User talk:Shirahadasha

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.

Archives:

• Archive 1 (Old archive: 16 March 2006 - 22 October 2006)
• Archive 2 (Old archive: 23 October 2006 - 25 February 2007)
• Archive index (Archives maintained by WerdnaBot: 26 February 2007 ->)

My RfA

Hello Shirahadasha, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

RFA thanks

Thank you, Shirahadasha, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO ^Talk

Response from M.V.E.i.

Hello! Some people started an edit war agains me, and its not ok. They even try to find problemes that dont excist, like saying there is no licence when i said all the photos are from Wikimedia. To people (Thats 6 reverts) having an Edit War agains one (Me, 3 reverts) is not fair, and it's vandalizm, So please learn the case and do somthing. My compromise idea was ignored. I came to Wikipedia to conribute, and not to have wars (I didn't even think it existes here). I'm a new user, but i already contributed 2 new articles, made the First image for Ashkenazi Jews, editing some articles, and fought Vandalism (Someone tried a few times to write Zig Heil in the Russian people article but i delited it). Please stop this war against me because i want to make Wikipedia better. I could find people i know to help me in the Edit war, one administrator i know personaly even offered to get in there but i said no because i didnt want it to become dirty, and yet it became. The image i made has no licence problems and many people i asked liked it. Thank you. M.V.E.i.

Thank you, but help...

Could you please explaine me how can i make shure that the war against me would stop? Who shold i turn to? could you maybe please talk to those people who are in the war against me to stop? Thank you, M.V.E.i.

Rouge admin

You're too nice to be a rouge admin :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.88.35 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2007

You made such a mistake

By puting Metz-somthing you made a mistake. Enter to talk pages of those who supported him, they were CALLED there by him, their votes are sintetic. I offer you to do somthing i tried to but that didnt work cous im not an administrator. NOT to have any photo while the Edit War goes on. I did that once and removed his photo without puting mine, but he just puted his photo again. Please remove his photo without puting mine, that will be best for now. And if you want to response me not to here cause im writing from the computer in my school now. M.V.E.i.

Book of Job

Recently I submitted a table to be included on the Book of Job Wikipedia page. This isn't original research according to the guidlenes on the Wikipedia page. It’s simple a list of the names of the God(s) that the characters in the story invoked, and the order the God(s) were invoked.

My question becomes what of the intent of the Wikipedia? Many Wikipedia pages have lists of books in various Bibles and the order in which they appear. Is this original research? Many pages on language and alphabets make tables of words and letters and group them in various orders. These tables are not published in other books; they are compiled by whoever wrote the Wikipedia page. Are these original research?

The order of names in a publication such as The Sacred Name Bible, or any Bible Concordance is an undisputable fact. Anyone, anywhere, and at any time can pick up The Book of Job and find the exact same order of the names. Just like A, B, C, D, E, F, G, . . . .

Any 10 year old who looks at the chart with the order of the names of the Gods in The Book of Job can easily see that the whole story is about one issue. It’s always one thing and only one thing in the Bible, worshipping the wrong God. Jobs friends never named YHVH. But forget that, that is interpretation, the chart however is fact.

Again, nothing on the entire Book of Job Wikipedia page is as factual as the chart with the names. Nothing on the entire page is as non-original as the chart of names. However nothing on the entire page is as controversial as the chart.

Now I can list at least 10 topics on the Book of Job Wikipedia page that are not published, speculative, not factual, not historically plausible, and unpublished religious opinion. Obviously I have a personal bias as do you. However my bias is simple. Personally (for what it’s worth) I believe in one supreme being, since there is only one it can only be you Shirahadasha. For all you know everything you see and touch is an illusion, yet you know that you are real. Therefore if there is but one God, it can only be you. Why did you create all of this? Are we just your nerve ending? Or were you so lonely that you needed to create something to love? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amenta4u (talk • contribs) 13:26, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Prophecy

You deleted my contribution to Prophecy and claimed that it was original research. The time-stamped prophecy i put up in that article was not original research as defined by wikipedia. Wikipedia say no opinion, experience or argument is allowed. A google time-stamped prophecy is neither an opinion, experience nor is it an argument, so I can't see how it is original research. The article was asking for evidence of prophecy and that is exactly what i put there. If you think PART of my contribution was original research, then you should edit it WITHOUT removing the link to the time-stamped prophecy. If you can show the time-stamp is fake then you can remove it, but so far you have failed to show that. What I wrote there has also been up at the article for sollog for more than 12 months, I believe, with no one complaining about it. Several other time-stamped prophecies are also up in the Sollog article with no complaints. Several admin have edited there in the past and they have not complained about this kind of evidence being in the article. You are the only admin I have come across who has a problem with it. So why do you have a problem with it if other admin don't? I would also like to know why you did not delete any of the unsourced material from skeptics that was in the same section. What i would like to happen is that you accept that the prophecy has to be put back where it was. If you do not accept this then perhaps we can invite a more neutral third party to get involved.Arnold1 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Adler

Why did you characterize the link you removed (this one)as spam? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was one of many to the same site added by 72.248.150.10, who did nothing but add these links. Such mass additions of links are by definition spam, even when the links might otherwise be acceptable. If you, as a regular contributor to the article, feel that the link is appropriate, I have no problem if you wish to re-add it. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Saudi Arabian history

Shira: could you please take a look and give some wise counsel here: Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. Greatly appreciated. IZAK (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adamic language

Hi. I tried the RfCs but they do not seem to have worked ' when I go to the RfC pages, my RfCs are not listed. I must have screwed up the request. Would you mind going over the procedure and correcting any screw-up of mine any making sure the reequests register?

