people too.

Although I am personally passionate about my religion, that zeal has never extended to my contributions to Wikipedia. I realize that as an encyclopedia and website that is supposed to appeal to all people around the world and all faiths and backgrounds that we are supposed to remain neutral.

Last month, during the early days of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, I voted to keep the cartoons on the article page, at the top, with no special notification despite my personal objection to them (see poll results). I talked to users who repeatedly removed the cartoons from the article, most notably in User talk: Erdemsenol ([3], [4], [5]). My rational speech on that page even caused me to earn a barnstar.

My sixth most edited article is Depictions of Muhammad, which again is something I personally oppose, but yet find useful for Wikipedia. For that article, I uploaded several pictures of the Prophet ((1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), including one that depicts him in hell (that would be number six). Again, my personal religious objections didn't extend to Wikipedia. In addition to uploading those images, I contributed to writing that article.

I have always done my best to correct shows of piety, especially in Muhammad where it is most prevalent ([6], [7]) as well as in other articles ([8]). I've attempted to improve the neutral point of view in Islamic articles, as recently as just a few hours ago when I brought up the potential bias created by presenting so many articles that shout hosannas toward Muhammad ([9]). I also around the same time talked to a user about his reasoning for repeatedly deleting the picture of the Prophet[10].

I will continue to show that neutrality if I were to become an admin and even if I were not to. Your concerns are certainly very valid, as religious bias (as well as all bias) would impede to delivery of information. I may be confident about my religion or a pious (or if you must, "fundamentalist") Muslim, but you will see that those beliefs do not extend into the article content of Wikipedia. My user page, which has not up until this moment been an issue, simply documents an ongoing event in my life. I don't intend to proselytize, as it simply documents facts and does not do anything to lambaste the views of other religions. Although I may have committed to one religion, I find all religions fascinating (hence the userbox saying "This user believes the world is a happier, safer and saner place because of religion."). The introduction of my religious views into articles will not be an issue as an admin or otherwise. joturner 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer examples can come from more recently as I have not spent as much time on Islam-related articles. However:

• Here is my my view on the Muhammad cartoons, as an editor requested.
• Here is a section on the (often negative) role of mosques today that I added to the Mosque article, by request in the article's FAC.
• And lastly, I feel my user page is a testament to not being biased towards Islam (although some disagree). I use religious symbols from several religions because I find religion in general fascinating.

If you're referring to edits on different topics, that's a bit harder for me to demonstrate. Not because I haven't been able to maintain a neutral point-of-view, but because it's different to pinpoint specific edits to demonstrate that. I hope that helps out with your decision. joturner 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some of the comments from my last RfA are outdated as I have changed my user page significantly. joturner 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one has yet jumped in with evidence of POV editing, and everything I've seen is impressive. I've changed to support. Good luck! : ) --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. joturner 22:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen

Dear MP: Boy, are you flexible! I'll check it out. Bob--CTSWyneken 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a copyright declaration on the title page or the verso of the title page of this translation? --CTSWyneken 19:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My, you have an odd situation with this work. I've done a search for it and I do not find a 1952 edition. There is a chance that the item simply isn't catalog in my union catalog, but that would be very strange for a work from the Jewish Publication Society. The version I found is as follows:

Crisis and leadership: epistles of Maimonides by Abraham S Halkin; David Hartman 1985 1st ed., 292 p. ; 24 cm.Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, ; ISBN: 0827602383 :

How (besides the date) do the facts of publication above square with what you have in hand? --CTSWyneken 19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what you just posted, my guess is that the Jewish Publication Society edition is a reworking of the earlier. That still leaves open the question of whether or not the copyright was renewed on the earlier one. The relationship between editions would be master to derivative, with the latter being the derivative.

