User talk:Savant1984
Reform Judaism talk
Welcome Savant
You have to put your edits to the talk page at the bottom.. that is where people look for them. Zargulon 14:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about that -- thanks for the heads-up. Savant1984 16:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Pashtun article
I reverted the text to an earlier version as it had been vandalised. In doing so I reverted your most recent edit, which hadn't removed the vandalism. You may wish to re-add your edit. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- An unfortunate by product of being featured on the front page is the sheer quantity of vandalism. Using the edit history function only shows the vandalism up to the point to which you return; you just have to rely on the last person who reverted that they caught all the preceding vandalism. When things go quiet, once it is off the front page, then those who are the usual contributors can trawl through the article to remove any remaining vandalism.
- I have to say that I was a little pleased that the vandalism was the usual student idiocy (references to homosexuality, generally) rather than the racial or ethnic variety the subject may have attracted. The vandals may have been idiots, but at least they weren't racist idiots... LessHeard vanU 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Reform Judaism
Hi Savant, I don't agree with DRosenbachs views about the primality of orthodoxy, I merely have no problem with him holding them!!! In an effort to be conciliatory, my clarity suffered :( Zargulon 18:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I looked a bit harder and you are right, in particularly I was hasty to accept the premise that orthodox movements didn't change anything in reaction to the haskalah. Zargulon 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
STOP EDITING THE GET ARTICLE AND WAIT UNTIL IT IS FINISHED!!
To User 198.23.5.73 I am Sagbliss and am involved in the Supreme Court of Canada case. I see you are a recent university graduate and think you know everything. But the one thing you are not is an attorney and do not know the facts of the case in Canada, Stephanie Bruker v Jason Marcovitz. For some reason, you think you have the authority to slander Ms. Bruker and to write salacious things which have absolutely no relevance to the get case which is before the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, if you do live in Israel, you should understand what lashon hora is.
The Wikimedia staff are working with me to get this article legally correct. Please do not touch it while it is a work in progress and if you continue to change it and continue to put things on the site which are not relevant to the issue of specific performance, you are changing what can be a good legally based article to inform the world on the plight of the agunah. Do be advised that Wikimedia is aware of your continued interference in this merging article.
- Whoever this Sagbliss is, he or she doesn't seem to understand the basics of Wikipedia - s/he is lashing out at everyone who's been editing the Get article, including simple format and header changes. Also, wondering whether this is bruker herself given the acrimony and the statement that they are involved in the case.
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 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
.jpg)
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 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
|
Hello, Savant1984. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. |
Posek
Hi.. your comment
"It's a transliteration, and one that in the case of 'psak' can only be pronounced by vocalising an e there anyway, written or not."
interested me.
Do we vocalize the p in in "psychology" (or any other words that begin with ps)? You could say that the standard English pronunciation is to make the "p" silent. Nonetheless in the original Greek ps one letter, the double consonant psi (ψ) and I have never heard it claimed that the "p" was silent in Greek. Likewise "xylophone" etc. which is even a double consonant in English - some people doubtless say "zylophone", and maybe some say "kesylophone" but I'm sure some people manage "ksylophone", particularly after a vowel. More germanely still, what about Hebrew words beginning with the double consonant tzadik.. should they be transliterated e.g. tezadik according to what you say above? Zargulon (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Zargulon. With 'psychology', it seems to me that if it's being meant as a transliteration of the Greek, then the kinds of questions you're asking definitely apply. (I can't speak to them since I know zero Greek. As an English word, though, whatever its origin, it's an English word. 'Pesak', though, it seems to me, just isn't English. It's a transliteration, and even if we accepted that 'ps' represents a pronounceable morpheme since the 'p' is silent, that's certainly not how that Hebrew word is supposed to be pronounced. As for 'tzadik', it can certainly be pronounced that way, and that's indeed how it's said in Hebrew, despite the fact we need two letters in English to represent the tsade. My point in the quoted comment above (not made clearly, in retrospect) is that given that everyone (AFAIK) actually does pronounce the sheva na in 'pesak', leaving out the 'e' is simply misleading even according to shitat Debresser -- his opinion about what sheva's should be represented by 'e's -- since there it has to be pronounced -- and indeed, everyone (at least I've ever heard) does. Savant1984 (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Please be informed that I have reported your insistence on incorrect spelling on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Savant1984_and_User:Zargulon_.28Result:_.29. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me Debresser. I am, however, having difficulty not taking exception to this characterisation of my actions there. I have only reverted your opinion once, I believe, and with a great deal of discussion on the talk page. I have deliberately avoided edit warring and attempted to achieve some sort of agreement. Further, your calling my opinion 'insistence on incorrect spelling' I have a hard time hearing in the spirit of respectful disagreement. Savant1984 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am allowed my opinions, not so? :) Debresser (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- lol -- fair enough. Lekaf zechut. (Note the e's. ;) Savant1984 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- It should have been "leCHaf zechut". I am a ba'al dikduk myself. :) Debresser (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Point well taken. I stand corrected. Savant1984 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- It should have been "leCHaf zechut". I am a ba'al dikduk myself. :) Debresser (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- lol -- fair enough. Lekaf zechut. (Note the e's. ;) Savant1984 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am allowed my opinions, not so? :) Debresser (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Minor quibble on a minor quibble
I noted your addition of "other" after Talmud to the intermarriage in Judaism page. This is not the section I was editing, and I appreciate your attention to improving these articles, but I do have a small problem with it. I think the original editor meant the Talmud and LATER parts of Jewish law. To say "other" implies that the Talmud is not THE source of Jewish law, and implies that the author was referring to, say, Mechilta and Sifre. (I realize your tradition may in fact disagree with, for example, Maimonides on the primacy of the Talmud, but then we are getting POV.) On the other hand, if the editor really MEANT the Sifre, for example, I would have no problem with your change. What do you think was meant?Mzk1 (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ironically, I was the one who wrote the original sentence, which is one of the reasons I marked the edit as 'minor'. My reason for making the change is it occurred to me that, without, one might infer (haveh amina) that the Talmud isn't a source of Jewish law, whereas my point in listing the Talmud specifically was actually its primacy as such.
- I don't know of any pre-modern authorities, at least from the rishonim onward, who disagree about the basic primacy of the Bavli. Where others disagree with Rambam, if I recall/learned correctly, is that Rambam gives very little weight to Gaonic precedent where the Gaonim disagree with his (and the Rif's) reading of the Bavli, and that he also poskins with the Bavli and against the Tiberian Masoretes on some points where the general view is to follow the Masoretes where they disagree with the Bavli. Savant1984 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was referring to modern, non-Orthodox authorities. But if you did not mean Sifre, Mechilta, etc., can we change other to later?Mzk1 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ahhhh -- got you. I don't know of any Conservative authorities who don't think the Bavli has primacy, either, except for R' Gordon Tucker. :) But, as you said, beside the point. Yep, 'later classical sources of Jewish law' sounds fine to me. I'll do it now, actually. Savant1984 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI
On WP:ANI/3RR agin because of Posek. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. See my comment there, and again, above. Savant1984 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Posek
Hi Savant - I noted your proposal to stop participating in the discussion at Posek. You are a free agent and I understand your desire to avoid conflict. User:Debresser is an inveterate troublemaker and attention-seeking bully whose ways are well known to the WP administration through numerous past disputes I have witnessed which you can find at his edit log if you have morbid curiosity. This is my first run-in with him personally, but I do not think it will take much effort to see him off. It is important to emphasise that people like him are usually paper tigers. This is the strategy which usually works against such people, and isn't hard to implement without losing your cool or becoming stressed. It generally involves doing nothing.
- If he puts anything on your talk page, just delete it (or leave it if you don't care).
- Don't bother leaving any comments on (or even reading) any admin page like WP:ANI/3RR. There is no way any of us (by which I mean Yoninah, Jayjg, you and me) will be admonished by an admin before that admin reads through the discussion on Talk:Posek at which point the vexatious nature of Debresser's behaviour will be abundantly clear, even without considering Debresser's WP history.
- Don't bother answering Debresser's vexatious questions on the talk page. Question him, advise him or be silent. The discussion to date makes it any third party that Debresser may or may not bring to bear that you, Yoninah and Jayjg are contributing constructively and in good faith, and that Debresser is not.
- Remember the 3RR rule means that you are not allowed to revert four times in a 24 hour period. You are allowed to revert three times in a 24 hour period. You are allowed to revert as many times as you like provided no four reverts fall in a 24 hour period. You don't have to revert at all since I am happy to take care of that, but don't be scared of doing so by his accusations of "edit warring" or "violating WP guidelines".. it is a standard playground tactic and I hope you can see how absurd it is.
- Keep improving the article as you have been doing, that is the fun part anyway.
So I encourage you not to give in, people like Debresser are paper tigers. You don't have to actually do anything - you don't even have to follow the page - maybe occasionally revert to the compromise version so that it's obvious that it isn't just me. I just encourage you not to explicitly concede. But like I say, the final decision is yours. Zargulon (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)