On a side note ' if you see a value in the article, would you agree with me that it could cover midrashic, kabbalistic, and other claims about Hebrew as the divine language? If so i would wlecome your suggestions for how to go about reframing and reorganizing the article. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah

Hi Shir, thanks for the message. :)

I take your point about the "secular" versus "religious" balance on wikipedia, and agree that I could have used a better word, like "neutral", since avoiding fully spelling out the tetragrammaton (especially in an electronic capacity) is very much a minority POV approach, generally speaking. If the article had pre-existed with the abbreviated version I wouldn't have changed it, but altering the established status quo on what's lately been a fairly heavily trafficked page seemed unnecessary and somewhat POV-pushing. In any event, you're right that a standard should be defined at WP:JEW before any major changes are undertaken. I may give it another shot in the future when I get the chance.

Something related that you might find interesting - http://infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder2.html. I don't necessarily agree with the essay, but it still makes for an interesting perspective on the issue. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 14:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possible page of interest

[1] - if you take this seriously, I think you would have much to contribute. if you are skeptical, read over the talk page (especially the discussion of figs). Your comments on the talk page would be helpful too Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please!

Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism here, thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very wise and constructive comment on the talk page (although alas based on his response I do not think Bikinibomb understood or appreciated what you wrote) ... now is perhaps an opportune time for me to say that while you and I have disagreed over some things in the past, I have a deep respect for your knwoledge and your contributions to Wikipedia. So you can understand why I hope that in addition to your comment on the talk page you will also consider contributing to the actual article (the glossary). Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 03:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please weigh in?

Can you please check out the "Normal Mysticism?" section on the talk page of "Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms"? Here's a link. Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your earlier comments were so construcive and thoughtful, could you be sure to comment here ? Slrubenstein | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the move request for Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. It's been a long slog trying to find a compromise and I really appreciate your constructive contribution. - CheshireKatz (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Orthodox Judaism

Vague accusations of "original research" on my talk page, without citing any specifics, are not helpful or appreciated. Please be more specific when making reference to "novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles". As of now, no one has reverted my edits to Modern Orthodox Judaism. If you feel they are incorrect, then please discuss them on that discussion page, and then revert them after gaining a concensus. Additionally, it is ironic that you accuse me of "novel syntheses of previously published material", when I am pretty sure that almost all of the information floating around Wikipedia about the Jewish Woman/feminism is "your original research/syntheses". They could be easily challenged as such...ViHameiven yuvin... Anyway, if you are truly interested in a dialogue, please let me know the actual substance of your accusation. Cheers, 38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of Original Research objection

You do not seem to grasp what "original research means."

FOR EXAMPLE, under the TALMUD, I ADDED THE CLARIFICATION "(known to Christians as the Old Testament)" to the sentence

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law and discussed the Tanakh (known to Christians as the Old Testament)

and you objected to that as "original research."

DUDE... the entire concept of Wikipedia is that everyone adds content. That is the whole purpose of Wikipedia. If you are going to object to any new content to a Wikipedia article, then you just don't get the entire concept of Wikipedia.

The more sinister possibility is that you are intentionally using "original research" as a bogus reason to object to changes of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.99.235 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but content inserted into Wikipedia does have to comply with Wikipedia policies. Please take a moment to read them (See Wikipedia:Policies) Here's an example of something you inserted that violates the No Original Research policy:

[the Talmud...] whose purpose is to study and better understand the Torah (Bible). The Talmud has been most often understood as commentary on the Bible, while the Bible is the supreme authority.

Please take a momemnt once again to read our policies. Hope this helps. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Tók Hnífinn

Just a friendly question on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Tók Hnífinn. You closed the AfD as delete, but I see the related article in the deletion debate (Hér Skal Vera Fjör!) is still around with the same AfD notice. Should that have been deleted too, or do I need to relist that separately because only one person commented after it was added to the AfD? Thanks! --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Apple & Tish B'Av

Your suggestion that Rabbi Apple is not Orthodox is ludicrous. Look up his biog online and the "About us" section at OzTorah.com. A simple level of research is required before making outrageous assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emes1 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Template:Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Template:Lucasian Professor of Mathematics ==

Thanks for cleaning up after me by deleting my mistakes! LeSnail (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emes1

It looks to me like you are handling that correctly. There may be occasions where Apple's views are noteworthy (he seems to be midly notable, and I've heard of him before), but he clearly isn't in the category of R' Moshe. Your stance seems to be correct. I'll try to keep an eye on the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Irishguy's latest comment on my talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic peace

I noticed your vote to rename the article.[2]

Would you agree with a rename to "Peace in Islam"? Please respond back at the AfD. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re AFD close

Hi there. I was wondering if you might be able to explain your rationale behind closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Medic Droid (band) as a no consensus; I participated, so wouldn't close it myself of course, but with nine opposing opinions and only three to keep, citing only one real claim to meet WP:MUSIC that nobody can seem to back up with a reliable source, I'm kind of curious about the no-consensus decision. Could you possibly drop me a note on that? Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I'll start a discussion on the iTunes charts and whether they're a reliable source. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to comment on this myself. I appreciate AfD isn't a vote, but I still feel that "Delete" opinions should be treated _as_ "Delete" opinions, rather than "Keep". If I confirm that my opinion was (and still is) an unequivocal "Delete", is that grounds for re-opening the AfD? Or do we have to take this to DRV? Tevildo (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would take this to DRV, even ignoring the 9-3 headcount, the keep opiners clearly failed to back up their assertions of notability with the multiple sources we require to establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a DRV - formal notification below.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Medic Droid (band). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tevildo (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and sexuality.

