User talk:Zsero

avir comes from greek

You said that hebrew awir comes from greek awer. This is interesting. Could you provide a source for this assertion? Everything I've read says that nobody knows whether the one got it from the other, which way the borrowing went, or if they both borrowed it from somewhere else. Tomer ^TALK 20:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it doesn't appear at all in the Bible, but is used extensively in the Mishnah and Talmud, which also contain many other Greek and Latin loanwords, strongly suggests that it came into Hebrew from Greek or Latin. And since the Latin word came from Greek anyway, I wrote that it came from Greek, which I think is a fair way of putting it even if the path was via Latin.

Is it possible that it was a Hebrew word that happened not to be used in the Bible (there must have been many such words, which are now completely lost), or that was coined or borrowed after Biblical times, and that Greek and Latin borrowed it from Hebrew? I guess it's possible, since I don't know the earliest Greek use, but it just doesn't seem to me very likely. In any case, it seems to me extremely unlikely that it developed independently in both Hebrew and Greek, which means it's not a false cognate.

As for the Welsh word, no I have no source for it coming from Greek or Latin, but again it seems almost impossible that it didn't. I think the burden of proof would have to be on someone asserting that it had a different origin.

Be that as it may, "strongly suggests" is not an acceptable rationale to make an assertion and call it fact. Do you have a source you can cite that says that the one was borrowed from the other? Otherwise what you've done is technically a violation of Wikipedia's ban on "original research". Tomer ^TALK 20:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Better question: does anyone have a souce they can cite showing that the two words are false cognates? If not, then it seems to me that including them on the page in the first place is "original research", which I have merely corrected...

My guess is that whoever put it there in the first place just thought it unlikely that Hebrew and Welsh would have come in contact with each other, or would have a source in common. Except that that isn't the case, at least with regard to Mishnaic and later Hebrew.

I'm sure somebody does, just not me. User:Angr or User:Dbachmann or User:Mustafaa may. I'm not trying to push it too hard, it's just that everything I've read says that "nobody knows", just like origin of Greek oine vs. Hebrew yayin. Tomer ^TALK 01:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Except that yayin and oine are both attested farther back in their respective languages than the time when they came into such extensive contact. While I guess it's theoretically possible that Hebrew picked up yayin from the Philistines, and hence from Greek, that would need proof. But avir is first attested in Hebrew at a period when it included hundreds of Greek and Latin loanwords. And Latin and Greek definitely had a far greater impact on Hebrew than vice versa, because practically all Hebrew speakers were in contact with Roman soldiers in Judaea, while the vast majority of Latin and Greek speakers had little or no contact with Jews. It seems to me that the default assumption must be that avir is just another loanword, from either Latin or Greek, and that the burden of proof rests on anyone claiming that it was a native Hebrew word that just happened never to be used by any of the authors of the Bible.

Welcome

Hello, Zsero, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 06:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for the tilde tip. Any particular reason for the welcome now, though? I've had an account for well over a year, after all. Zsero 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kay Kosher Supervision...

...has been proposed for deletion. FYI. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NN = Not notable in wikipedia lingo. I am sorry for rushing and using a contraction. Too minor an organization to merit an article per WP:CORP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Two points

1. We need a source for whoever said that critics claim that Kerry has a record of insulting troops. It's not unreasonable (and is Wiki policy), and it's not difficult to find one critic who agrees with your statement and then include it and attribute it in the article. On the other side, it would be akin to me including a statement, "It was obvious that Kerry did not mean that as an attack against the troops, but President Bush." which you would probably revert immediately, claiming the same reason.

2. Deleting the second part of the quote which starts off that: "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'" The second part takes Kerry's quote into context, and it's deceitful to readers by withholding part of the truth. What is wrong with letting readers decide their reaction to the quote instead of stacking the cards against Kerry? Also, a personal interpretation of Kerry's statement by deleting part of it is potentially libelous. --Folksong 08:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The news is full of critics. You can't deny that they exist, or that they've made this argument. (For that matter, I'm one such critic, if you need names! But you know very well that I'm very far from the only one.) I just don't see the point in compiling a list of references to blogs and commenters making this point.