You need to know that sometimes renewals fall through the cracks at the copyright office. There's a good chance it was not renewed, but there always is a chance it was. What I would do, for neatness sake, is check with Jewish Publication Society. Ask if the they know if 1952 is in the public domain.--CTSWyneken 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the case. My working hypothesis would be they waited for the rights to expire and then adapted it enough to justify a new copyright. The original, then, would be unprotected. There is always a chance, however, that the copyright was renewed and just not recorded. But I would expect JPS would have mentioned the renewal on the title page verso and they did not. Calling JPS would be the wisest course. Ask them to put it in writing, though, before you post a full text. --CTSWyneken 21:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Worldview idealist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Worldview idealist.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views of Jesus merged with Christology

Hi, thank you for leaving a message on my talk page! Just as a quick initial reaction, I agree with your proposal to merge these two articles because they are the same. As you know "views" may be more informal impressions and "-ology" is more formal, scholastic type of stuff. Very cordially, --Drboisclair 18:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts

Hi, thanks for adding the excerpts to wikiquote [11]. As a newbie wikipedian I'm still learning about the available tools. I appreciate that you value bringing this particular information to the interested WP user. Isn't it odd that this was not translated into English until 1971? RegardsDoright 01:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reiss Afd

Just for the record concerning your comment here (which I only just noticed), when I originally listed the article, the article said the injury was a hematoma. Someone changed it to "sub-dural haemorrhage" after the fact. The news articles sourced described it as a non-life-threatening minor injury. I just wanted to correct your impression that I was trying to be dismissive of the injuries, I was going by what the article and sources said at the time I came upon the article. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I accept and believe that without reservation. cc to user talk, this'll archive soon. Comment adjusted, for teh record.Midgley 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help

Could you help me here [12]. Please review the recent edit history of the article. I did not think that using BCE and CE would be offensive to Christians, and the fact is the article has used these twerms for years. Moreove, I didn't think identifying the article as relevant to Jewish articles would be offensive to Christians. Over the past two years a very stable consensus developed. Now a couple of people want to undo that. I think CrazyInSane has been blocked, but I am sure he will come back; Codex Sinaiticus has already reverted a few times. Look at the edit history and you will see why I hesitate to do anything more for fear of violating the three-revert rule. In the meantime, Crazy and his supporters are just rehashing old arguments and not responding to anyone else, really. I appreciate your help, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs)

help?

As someone who has recently edited this article, would you care to comment on: [13] and [14] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid

Please stop playing games. There is no consensus for merging the articles and it's not acceptable to cut and paste one entire article into another.

Also, if you don't want to treat Isreal differently why are you insisting that it has more space in the article than other countries?Homey 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your proposed major change in Talk:Apartheid outside South Africa. Homey 02:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss article content on the article talk page instead thank you. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you have not done that.Homey 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) The person who made those changes already explained their edits; b) I've made many comments on the Talk page regarding this. If you have any further discussion on this, please keep it on the article talk page, thanks. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Please take a look [15]. --Doright 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

I absolutely love your sig, I'm just giving you the heads up that I'm going to beusing a modified version of it with different colors. Thanks! Ian .ιΙι.Talk.ιΙι. 18:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD URJ Camp George

An article that you are interested in, URJ Camp George, has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/URJ Camp George. Your comments there would be welcome. TruthbringerToronto 18:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Reformatting Luther Page

Please stop reformatting the Luther page. It's format has been worked on very carefully resulting in a much better looking page. Your reversion of the formatting amounts to vandalism to the page. Ptmccain 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thank you

Thank you! Thank you, MPerel, for your support in my RfA. I am happy to be able to say that it has acheived a consenus of wikipedians, and that I will be assuming my new responsibilities immediately. I appreciate your trust and support, especially in that you took the time to investigate my record, as opposed to making a snap decision, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance

The Former Jews category was of Jewish people that converted to other religions. It was not about the Jewish ethnicity. Also, a Catholic cannot become a former Catholic anymore than a Jew can become a former Jew.