Hi, my friend. I can't agree with you, because there is always an internal cultural logic and taxonomy embeded in each language that you cannot avoid. In this case, "we" is English-speaking people. In English, birds are animals, so to write "animals and birds" is a barbarism, logically wrong and unacceptable. Thus, if you are presenting something as it is in the source, you should write it between quotation marks (if the translation is that barbaric) or, if the translation is yours, translate "animals other than birds and birds", wich can be also simply translated as "(all) animals", because the Hebrew word that stands for "animals" in that article doesn't mean "animals" but "animals other than birds" in English, which is the language in which this Wiki is written (so, this could be really a case of bad translation). Please let me know your thoughts on this. Regards. --Damifb (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for Talmud articles

Hi Shirahadasha: I am reposting the following request from User Sh76us (talk · contribs) on my user talk page for wider notification:

I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Wikipedia to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Idea for Talmud articles. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Ok, I'm not reverting again, but logic is not an opinion, it is a necessary truth. See Group theory. Greetings. --Damifb (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Best.--Damifb (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Is a Yuppie Word

Hello there! So, I see you deleted this article. I'm curious as to why exactly you did so? It is a substantial enough song, and was supposed to be a single before Sony pulled the plug on it. It even has its own music video, so I don't understand what the rationale is to delete this article. let me know! thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less common dragons

Hello, It appears as if you merged the article to the wrong thing. Should have been to Dragons (Dungeons & Dragons) I'd change it myself, but there is so much bad blood going on around some of these articles, I don't want anyone screaming bad faith. Hobit (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you removed the AFD tag instead of redirecting the articles? Pagrashtak 01:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nb: I have implemented the redirect per the AfD, which seems to have been left to others. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested help with redirect

Hi Shira, I need admin help with fixing the double-redirect in the following article that can only be done with sysop tools:

• Kehilas Yetev Lev D'Satmar Aronim (Williamsburg, Brooklyn) should be moved back to Kehilas Yetev Lev D'Satmar (Williamsburg, Brooklyn) where it had been for a very long time, because there is no such name or entity with the word "Aronim" in it.

Thanks for your help, IZAK (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Khan

Thanks for the note. However, I was not the one who tagged it for speedy. I just restored the tag that had been removed by the creator of the article, which isn't allowed. The tag was actually added twice, by Pgagnon999 here and by Mh29255 here. Just so you know. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Khan

Sd'd because of WP:Crystal--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shira, thanks for your feedback. With regard to my processes on new page patrol, I don't tag via "gut" instinct; I think if you look back on my contributions to sd, you'll see that about 95% of the articles I've tagged have been approved for deletion. I also go back and review my own work, and sometimes reverse my own sd. . .and I'm long on communicating with editors about problems with their articles. That said, I'm certainly not perfect, and opinions about baseline WP:notability vary between editor to editor and admin to admin depending on where they lean on the keeper vs. deletionist scale. I'd rate myself somewhere in the middle, as many articles that I've simply put "references needed" tags on have been subsequently tagged for deletion by others.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And with regard to My name is Khan, I don't feel a rabid desire for the death of that article. When the article appeared on new page patrol it lacked references, context, and was about an suggested unreleased movie (WP:Crystal). If other editors can establish some credibility for it and context during the afd process, that's great; kudos to you for sensing its potential, removing the sd, and placing it on afd. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgagnon999 (talk • contribs)

Bible prophecy

Shirahadasha, thanks for adding potentially clarifying material: if you could source it, that'd be great (and also a novelty for that article  :) •Jim62sch• 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipia talk:User categories/Proposal

Good points. I believe that there already is too much policing of user categories and that limiting the policy by defining it through discussion will lessen that problem. What limits do you think there should be on user categories? Hyacinth (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV talk

[3] I would prefer to discuss the matter WITHOUT an example. I think using a concrete example will draw attention away from the principle to details of the example. But I was inspired to this analysis after having differences of opinion with other editors on Oklahoma City bombing (additional explosives and Eglin Air base report) and 9/11. My estimate is that the latter is missing about 50 facts for which RS exist which nonetheless do not "fit" the narrative of the current article. Thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sociology of food

Agreed. In 24 hours, I'll tag it again, unless content is provided. Victao lopes (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Bellywashers

What do I do then? PROD? Victao lopes (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of synagogue articles

In the past few days User Bstone (talk · contribs) has been nominating and prodding articles about various synagogues for deletion. I am not sure what his criteria are over-all, but such sweeping actions need more attention from a greater spectrum of Judaic editors familiar with the issues as well as with the Wikipedia policies that should or should not be applied. See his contributions to follow his moves. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious feminism move

Hi Shirahadasha,

I moved the Religious feminism article to Feminist theology for these reasons, which you can also find on the discussion pages:

1. The first two words of the article are “Feminist theology”, implying that the original author was thinking of feminist theology, not religious feminism.

2. In common parlance, “religious” frequently means “fanatical” – so the title of this article could have a pejorative connotation; viz, “Fanatical Feminism”.

3. “Religious Feminism” does not exist as a Library of Congress subject; “Feminist Theology” does.

4. Setting aside colloquial connotations of the word “religious”, the terms “Religious Feminism” and “Feminist Theology” mean two very different things: “Religious Feminism” seems to indicate something like scholarship in women’s studies or gender studies that is focused on religion, whereas “Feminist Theology” is theology through a feminist hermeneutic. “Religious Feminists” might include such scholars as Mieke Bal, Minoo Moallem, and perhaps even Simone de Beauvoir, although the term would quite likely be rejected by such scholars. Theologians who use a feminist hermeneutic would include: Rosemary Radford Ruether, Catherine Keller, Carter Heyward, and Maria Pilar Aquino.

So if people feel that there is a need for an article for Religious Feminism, it should be a separate article.

5. Many theologians are not necessarily religious—a few are even atheists—and would take offense at being lumped under a religious rubric.

6. Feminist Theology is actively studied at many seminaries, whereas Religious Feminism would most likely be studied in the Women’s Studies department of a university, if it is recognized at all.

7. Blu Greenberg (see Shirahadasha’s comments above) is referenced in the entry for Jewish Feminist Theology in the Women’s Studies Encyclopedia, and she is listed under Theology on www.myjewishlearning.com, so I think it may be a bit of a stretch to say that she doesn’t do theology.