Kerry's previous criticism of USA soldiers is too well-known to need documenting. See Winter Soldier earlier in the Wikipedia article, and see his widely reported statement in 2005 that USA troops in Iraq were terrorising women and children. (Now if I were to include those as examples, I would have to document them, since they're statements of fact, not of opinion.)

2. The rest of the quote isn't relevant here. You seem not to understand for what purpose the quote has been cited. Kerry's original joke seems to refer to a common but erroneous belief that the army is composed primarily of the uneducated, the poor, and minorities. To decide whether Kerry actually meant to say what he said, it's relevant to look into whether he holds that common belief, at least subconsciously. A quote from 34 years ago shows that at that time he did think this was what a volunteer army would look like. That doesn't prove he still has that picture in the back of his mind, but it significantly increases the likelihood. The other ills he thought might come from a volunteer army don't shed any light on the current question, so there's no reason to cite them. Indeed, citing them is something of a red herring; it hides the point in verbiage, and distracts the reader with irrelevant matters.

Zsero 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, your edit history shows a pattern of editing against liberals and progressives and promoting a conservative viewpoints. Do you believe Wikipedia is a place to promote conservative thought?

1. Have you read Wikipedia rules? It doesn't matter what you think here, and it doesn't matter what I think either, because we need verifiable sources. Is it so difficult to find one name (Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly) and add their specific commentary? I didn't say all, I just said one.

2. Your reply makes it seem that you want to take the quote out of context and make John Kerry look bad. Whether you like him or not, that's not in accordance with Wikipedia's goals. Your quote about believing he "still has this picture in the back of this mind" strengthens my belief that you are pushing an ideological viewpoint. Did you read about the part where he says it's disproportionate, and did you ever consider that he was talking about the imbalance of poor people to rich in the military? Or were you just trying to look for that "silver bullet" to make Kerry look bad? Hell, I used to be a Republican myself, I know (and used to engage) in those tactics.--Folksong 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rashi B-day

You obviously did not read part of my original comment: “If it was held in 2006 to commemorate his 900th b-day [death, typo] in 2005, I'm sorry for changing it.” Read the comments better next time. You need to explain the fact that it was held in 2006 for the 2005 anniversary of his death.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

I don't need to explain anything. You find a page that says an exhibit was held in 2006. If you have reason to believe that it was actually held in 2005, then you should feel free to change it. But if you have no such reason, then you have no business editing the article, based merely on a guess that if the anniversary was in 2005 then the exhibit "must" have been held in that year. Wikipedia is for facts, or at least alleged facts, not random guesses. Zsero 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you do need to explain the matter better as it is misleading to those who are unaware of his death date (just in case they overlook it at the top). It might lead someone to believe there is conflicting information on the page. I’m sure you have noticed it by now that I have slightly changed the sentence to show the difference. You are correct in saying “Wikipedia is for facts”. So present all the facts the next time you try to edit a page. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Stalker

I seem to have picked up a stalker. On 28-Dec-06, between 00:34 and 00:47 (UTC), 172.209.253.72 appeared, vandalised five pages that I had edited, made a racist comment in his edit of John Monash, and disappeared. Then on the same day, between 10:03 and 10:07 (UTC), 172.201.220.183 appeared, vandalised six pages I'd edited, with no other activity. Then on the same day, between 23:38 and 23:52 (UTC), 84.13.136.207 showed up, vandalised 9 pages I'd edited, and left a racist comment on this page. I don't think it takes a genius to say that all three are the same person. Zsero 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: On 20-Dec at 01:57, 84.13.4.119 showed up, reverted one edit of mine, and then proceeded to vandalise this page, thus demonstrating his lack of good faith. Zsero 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous comments and edits. I was merely frustrated at your repeated revisions to the Shinseki article and was trying to "get your goat". Still no amount of frustration can justify any racist or nationalist comments. If you will allow me, I will work from now on within the constraints of Wikipedia. -- SR