Also, you are unfamiliar with wikipedia policy. You should not delete something manually and then put it up for deletion. You are supposed to leave all content in and put it up for deletion and it would be decided on. 75.3.49.50 05:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just make up your own definition of "Jew". Jew is an ethno-religious category. Catholic is more narrowly defined as a religious category only, and someone who has never had anything to do with Catholicism would never be considered a Catholic, whereas many Jews have never had anything to do with the religion Judaism, and yet they are still Jews. That said, I don't think "former Catholics" is a helpful category either. As for removing the category from the articles where you added it, even if the category stayed you would need to find reliable sources that actually identify those people as "former Jews" (good luck with that). It's original research to create your own label for them. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 06:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to ignore that fact that a religion known as Judaism exists and want to prentend that Jews only exist as an ethnic group. 75.3.49.50 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it a bit amusing when people purport to know the mind and/or motives of others... A religion known as Judaism exists. A Jew belongs to an ethno-religious group. Many Jews, but not all, practice the religion of Judaism. Jews that don't follow the religion of Judaism are still Jews, since being a Jew encompasses more than just following a religion. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 04:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for Catholics. 75.3.49.50 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Jew

"The category is an inappropriate category about to be deleted. Even if it survives WP:CFD, you would need to find a reliable source that identifies David Cross as a "former Jew" otherwise it's just your original resource, which is not allowed. Please also review the three-revert rule. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Ok, obviously you can't change your ethnicity, so the category is obviously talking about religion. David Cross has said he's no longer a Jew at many of his shows. --Macarion 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category shouldn't be "obviously" assuming an incorrect definition of Jew. Even if the category stayed, a Wikipedian claiming to have heard him say something at a show is not a reliable source. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO move, protection

It seems to be what happened is that ChrisO moved it back to ISraeli apartheid and while he was in the process of protecting the page Jayjg moved the page back. This ChrisO ended up protecting just a redirect. Thus it was just a move war. --Ben Houston 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right... I certainly protected the article after moving it back but evidently it got moved again just before I pressed the button. Look at this log entry that Kim posted and note the nearly simultaneous timings:

4-7-2006 22:15 Jayjg moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid over redirect (There's good enough consensus for this, and NPOV really demands it.) (revert)

4-7-2006 22:15 ChrisO protected Israeli apartheid (Move protection until poll is concluded [move=sysop])

So the sequence is: 1) I reverted the move; 2) I attempted to move-protect the article; 3) Jayjg moved the article again while I was filling out the move-protection form; 4) I ended up protecting only the redirect. Perhaps you could point this out in your evidence? -- ChrisO 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the context?

This edit is curious [16]? Braingotts has created a new article for the material here Allegations_of_Cuban_apartheid -- I disagree with the title but that is being talked out on the talk page. Has this became a major edit battle involving you, Braingotts and myself? I would like to talk it out on talk pages. Could you do the same? --Ben Houston 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I haven't perceived it as big battle. I'll weigh in as I can, I'm swamped with real world obligations today so my time is shorter than I'd like it to be. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dummy edit per Interiot. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 07:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thanks so much for voting, MPerel! Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future! —Mets501 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldom's RFA thanks

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (53/2/1). I've spent the day trying out the new tools, and trying not to mess things up too badly :). I was quite thrilled with all the support, both from the people I see around every day, as well as many users who I didn't know from before, yet wrote such wonderful things about me. I look forward to helping to serve all of you, and the project. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Now might be a good time for you to intervene in the discussion I have been having with Lostceaser on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

So, why did you reverse my edit this time. No, seriously, please explain, other than the fact that you probably hate me.

Zorkfan 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, tell me

I'm waiting

Answer Me

You are least among men, because you won't even confront me. RESPOND TO MY MESSAGES.

Thanks

Hopefully you will practice the (extremely unpopular here, it seems) method of telling me what is wrong with my versions of articles before actually reversing them, in the future.

Zorkfan 00:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Book

Hag Sameach!