I'm rather new to wikipedia, so I hope I did everything right. I checked with some other editors--who support the change--and they suggested that I let you know since you had raised an objection earlier.

Thanks,

Webbbbbbber (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and notability added

Hi Shira: Shavua Tov: I have spent some time improving the two articles currently up for deletion. The Adas Israel Congregation and Adath Jeshurun Congregation articles, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) and Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate them from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, are now a full articles. They meet all criteria for such articles. I also wish to point out that this is proof of what can and should be done to improve stubs. Merely because someone has started a stub does not mean that the article of a place/person/event are "not notable" since not all people have the time and capability of working to improve such articles. There is no statute of limitations on how long a stub deemed to be significant can exist and it is certainly no reason to invoke reasons to eliminate them, otherwise why do we have stubs in the first place? It is requested that the nominations be withdrawn! Please look into this. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs

Hi Shira: You may be interested to know that I have contacted User Grika (talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David

I didn't intend to delete anything - I was trying to restore an earlier version. Something must have gone wrong. I'll try again later, but not tonight. Best, PiCo (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

limit on states

I am unaware of any lower courts which have said that the Second Amendment limits the states. Both the Emerson case and the Parker(Heller) case were about federal law, not state law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an easily confused issue, often with apparent intent to push a point of view. There are State constitutions with 'bear arms' clauses, and there is State law in state courts about the state constitutions. But, both Emerson and Parker pertained purely to a federal law in federal court. The incorporation of the second amendment to the states has not occurred, therefore (so far at least) the Second Amendment does not affect state law and state courts. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understand Emerson and Partker construed federal statutes and the Supreme Court's review of Parker implicates whether the federal right is an individual or a state's right but does not implicate whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated under the 14th in the basis for cert. --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but in the case of Parker, (in D.C.) there is a real question about whether a federal district can even have "state's rights" considering that it is not a State. Therefore the question of incorporation of the federal law upon the States is unlikely to come up in a ruling about a federal district. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement.. Since D.C. isn't claimed by any state, a state's right wouldn't affect DC at all (simple police power), while an individual right would, hence Parker implicates that question. Since the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to D.C., Parker doesn't implicate what it incorporates. --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK rcfu

Dear Shirahadasha, I have opened a RFCU about IZAK located here. Sincerely. Bstone (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects

I realize that religious issues are one which certain people, IZAK seemingly among the forefront of them, disagree upon. I wish people could luck a bit more objectively on the subject however, rather than instantly seemingly directly failing to AGF. I have replaced the "offending" section with an alternate example, and gone into a bit clearer detail as to exactly why the terms are used. I sincerely hope that this stops the ongoing, dare I think almost paranoid, jumping to conclusions regarding the intent of the paragraph. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toledano Tradition

Thank you for your helpful comments. There is certainly a lot I do not understand about how Wikipedia works. I do appreciate your advice, and I am interested in the various different views on the AfD. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look at the Kabbalah talk page and weigh in. After years of needless debate- I divided the kabbalah article into Doctrines, History, Texts, and Debate- similar to the Hebrew and French wiki articles. I did not change any content. Just a division. The author of the Toledano tradition article is upset. I have along note on the talk page. I have no view to represent other than the article was a useless mess and need to be overhauled. Can you weigh in?--Jayrav (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The eventual result of your weighing in the way you did will be that everything taken out of the defective Toledano Tradition article will wind up included in the Kabbalah article, and there will be no one who understands the issues to prevent it. Thanks for the help, and lehitraot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirahadasha, I've noted the result of the AfD - a default keep - and the comments people made there about the Toledano Tradition page. I've taken on board comments on clean-up and/or merger and have opened a discussion on the Talk:Toledano Tradition page. Clean-up looks as though it'll be necessary either way and I'll be able to do that over time, hopefully with input from others. Can you keep an eye on its progess? abafied (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON work group

• Shirahadasha, any thoughts on creating an ISKCON work group for biographies and ISKCON related articles? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RS/N; photo of alleged Lucas birth certificate

David Shankbone mentioned your name over at RS/N in connection with the Lucas photo, [4]. I suggested a resolution to the problem which will dispel any doubt as to Lucas's real name, [5] and [6]. A certified copy of Lucas's universtiy transcript would be so much easier than the other solutions proposed.--72.76.9.74 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitic editor

Hi--I actually did report the abuse on WP:ANI and was told to "shut the hell up by an admin who closed the case. Hence my filing at Wikiquette alerts, where there has been a bit more of a serious response. thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent admin intervention needed at the Hummus article

Hi Shira: My attention was drawn to the Talk:Hummus page, see Talk:Hummus#Hebrew/jewish/Israeli references and Talk:Hummus#RfC where some users are deploying the worst kind of blatant antisemitic and Anti-Zionist vitriol in violation of WP:HATE and WP:CIVIL, over a minor food article, yet, unbelievable. There are comments there that should be deleted on sight as well. Please check out that page and the violating editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is also currently under discussion at AN/I. Reviewing one of the IP's history, I can see what might be maybe 3 or so edits which don't qualify as vandalism or additions of inappropriate content, like a string of quotes to an actress the subject appears to adore. I have never placed a block before, and said in my RfA I wouldn't see myself as ever being likely to do so. However, I do think that this IP may well qualify for a block, possibly indefinitely. Please advise. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed to your proposal