Eric Shinseki

I do not object in any way to him being labeled "insubordinate". My problem is with the source you cite. I would not object to a factual article from the National Review. But the article you cite is clearly biased against Shinseki. A few points:

1. You have argued that the inaccurate "predictions" in the article (that Inouye will retire, that Shinseki will run for his seat) are immaterial. I disagree. Babbin stated that Inouye will retire at the end of his term ("the planned - but yet unannounced - retirement"). What did he base this on? Is it unreasonable to assume that he based it on an unnamed source? If he did base it on an unnamed source, this source was clearly wrong, and it is fair to call into question his other "sources". If he didn't base this on an unnamed source, then isn't he just guessing?

2. The source he cites paraphrases Shinseki as saying "Let me run things my way, and I'll make you look really good on the Hill. But forget about transformation. The Army doesn't need it, and we don't plan to do it." This is a rather colloquial paraphrase. Is it really enough to label Shinseki as insubordinate? Or does it only rise to the level of a strong disagreement from a career military man? The very next line is not attributed to a source: "Shinseki should have been fired." That sounds like an opinion to me - he is not citing his source here. Does Babbin base this on military law or laws pertaining to the U.S. Dept. of Defense? Does he have the necessary knowledge and/or experience to identify "fireable" offenses?

3. Babbin goes on to state: "That [Shinseki wasn't fired] is a tribute to the White House's fear that Sen. Inouye — ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee — would take his revenge, with ballistic-missile defense the most likely target." Again, what does he base this on? No sources are cited and it sounds like pure supposition to me. And it is misleading - did you know that Inouye co-sponsored the "Cochran-Inouye National Missile Defense Act of 1999"? (See Bill Number S.257 of the 106th Congress, 1999; co-sponsor Cochran is a R-Miss.) The bipartisan bill states "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)." Is it reasonable to assume that Inouye would reverse support for a project he co-sponsored simply to get revenge on Rumsfeld? Are you starting to see that perhaps Babbin is being somewhat disingenuous?

I am not some crazed ideologue trying to praise Shinseki and discredit the Bush administration. I simply want accuracy in WP and believe that the source you cited does not meet journalistic standards. Other posts on this page seem to indicate that you have a political agenda, e.g., "strengthens my belief that you are pushing an ideological viewpoint".

In short, I don't object to criticism of the way Shinseki responded to requests made by his superior, and will accept that it is possible that he rose to the level of insubordination. However, I object to quoting an article full of opinions and inaccuracies. Please find another source. -- SR

Chabad

Thanks. Knew it had nothing to do with Chabad, but remembered reading that Nusach Sfard was started by the Baal Shem Tov based upon Ari. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Hiram Bingham IV

Do not add any links to isurvived.org without attaining consensus on the talk page. As you can see if you take a look at it, the majority of editors feel that the link is not appropriate and does not represent the historical consensus on Bingham. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the dissemination of minority viewpoints on this kind of issue. Thanks. -Elmer Clark 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there is nothing on the talk page about the appropriateness of links to isurvived.org. Not a word.

Second, "historical consensus" or not, it's still a relevant point of view. Unless you can prove that its allegations are false, it deserves to be linked. WP is certainly not restricted to a "historical consensus", alleged or real. Why don't you try reading the "soapbox" guideline you kindly linked to, and explain exactly how I am violating it. In the meantime, I am restoring the links. Zsero 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?? This statement: "The editor of iSurvived.org (Kalman Brattman) is presently the subject of a significant news story which outlines how the editor of the site (with his disturbing arrest record) has attempted to destroy the reputation of various Holocaust survivors." sure seems to say something about the appropriateness of links to isurvived.org.