Do you think it is controversial to claim that Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible?" I don't. Do you think it is controversial to claim that "the Bible" refers only to the combined "Old Testament" and "New Testament," i.e. is a term that refers to the sacred scriptures of Christians (but not Jews)? I do, but this is precisely the claim Home Computer is making on the Bible talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible#Current_layout

Feel free to weigh in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubenstein, you run around talk pages slandering my name yet refuse to addres me personally to clear the issue up as others have done? Quit representing the issue and talk with me directly. This is foolish. --Home Computer 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPerel, sorry that i had to address this on your talk page. --Home Computer 23:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my comments

do not remove my talk page comments. "chill out" is not a greivous personal attack.

Commented

Hi there, could you please take a look at the discussion in Talk:Palestinian_people#Picture_of_Palestinian_children? I'd like your opinion over whether or not I'm over-reacting. Thanks much! Ramallite ^(talk) 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small favor

Hey Mike, I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.

Thanks man! Sharkface217 05:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Mike. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support. I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 07:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

laitman-recreating

Hello. excuseme my english. deliting the article about laitman -these are sign strengthening the negative forces in the world,I thing. Help me ,please, to recreate page about Laitman Ashpaa 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC

it"s a good surprise

To have an opportunity to make this correction , thank you very much. Ashpaa 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 13th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 46	13 November 2006	About the Signpost

Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia	ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic	News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historian

Is he holding an academic degree? Not a historian. A popular conservative journalist. --Aminz 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB contact

Hi MPerel. My name is Chaim Ratz, I am director of the BB Book Department, English Division. If you need any help composing Laitman's page, don't hesitate to ask: [e-mail] Thanks a lot,

Chaim

A request

MPerel, could you still please revert back to my version of the edit for the Alternative Judaism page? I happen to be under a two-month block (and one that is completely unfair and in fact malicious in how it was issued, by an very avaricious administrate), but that doesn't mean my edit wasn't without merit. I request that you yourself revert it to my version in recognition of this? I'm not holding any grudge against you. Thank you. 12.65.66.168 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond here, Zorkfan, because I'm not sure which account/ip talk page is the best place to respond to you. I would be willing to revert to your version if there was consensus for the edits, but there is not. I'm willing to talk with you, however, to find satisfactory wording. Please do understand that your block was not out of malice but simply because you have not been editing within proper Wikipedia boundaries that exist to maintain a cooperative editing environment. I'm sure that if you can demonstrate a willingness to keep emotional outbursts in check, and also abide by content policies, it may be possible to petition for a shorter block. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 19:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just respond here. Note that my emotional outburst before this block was under incredibly oppressive circumstances (I made a good edit, EXPLAINED WHY I made the edit in the talk page, and then it was reverted by various people, no thanks to you either, who did not explain WHY they reverted it, and I asked them to explain in the talk page, and they DIDN'T, and being the scum that they are used 3rr against me and got me blocked. And they never so much as commented in the talk page as to their reasons for reverting. You call that accountability and concensus?). And you were no less reprehensible when it happened; even in my extreme anxiety you ignored me entirely, pretending to act like I was a troll rather than a negatively affected person. I can tell you that of ALL the edits I have ever made in Wikipedia, about 70% or more have been reverted, most of those without explaining why. I'd like you to reply to this post, and in a dignified way, not the same old tone of you being superior. And especially, tell me what's wrong with the edit I made to that article (if you can't tell me what's wrong with the edit to the A. J. article, that's absolutely the surest sign that there's no reason to have reverted it).

P.S. You reverted to KariMarie's version, which is outdated and prior tom several other edits made that had definite concensus. Why did you do that?