Dear Shirahadasha: Thank you for your wise words. I have chosen to agree with your recent proposal number 3 [7]. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you could help mediate with User Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) as he is only piling up, forgetting about WP:MASTODONS, WP:CHILL and WP:AGF about me (as if I don't get to benefit from that) and getting worked up when I have no argument with him and never have, he has taken it upon himself to carry on a war of words for others that they are not conducting beyond the indignant Bstone and the admin who backed him. He also objects to my words and writings that they are too long but I have stated that I cannot oblige him with IM and telegrams. I am a prolific writer and editor and brevity is not my forte. At any rate, let me know what happens next in your view. The drama has to stop as it will harm both Wikipedia and WP:JUDAISM. I am not worried about me or my reputation (imagine, I was "penalized" for protecting stub articles about synagogues and speaking up for that), as you can see from the responses by editors, they have my number and they get a kick out of me. Thanks, 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

HaLomaid…

I missed that, sorry. Of course, there is also "HaRoeh es HaNolad" with regard to contemplating the outcomes of ones posts… :) -- Avi (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing new proposal

Hi Shirahadasha: Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention. I wanted to let you know that I have now endorsed the latest "Proposed intermediate verdict 3.1" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Proposed intermediate verdict 3.1. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth El

There are sources like Marshall Sklare's Conservative Judiasm. But to cull through Sklare, Sarna, et al would be OR: Synthesis. Someone needs to do the article in the external world first. --Jayrav (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read you differently phrased comment on the deletion page. To create an article would be OR, but just to note the factoid that a Beth EL was orthodox (and rejected peoplehood names like Jewish Center) can be found in Sklare as well as the webpage for any Beth -El synagogue mentions this fact about Beth-El synagouges. The United Synagogue Template for synagogue web pages requires a history for every synagogue and some of them are quite good. I am very reluctant to call them Conservadox because they all became pillars of the Conservative movement in the 1950's.--Jayrav (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you own Sklare, Ed Shapiro, Sarna, (early) Heilman, it may be an entry that you would enjoy writing. --Jayrav (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Wiki has little on the Conservative movement 1911- 1960 (almost all of it is post 1970- very disproportional) and almost nothing on the great Rabbis of the 1940's and 1950's.[reply]

Thanks for your note of Yarrow talk page

The specific request was not for the content in the article, but for the sex offender category, which is false. He was not convicted of a sex crime, and he received a pardon for the crime which he was convicted of . The content should be determined in mediation, agreed, but the categories of Criminal and Sex OFfender are blatantly false, and should be removed without delay. Thank you for your consideration. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Shirahadasa for bringing some rational imput to this unilateral attempt to censor a criminal conviction because the subject's family "doesn't like it on Wikipedia". Jkp212 continues to post patently false information regarding this case. He claims Yarrow didn't actually have sex with the girl but the New York Times tells us that he "was arrested for having sex with a 14-year-old girl.". [[8]]. The mainstream media sources clearly state that the girl "resisted his advances" [[9]]. Surely a 30 year old man who has sex with a 14 year old child who "resisted his advances" is a sex offender by any sane person's definition. Jkp212 has continually reverted the well sourced information, which has been on the article for over 3 years through consensus, through constant editors and edits. He then spreads slanderous accusations against the molestation victim, claiming as his "source" a 38 year old Toronto newspaper article which no one but him claims exists. This user should be admonished not to continue unilaterally reverting well sourced NPOV information which has been on the article over 3 years by consensus. If we were to follow his absurd guidelines every celebrity from Pete rose to Chuck Berry to Michael Vick would have their well sourced criminal convictions reverted from their articles because a fan doesn't want them there!John celona (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cohanim of Djerba, Tunisia

1. What you did is patronizing. You should have waited till I respond. I'd not ignore your comment/s if they make sense. I direct you to my reply to you, in my discussion page, which was written before I saw your (too swift) recent resumption.
2. I didn't see you or others seek evidence for the existence of European or Yemenite or any other jewish community throughout the diaspora. Lack of personal knowledge doesn't justify running over. You may look up [10] as one reference (I hope I made this direction correctly).
3. I'll add literal references to my claims, as soon as I complete my investigation. However, I require that the claims regarding the other two communities be treated in the same way, including the habit to inscribe hands on tombstones. BentzyCo (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew calendar

I would appreciate if you would comment at Talk:Nisan, on Elsb3antisophist's edits. His only edits have been on the Hebrew months trying to put Arabic translations of some of the Gregorian months as if they are the same as the Hebrew calendar. Epson291 (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"shrubbery?"

Dear Shir, On Kabbalah:talk you mentioned "shrubbery." Could you come back and give a hint? Here in the hometown of the Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the KKK the Talmud left before I could get founded. Just a hint.Johnshoemaker (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MigdalOr

Dear shirahadasha I appreciate you helping edit the page of your "sister minyan"-- MigdalOr. Def. we need to get more sources on it to pass notability thresholds; Im working on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakira (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Im only sort of associated with MigdalOrChakira (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)chakira[reply]

You talk in an incredibly didactic fashion. --Chakira (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Chakira[reply]

I agree with your more fanciful assertion the MigdalOr is a hoax. Please make more accusations like this in the future as they are much more entertaining than citing wikipedia rules. Anyway, if it is a hoax, perhaps it can pass some notability guidelines as a famous prank. --Chakira (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Chakira[reply]

maybe you should get this

		The Jewish Barnstar
		for helping re migdalor Chakira (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marat Ayin

Hey, I just tried to link to Marat Ayin and it came up as a red link. Do you know if we have an article on it and I'm just not using the right transliteration or do we really not have an article? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binding of Isaac article name change

Five editors have responded to my proposal to change the name of the article Binding of Isaac to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks for your participation! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution

I feel as though you are on a quest to defend liberalism. I don't know you or your attitude towards God and Judaism, but from your recent edits (or should I say reverts), your priorities seem to...I don't know what to say, and that's mostly because I don't know you. But your presence and your attitude are a major contributor to me deciding to no longer be involved in anything worthwhile when it comes to articles relating to Judaism. I try to me a mevakeish emes (seeker of reality) and you seem to be my obstacle. :( DRosenbach ^(Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These policies make narrating articles so as to present what one thinks is true something of a problem.