It says nothing of the sort. It doesn't even address the question of links. Nor, even if it did, does a single post by an anonymous poster represent the view of "the majority of editors". On the contrary, the substance of this anonymous person's post is highly debatable, but there's no point in debating it here since it's irrelevant to the current matter.

It says nothing of the sort? I lifted that exact quote off the page! I agree with that editor as well, there's two, as did User:Shimgray, to the extent that he blocked Webville for repeatedly adding the link! -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia does not seek to show all points of view on issues, simply the general consensus point of view and other views that are notable. A link to such a dubious website certainly does not support the notability of this view.

It's certainly worth a link. Pretending that it doesn't exist is outright censorship.

Please see Wikipedia:NN. "It exists" does not justify inclusion. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I may think that 9/11 was a Ugandan conspiracy and put up a website supporting my view, but that wouldn't justify my adding that info to Wikipedia.

Oh yeah? Take a look at the 9/11 pages; all sorts of conspiracy theories are not only linked to but actually described, together with their evidence or lack thereof.

Those theories are notable and their prevalence has been attested to by multiple reliable sources. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this section. isurvived.org certainly does not qualify as "exceptional evidence."

First, it's not an extraordinary claim. You seem to think that anything contradicting an existing article constitutes an extraordinary claim; that privileges the opinions of the first poster on a subject, an absurd proposition.

This clearly falls under bullet points one, three, and four. Please read them. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know whether you are User:Webville, who embarked on a similar crusade against Bingham some months ago

And I don't know whether you are the Emperor Napoleon. But the odds are that you're not.

The similarity of your actions is rather suspicious though. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

but if not, please check out User talk:Webville, where this issue was debated. I am willing to reopen this issue through proper channels, that is, if you attempt to gain consensus on the talk page, but unilateral moves against consensus with comments like "i say the links belong here" are very unlikely to get you anywhere.

You are the one acting unilaterally here, by deleting the links with no discussion whatsoever. And I'm not going to put up with it. If you want me to agree that the links don't belong, you have to persuade me, instead of acting as if you own the page.

No discussion? The matter has been discussed on the talk page, at User:Webville, and here. Consensus clearly is against the site at the moment. The responsibility of changing that lies with you. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on my talk page or the help desk for general questions about consensus building and Wikipedia procedure, or at Talk:Hiram Bingham IV for debate specific to this issue. Regards, Elmer Clark 03:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Zsero 07:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It has become clear that you are utterly unwilling to respect Wikipedia procedure on this point. I am bringing this up at the administrator's noticeboard. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Webville is a Sock Puppet and Kelman Brattman. Disseminating false information for personal attacks. Kalman Brattman Report

---

The report above on Kelman Brattman was made by Eric Saul --a purpoted Holocaust educator with no academic credentials that was exposed by no one else but Brattman. Please see The Eric Saul Case: An Issue of Credibility and Accountability

See also Eric Saul's beef with Isurvived.org that says it all.

Music of Ireland

How can you refuse to let an Irish musician of such significance as 50 Cent be referenced in the article of the body of music which he has contributed so much to over his lifetime? 68.98.50.49 01:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. But if you continue vandalising WP, you will be blocked. -- Zsero 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Pidyon HaBen

Hi! I believe the obligation of Pidyon HaBen exists regardless of whether the parents are married. Also, I understand that while as a matter of contemporary civil law and practice a father couldn't legally turn a child over to a Kohen, so far as Halakha is concerned the choice is still a theoretical possibility. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The father's declaration says "My Israelite wife gave birth to this, her first born son". I suppose the father of an illegitimate boy is also obligated in pidyon haben, and would have to change the declaration accordingly, but the article describes the standard declaration.

2. Nope. It was never an option, no matter how theoretical. The kohen's question is not "would you like to redeem him or not?", but rather "which do you value more, your son or the money?". Instead of focusing on how much money he has to pay, he should focus on how little it is compared with what he has received from God.