12.65.66.168 20:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When people start editing emotionally (and the above, calling other editors "scum" is just that, emotional outburst and a personal attack which is against Wikipedia policy) other editors aren't going to bother engaging you. And yes I too will simply ignore you again if you revert to that kind of behavior (I'm just a volunteer like you and I don't choose to spend my free time engaging with people who refuse to be civil or cooperative). I suggest to you again as I first did, sit back, relax, read up on the policies many have already linked for you on your talk page and familiarize yourself with how to go about editing here. Don't take things or make things personal. No one is trying to be superior, try to understand that as a relative newby you should consider listening to what experienced editors are trying to convey to you about the right way to go about editing. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. - I'll go look at the version --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE the version reverted to, I assume you mean this one? I disagreed with the anon's addition of "It is cultural and human-centered, rather than spiritual and God-like principles." (change in bold). That made no sense. I also saw no reason to delete Jews for Jesus from "The Messianic Judaism movement, Hebrew Christians, Jews for Jesus and other groups that accept that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, are not considered a part of Judaism by all major Jewish denominations". What argument do you have for including these edits? --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is cultural and human-centered, rather than spiritual and God-like principles." That user made a type. That's what you, as a reasonable editor, would naturally remove and proceed to keep the rest of a good edit. Change it to the following: "It is cultural and human-centered, rather than spiritual."

"I also saw no reason to delete Jews for Jesus from "The Messianic Judaism movement, Hebrew Christians, Jews for Jesus and other groups that accept that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, are not considered a part of Judaism by all major Jewish denominations". What argument do you have for including these edits?" Because Hebrew Christians and Jews for Jesus are NOT alternative Judaisms. Only Messianic Judaism belongs on that list. A Hebrew Christian is an ethnic Jew that has converted to Christianity, it is NOT alternative Judaism. Jews for Jesus is an evangelical Protestant Missionary organization, NOT alternative Judaism. Only Messianic Judaism, of the three, is actually a form of alternative Judaism. Do you understand? Your strangest and most destructive claim is that Messianic Jews are suppersessionist (I feel so victimized now). Most Messianic Jews do not declare that "we are the true Judaism". Messianic Jews believe that there is room for many expressions of Judaism in this world, and Messianic Judaism is one of those. And get it firmly out of your head that Messianic Judaism has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with J.f.J (if you have trouble with that, read Rabbi Bruce L. Cohen's article http://www.bethelnyc.org/resourcesnotjforj.asp ). NOW, go back and revert to my version of the article, because there is no reason not to do so (you never gave me a reason why my changes were bad). Thank you. And if you decide you don't want to (For some reason I have the feeling that regardless of anything you will always turn me down in all respects. You should care about that and think about how it affects me personally.) do that, comment here and of course tell me why. 12.65.96.84 00:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to get back to you in a few days, I have guests coming and a big Thanksgiving dinner to prepare. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 03:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now I ask that you return to this issue where you left off. 12.64.24.20 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the first change, that's actually what I did. On the second change, you don't need to try so hard to convince me, because as editors our personal beliefs are irrelevant. All I am concerned about is that the article reflects reliable sources. The sources show that all three groups listed claim to be Jewish groups. The sources also show that all these groups are rejected as representing Judaism by all the major Jewish denominations. That's why all three need to be listed and should reflect what the sources say. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 07:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. This is NOT about personal beliefs. Hebrew Christians are ethnic Jews that proctice plain-and-out Christianity, that's not a BELIEF, that's the DEFINITION. Jews for Jesus is considered Christian by simply everyone, including all editors, Wikipedia articles, and others. In fact, vistit their website. They admit to being openly Christian, and their theology is indistinguishable from evangelical Baptism. It AIN'T an alternative Judaism, it's an autonomous missionary group. I have a certain respect for reluctance, but the facts on every front are completely against listing them as alternative Judaism, thus it doesn't belong. Reply ASAP and tell me if you followed my suggestion, or if you've found any reason not to remove them. 12.65.114.243 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's about sources, not opinion or belief. All three groups claim to represent "real" Judaism (reliable sources reflect this). From the perspective of normative Judaism all three fall somewhere on the spectrum of Christianity and are not considered Judaism (the article cites references that reflect this). --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're disregarding the very fact that the DEFINITION of Hebrew Christian is an ethnic Jew Christian. Hebrew Christians don't claim to be alt. Judaism, where did you get that idea from, they are openly Christian? And the DEFINITION of Jews for Jesus is a missionary baptist organization that targets Jews (check the wikipedia article, where NPOV is in full force, it says just that). If these things are not a form of alternative Judaism by DEFINITION (and the former doesn't even claim to be, it is Christian and openly so), then what they SAY they are is irrelevant; the facts and plain definitions are given first priority. If I say I'm a monkey that got turned into a human by a fairy, will Wikipedia say "he is a monkey that got turned into a human by a fairy"? NO. They'll say that he CLAIMS to be, but the facts are obviously otherwise. To be a form of alternative Judaism, it would at least meet a few basic requirements, such as some level of Torah observance, faith in some Jewish context, at least a nod to keeping kosher and Jewish holidays, a nod to Hebrew, etc. Messianic Judaism in virtually all of its manifestations would go far above and beyond such criteria, while Hebrew Christians and JfJ don't even begin to qualify. Am I not acting as the voice of reason? 12.65.102.14 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laitman