I did not narrate to present my personal views -- I edited to include the real views. I don't think that Wikipedia policy is against truth. It may be against unverifiable truth, but I cited my additions to the article on prophecy. Nothing I wrote was original research. Rather than paraphrase from a text, I paraphrased from a published audio/video source that professes the Orthodox Jewish approach towards prophecy. Prophecy is a Jewish invention - it is first mentioned in the Old Testament. If everything I wrote in the article is documented and cited as such, and all of the above claims I make are similarly documented, how it is a crime to edit Wikipedia in the fashion in which I did? You place a warning on my talk page! You revert the edits?! For Wikipedia and the admins representing it, truth may not be defendable, but if it's sourced, it seems to still be inferior to sourced falsehood. Wikipedia policy states that unverified material may be removed at any time. The information about prophecy in Islam is both incorrect and unsourced. That is my stance. If someone else thinks it is true, it remains unsourced, and after placing a note to editors on the talk page to that effect and with no subsequent response, I removed the material only to have you replace it. That is not working within the confines of admin duty -- is it? That is what seems to me as perpetuating a liberal agenda. DRosenbach ^(Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The particular reason I reverted your edits to Prophecy (see diff) is that you removed a large amount of existing material, including in particuar material on the Islamic view of prophecy which you replaced with a statement that the Islamic view is inconsistent with the Old Testament. I think we can both agree that the Orthodox Jewish view, and consistency with the Bible, are irrelevant to determining what material should appear in a section on Islamic views. I imagine we might also be able to agree that presenting general criticisms of Islam by other faiths, even if sourced, is not an encyclopedic way to present the Islamic view in a general article on a religious subject. It's been your tending to remove or alter existing material that disagrees with you, not your tendency to add material, that's been of concern. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you reverted rather than undid the edit to the Islamic section because it was easier to press once and undo everything? May I replace the remainder? DRosenbach ^(Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it facinating that you consider me such a threat to Wikipedia that you are seemingly watching whatever I do. DRosenbach ^(Talk | Contribs) 12:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy Article Advise

Hi, I have noticed that you have been putting inputs into the article on Prophecy.

I recently made an improvement to the section on that article on Christianity. I put in referenced sources of information relating to the New Testament and made it more readable. I have now found that this article has been blocked by an administrator (Mrg3105) who has unilaterally decided that this article is about the 'Experience of Prophecy'. He has then drastically edited the content of the whole article to his own interpretation.

I thought Wikipedia worked on consensus? Yet there has been no discussion on this. I didn't think that administrators had the authority to dictate what articles were about. Or use their position to act in such a way. I am personally disappointed that this is what is happening, and is being allowed to happen.

Every time I (or anyone for that matter) have made an improvement to the Christian section Mrg3105 has removed or altered what has been written without thought or understanding of the content. Mrg3105 is clearly biased toward Judaism, which is fine because that section of the article needs improving drastically, as it was apparently subjected to vandalism a while back.

As I have stated I want a good, high quality article on prophecy, that discusses from all view points. But I fear this is not happening.

What is the way forward? Do we need to do what you suggested and create sub-articles?

I look forward to your thoughts Paulrach (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me in regards to this article when you have a moment--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dosi

Really now. Interesting. I lived in Yerushaliam for 2 years while in yeshiva (an ashkenazi chareidi yeshiva) and never once did I hear anyone say "dosi" but rather "dati" and usually in reference to the political party "dati leumi". I guess dosi can redirect to the Orthodox Judaism article, tho is seems really obscure, but still very interesting. Bstone (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-fulfilling prophecy - one day later

And as soon as the pp-protect was off, the vandals came back on. Trust me, I did not put the pp template there to stop legitimate registered editors editing, but because this article is notoriously vandalised. If you won't put some form of protection up, I will ask another admin.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy II

Thanks for the changes you made in the prophecy article. However, please note that I had tried that before ;o) I had copious ^[citation needed] templates (about 10-15), and they were all replaced with...OR! As I explained before, I had no intention of creating OR, but only to directly prompt editors for sources (without saying so) in the article content. It seems many people have no clue what a "citation" means, and simple copy and past from their favourite online site, which was the case before because they can be again located by doing a Google search on a text string from the edit (copyright issues aside). In any case, lets see what happens. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow!

During my wanderings on Wikipedia, I happened on your contrib history. Your knowledge of a wide variety of subjects amazes me. Just felt like telling you that. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good

That's one of my favorite quotes too, I used it recently in WT:MoS talking about WP:GAN style guidelines :) Nice to meet a kindred spirit. (Replying here, or not replying, is fine.) - Dan (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPReligion

Hi Shirahadasha. I recently made some edits to Template:WPReligion. I mainly added the Template documentation, but also edited the template a little. As indicted on this page, most everything seems to be working. User:Badbilltucker has the most edits to the template, but he has not edited since January 2007. Would you please review the Template documentation and the template workings and make any changes you think necessary. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I hope you have fun on your break. You've more than earned it. Just make sure you return later, ok? John Carter (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested regarding reliable sources

Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.  : ) --MPerel 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible banner

I've made a few changes to a version of the banner for the Bible project as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Project banner. The project doesn't seem to have been very active lately, so there are no responses yet. I would be most interested in any opinion you may have on your return. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist offencive

Hello! Rabbi Shirahadasha. I am relativelly new in the Wikipedia, but I see that the Zionists made themselves very comfortable here, and are attacking everyone that believes different then them. I have created the Yishuv haYashan article, which is something important historically speaking. I see they are trying to remove any information about the Haredim who didn't participate in the Zionist movement. Furthermore the whole history of the Yishuv haYashan Kollelim was ignored but instead an article about Halukka in a negative spotlight. They are trying to persuade that all those who did for our brothers in Eretz Yisroel were Zionists. I would suggest that we incorporate in a WikiProject:Yishuv haYashan or WikiProject:Torah Judaism in order to clearify the facts.