Zsero 06:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, wow

Get a sense of humor, boyo. 68.98.50.49 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're the sort that proves Godwin's law true very often. Do you have Aspergers, or something? 68.98.50.49 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-warning

I hope I didn't look like I was trying to bite the user, which I wouldn't do intentionally, but I've been noticing lately with a lot of one time vandals that leave really obvious vandalism that if you give them one warning, they stop. I don't do it for most cases like accidents or somebody putting "hi" on a page, but when you put something vulgar like this editor did, I felt it was warranted. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't, but if I was an administrator, I wouldn't block a user with just two vandalisms/edits and never as a punitive block or long term. I hope that gives you more insight on why I did that. Sorry if I seemed to be hasty or in violation of WP:BITE. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also added an apology on the IP talk page, I feel I may have been too hasty and will not be such in the future. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reported them to AIV for a first time warning or blocked them had I been an administrator acting on it, but I highly doubt the user thought the subject of the article was made of poop or penises. But for future situations I will go back to issuing lower warnings first. Unless the user is a repeat vandal and has been reverted many times but with no warning, then the user does need a test4. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with DarthGriz's solo warning - to a degree. If the user added a couple random letters into the article, I could understand starting with a simple test. The uesr made some rather offensive comments. Although I would've preferred to see test3, I don't believe it's a significant issue whatsoever. Afterall, vandals shouldn't be given five "tokens" to vandalize. When I first started, I couldn't count the amount of times that I'd use all the warnings, and then at the last warning, the IP would vanish and never make an edit again. It's a waste of time to go through the entire chain for obvious vandals. — Deckiller 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with that AIV rationale. I'm an admin, so I naturally have a different outlook than those who have to go through the channel. — Deckiller 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism Prohibitions

Hi ,

Just a couple of comments about above topic.

Line 10 reads:

Eating meat. Sikhs are strictly prohibited from eating Halal meat, or any meat during the langar. In some Sikh groups, eating meat is believed to be forbidden, but this is not a universally held belief.

Shouldn't the title read Eating Halal Meat. On a side note, I thought the word Halal was to be substituted with Kutha (which includes any ritually slaughtered meat? Its the Sikh term. Just a thought. --Sikh-history 09:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is what exactly counts as Kutha meat. My understanding is that the generally accepted Sikh authorities have ruled that the Zabiha procedure is enough like a sacrifice that it renders the meat Kutha. As far as I know they have not ruled that way about any other kind of meat, so it remains up to the conscience of the individual Sikh, relying on his own research and understanding to decide whether a particular slaughtering procedure makes meat Kutha. The article is designed to be read by non-Sikhs, and therefore should wherever possible use terms likely to be familiar to a wider audience. Halal is a widely-understood term. Kutha is not. -- Zsero 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. On a side note.Is the Current title Eating Halal Meat acceptable.--Sikh-history 10:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

There appeared to be an edit war which needs to be addressed on the talk page rather than through constant moving and reverting. The protection wasn't an endorsement of the current title. John Reaves (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Der Rebbe Rayatz

Google R' Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, and you will get more results than R' Joseph Isaac Schneersohn. --Shuli 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mill (currency)

You might be interested in Talk:Mill (currency)#Recent edit. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No

Copyvio videos are to be removed from Wikipedia, per policy. Anyway, I found the direct transcript and changed the cite, so it's a moot point, but one you should consider in the future. - Crockspot 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, blogs are not reliable sources, and I will not allow them to be used as sources in the Thompson articles. WP:BLP will be strictly applied. - Crockspot 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The video isn't on Wikipedia; it's on hotair, which may or may not have the right to have it. It doesn't matter. There's no policy against citing sources just because they may be in violation of copyright laws. Violating copyright laws (let alone possibly violating them) doesn't affect the reliability of a source.

And blogs may be less reliable than other sources, but it depends on what it is that's being cited. In this case the video speaks for itself, so it doesn't matter where it's being hosted. It could be hosted on my own server, in flagrant violation of all sorts of laws, and it would still be perfectly valid to cite it on WP.