I do not have words to express my Gratitude for your the help in a writing this article. Owing to my bad English and importance of this article I could not dare to begin. Now all has gone well. If you can edit my english and text, please.I prayed and hoped only for a miracle and it has occured ...sank you very mach.I hope to continue this article at soone with your help. Ashpaa 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Communist Action

I'm very disappointed to see your edit here. Would you mind, if you really think it is suitable, answering my remarks on the talk page? We should be factual in using terms like occupation, and not bandying about political epithets, regardless of what US (or any other) politicians may judge to be opportune at any given time. Palmiro | Talk 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Palmiro, I did answer on the talk page there. I just don't like to see relevant sources removed. --MPerel ^( talk | contrib) 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munich massacre

While I appreciate the effort to clean up this section (largely written by myself), I must point out, as per an earlier attempt to remove the section completely due to alleged violation of NPOV, that there is absolutely no original research in this section. Every single point I've stated in this section is corroborated in either the Klein, Groussard or Reeve books (and sometimes in all three). FACTS HAVE NO POINT OF VIEW - they are what they are, and the reader should draw whatever conclusions from them that they deem appropriate.

If you absolutely feel it's necessary, I'll cite sources, page numbers etc. Forgive me for venting, but I feel that the Germans' culpability for what happened to the Israelis should not be in any way whitewashed.

BassPlyr23 17:32, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Munich massacre

You'll see that the entire section has now been referenced.

BassPlyr23 17:55, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Judaism and Christianity

You may care to comment here: [17] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADL

Well I figured you had meant to delete the same thing I deleted (and JPG intended to). -- Mwalcoff 01:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please comment here

[18] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please join in the discussion on the Noahide Laws talk page about cleaning it up etc. Thanks! Chavatshimshon 08:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbateans

Hi Miri: Hope all goes well. I have just spent a few hours writing a new version of Sabbateans and it struck me that you may enjoy reading it and looking it over. Best wishes, IZAK 11:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref conv

Sorry for the downtime. References converter is now back up and running. About a week ago the hard drive in my server crashed. Luckily it stayed together long enough to allow me to pull all the data off onto a new hard drive, but I still had to go through the process of installing Linux on the new hard drive, installing all the necessary programs, and loading in all of the old data from the server. I got all of my essential services up within two days (CVS, Apache, Wiki), but I kind of forgot about web scripts, which I finally got around to fixing today. Everything should be fully functional again. If you see any bugs, just send me a message. You are receiving this message because you are on the spamlist. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, simply remove your name. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruchim

• Comment I have made some change based on Jon's suggestions. RE comment above, "ethnicity" since when do us Jews consider ourself ethnic? We relate to each more on our religious standing. Hence when say a non jew received this message, if offended it would not be on ethnic grounds, but religious. frummer 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

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 10:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:29, 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]

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]