HagiMalachi (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Shalom. Would you know why the article for Mordechai Suchard is still in AfD even after 7 days? Who would be in charge of closing it after 5 days? Mordechai Becher is due to close tomorrow for 5th day. Thank you. 207.127.241.2 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feed back, but....

Thank you for the feedback on my edits to the "conversion to Judaism," page. I will yield to your authority as a more experienced editor. But, I did re-edit the beginning section of the page to say that a gentile who converts to judaism both undergoes a religious transformation as well as an ethnic transformation. I wrote it in a way , I hope, nobody will take with offense. However, It is not my opinion, but the code of jewish law that states the new ethnic identity, not me.204.15.6.99 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint at ANI

Hi Shirahadasha: As an admin you may want to know that I have lodged a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV spamming on user talk pages about HagiMalachi (talk · contribs)'s recent POV spamming on multiple user's talk pages with messages, addressing them all as "Rabbi" and with a lengthy canned message about a "Zionist offencive (sic)" and "Zionist intolerance" on Wikipedia. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with Shituf

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [11].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [12].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machon Chana improved

Hi Shirahadasha: The Machon Chana article has now been greatly upgraded with RS. Could you please take a look and comment at the AfD as well. Your views are important. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torah

Thank you for that, I had my section text blocks mixed up--Meieimatai 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kavod HaBriyot

I removed Kavod HaBriyot from Category:Talmud concepts and terminology because it seems to me that the category is for concepts which apply to the Talmud in general, and not really for topics covered in the Talmud. If that were the case, all halakha articles could be categorized there. For this reason, today I removed the articles Geneivat da'at, Bishul Yisrael, Lifnei iver, Tinok shenishba and Kavod HaBriyot from that category. --Eliyak T·C 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torah 3rd Opinion

Hi, I made a statement here: Talk:Torah#Third_3PO regarding your WP:Third Opinion, in case you miss it. Though I ought to mention it to you directly! Thanks... -Colfer2 (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It seems to me that for no good reason, colfer2 has acted out towards me in a manner of incivility -- if you wouldn't mind checking here and here, and then deleting this post, and then warning him. Thank you.

I meant no offense and apologize. Please see Talk:Torah#Third 3PO where I followed up my comments. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Shirahadasha, Thanks for your attempt to improve and clarify using religious sources.

Can you help us with Moses article. Recently I asked for reviewing the article. Now I'm reviewing it (Talk:Moses/GA1). I think it needs further improvements to become GA article. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Écrasez l'infâme

In view of your recent work on NPOV in contradictions between religion and science, perhaps you could have a look at the work of Écrasez l'infâme (talk · contribs) on various Bible-related articles and offer your thoughts on the neutrality issues I think I have identified. JFW | T@lk 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need clearer criteria concerning the "notability" of academic books?

Sometimes we have disagreed but I always respect your views. If you have time could you read over and comment on this discussion? I think the policy needs to be revised. After a tentative proposal, I realized I do not have enough of a perspective to make a good one. But there has been a lot more discussion since I first raised the issue, and I think one way or the other your contribution would be positive. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Thanks for the correction - I believed the examples could stand for themselves, but I will delete them. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note

Goodwill always appreciated The tension between being bold and finding consensus is a tough one for me and I generally err on the side of the former. Thanks for the encouragement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism

Hi. Have you followed this? You will see that I offered to make specific changes RPSM proposes if they comply with our core policies. Would you mind keeping an eye on this - if he does make specific proposals I and they conform with our policies I would appreciate your help in making changes to the articles; if he makes proposals that you think do not comply with our policies I would appreciate your pointing that out. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on WP:OR

Hi there, I noticed that your revert here removed a change that I thought was uncontroversial. See here for discussion. Could you comment on the talkpage if there a particular reason for the version you chose? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Ball

You do realize that I'm not the article's creator, right? Anyway, I'll be sure to keep an eye on it anyway in case Prod is declined. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Haha, no worries. Cheers! Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Clinical medicine: oncology

Thanks for the notice, and I'm going to review the WP's you mentioned. Much appreciated, and happy editing. L^BPub (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Noah's Ark

Once again we have an editor who is debating with me at Talk:Noah's Ark with the position that Wikipedia ought to declare Genesis to be "mythology" and any persons who feel to the contrary do not count, because they are simply wrong. The debate is heating up, I pointed out that moving, for example Yoruba mythology to Yoruba religion, was a step in the right direction, but we should not show partiality to just certain world religions, and meanwhile declare other world religions to be "mythology", given the history of how this word has usually been used in a highly polemical context. Those who insist that the Bible is mythology no matter how anyone else feels, are now demanding that I leave the article, was wondering if you could offer your input at that talk page since I am starting to feel overwhelmed and you generally have a calming and sensible effect in discussions. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you looked into this problem yet? Certain users are using very antagonistic and offensive language in the article now, because they feel that there is no other POV besides that the Bible is mythology. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hypoxia article

Hi, I have been told that you probably mistook my minimising the hypoxia article in Causes of Schizophrenia for vandalism and that I should try again.

Hope I'm doing the right thing.

Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pork

Shalom. I was wondering if you could either help me or direct me to some help for properly formatting hebrew text such that I can right align and insert quotation marks without them jumping around the text, such as in the aforementioned article. Thanx. DRosenbach ^(Talk | Contribs) 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darius and Kashrut

Hmm, that's interesting. I didn't know that metaphorical uses of kashrut dated back that far. (Do you have the specific daf where that occurs?) It isn't quite relevant to the issue at hand since the use here, using "is kosher" to mean keeps kashrut is different and clearly at best suboptimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's happening again at Noah's Ark

Please look at the recent discussion at Talk:Noah's Ark; there is a persistent effort of a few editors to label the Old Testament as "mythology" despite the fact that many people find this term offensive and would rather see a more neutral term. They will not listen to any number of editors who plead with them to be more reasonable; they are convinced that no perspective other than their own could be "neutra;", and are uninterested in compromise. This same identical debate rears its ugly head so often, that I fear binding arbitration should be required to determine if we as a project are going to distinguish between living and dead religions like other major encyclopedias, or lump them all in together like a propaganda tool. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of life follow up

Last year around this time, you rightfully nominated the meaning of life article for deletion. It was kept, and significant cleanup was done on it. Now, a year later, I don't know if you've had a chance to follow up on the article, but the structure and the presentation of content has changed significantly since then. Compare the version nominated for deletion with the current version, and it's almost a laugh out loud difference. Anyways, I was just clicking through the article history, and I came across your name, so I thought I'd come by mention it. I'm glad you nominated it, because it would probably still look like the pile of garbage it did then. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Orthodoxy under attack

Editors of this article may be interested in the comments here: RK (talk)

Talk:Modern_Orthodox_Judaism#Modern_Orthodoxy_under_attack Modern Orthodoxy Under Attack

Cherub

See my recent contribution to the discussion within the cherub article. RK (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshua

When you have a chance, can you check out this article and i you see NPOV or NOR problems, comment as appropriate? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tzniut - Kol Isha

Howdy. I don't know a good user to refer this to, so I picked you, since your username sounds promising (does Shira Hadasha refer to Partnership Minyans?).

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzniut#Female_singing_voice, I added a large amount of information based on a recent ruling by Rabbi David Bigman. Most importantly, he makes an entire new psak on kol isha, making it largely mutar from an Orthodox perspective.

(He also cites a few additional sources (Rabbenu Hananel, Ra'avya, Or Zarua etc.) relevant to what was cited by Jachter (Rav Hai Gaon, Mordechai, etc.), but these are not substantially new.)

However, I find that such innovative matters are controversial. I remember it took me months to finally convince Wikipedia editors on Tikkun Olam that not all Orthodox Jews are mystics, that some actually do follow Rambamist nominal/naturalistic views! (Rav Hirsch wrote like this only 120 years ago, and yet apparently, only Reform and Conservative Jews on Wikipedia were permitted to hold like this!)

So I'm a bit apprehensive that someone will see fit to wipe my additions off the record. If you are, or if you know anyone who is, interested in maintaining an Orthodox heter on kol isha there on Wikipedia, here's your heads up.

Thank you!

Sevendust62 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Toubin

As you voted on this article per its Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination), please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (3rd nomination). Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article mentions (and cites) that the subject is controversial, does NOT mean it should be deleted. As a matter of fact, most wikipedia articles do mention anything controversial about the article. It is people who delete these sections that have a bias and an opinion, such as yourself....as if you don't want people to know that there is a controversy. That is against wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is very obvious with your recent edits to the BRIT MILAH page. On your discussion page it says that you are interested in JUDAISM, which means you probably have a bias. INTACTIVISM is actually in the Oxford AND Webster's dictionary as the fight to end circumcision. For you to say there are no sources is ridiculous. There are THOUSANDS of organizations around the world dedicated to ending male AND FEMALE circumcision. Of course, since you are "interested" in Judaism I don't expect you to stop editting BRIT MILAH the way YOU want it to be anyway so I give up. Just know that "we" are not stupid and people who read Wikipedia want all the info they can get, not just YOUR opinions. 75.1.48.21 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Jewish philosophy article

Hi! Long time no see. I'm not so active anymore - but I do pop in from time to time. I was wondering if an administrator can help with the Jewish philosophy article. This once fine article has been hijacked for many months by one person, who makes edits every few minutes, and has turned it into his own personal belief system.

This person first made edits anonymously, many times a day, and simply rode roughshod over all others. Then he made a username, and now he does the same thing - sometimes every few minutes, for days and weeks on end. He is exhibiting bizarre behavior with this article.

Nothing he is doing has anything to do with philosophy, nor does he cite references, nor does he follow any Wikipedia standards of community and cooperation. He has just totally taken over. We need an admin to lock this article; find a reasonable, stable version, from about a year ago (or more) and then lock that version in until we can find out what is going on with this article & user.

RK (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you comment

here ? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs

Dear Shirahadasha, I saw that you had retired or semi-retired from wikipedia, but I'm hoping you may eventually stumble upon this note! I created a page called, "Independent minyan," which mentions the minyan in Israel, Shira Hadasha -- and I am hopeful (but not positive) that you might have a connection with that minyan, based on some of your edits and comments. If you do, I'd like to ask if you might be able to upload a photo. Right now, the Independent minyan article only has two photos, both from minyanim in the DC area, where I live. I have reached out to Hadar in NY for a photo, and would like to have one from Shira Hadasha -- which could also be used for the page about that minyan. I think photos add a lot to these pages. Whether you can help or not, I send best wishes for a Shavua Tov. NearTheZoo (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BELIEFS

A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Religious text primary

Template:Religious text primary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tahash Timeline

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

Per these contributions, please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Rachel_Adler.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rachel_Adler.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect page and/or remove administrator templates

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi. Please unprotect this user page and/or remove the administrator templates (there are three). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the 3 templates. Thanks, The Helpful One 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Yankles

Shirahadasha, We have discussed a few issues in the past, and I always learn from your contributions--but right now I'm just writing to let you know about a new short article I just created, "The Yankles." If you have not seen this movie, you might enjoy watching one of the trailers included in the "external links" section. Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(delivered by mabdul 23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TM 15:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TM 15:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^I'm researching Wikipedia _Questions? 11:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Resurrection of the Dead" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Resurrection of the Dead and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Resurrection of the Dead until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]