Zsero 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong. See my reply on my talk page. - Crockspot 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rebbe

BS"D
I wasn't speculating about your background, I was speculating the other contributors based on his information. --Shuliavrumi 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rashi.jpg

The uploader was of course already asked and I could have deleted the image after being listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images but I wanted to give the uploader some more time with providing a source. It probably is old and fall in the Public Domain. But we don't know for sure. If you can, please provide a source but don't remove the no source tag unless you do. Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care where the uploader got the picture. I want some proof the picture is indeed centuries old. For instance, is it somewhere in a museum, who is the artist, but most importantly when was it made? Right now there is no info on the image, just that it is an image of Rashi. Garion96 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images#Uploading images for instance. I guess those other images also will be tagged eventually. A good example how it should is Image:Elizabeth I Darnley Portrait.jpg and Image:Elizabeth I of England - coronation portrait.jpg. If this picture is so famous it should be quite easy so please go ahead. And yes, I did searched a bit but couldn't find it. The picture needs a source to prove it is public domain. If you want to keep the image, do your own research. Garion96 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If I would have wanted to delete the image I could have already done so after it was listed at WP:PUI but I didn't. Since I didn't delete it, I added the nosource tag to give more time. Assume a bit good faith here thank you. Garion96 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User Sikh4life

Sikh4life has vandalised my page once already and seems to be treating the wikipedia NPOV with contempt. Shall I report him? --Sikh-history 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eruv

Demark - you're correct. That word was not the aim of my edit and it was an oversight not to return the more recent edit of that issue to demarcate. Thank you for correcting it. Juda S. Engelmayer 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yosef Eliyahu Henkin

The relevancy here is that his position is the prevailing one on this issue. Juda S. Engelmayer 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

History of the Spanish Jews

Hello. I only just signed up for wikipedia, since today I was editing a few pages and ran into some problems. I was on the page of the history of the Spanish Jews since I am writing a book about the Spanish Inquisition. I found a mistake on the page: under the Edict of Expulsion, it said that the Jews were expelled the day before Tisha B'Av of 1492. Since I thought that was wrong I fixed it. This was still while I wasn't a memeber of wikipedia. When I went back to the page I found that what I had fixed was back to the incorrect information. I changed it again, this time I referred to where I found the information online, link title if that link doesn't go throught then it's http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayd.htm. I'm new to this graphics kind of stuff! But anyway, when I went back to the page it was back to the incorrect information yet again! The reason I'm telling this to you is because you sent me a message, I think, while I wasn't signed up, asking me not to post nonsense information. I also edited two other pages, about Anne Boleyn and Rashi. I edited about Anne Boleyn that she had a mole on her neck, another deformity along with the possible sixth finger, and with Rashi I said that the 'shin' that is above his grave could stand for hsi name as well as Shadai, another name of the Jewish god that is usually abbreviated with a 'shin.' Please, help!

Thank you, bookworm415

Replying To What You Said

You have a fair enough point on the Spanish Inquisiton (even though I am 99% positive that I'm right, but whatever) and on the Anne Boleyn issue, but on mezuzot there is usually a shin and stand for Shaddai, henceforth there is footing for that. I think i shall research that now. Thank you for all of your help! bookworm415

Rashi/Mezuzah Etc.

I'm just going to let the matter drop and be satisfied with myself that I have a good idea and the rest of the world will have to go without it. I'm not blaming you for anything, so don't get snippy with me. Thank you for wanting to provide for the masses so much. I appreciate your dedication. But the reason a shin for Shaddai would be there is to 'protect his eternal soul,' sort of. No, it is not documented, it is what I think, blah blah blah, but I'm sure some person out there thought of it to because in truth it makes perfect sense, more sense than the shin standing for Shlomo. But whatever. Once more, I appreciate your dedication. bookworm415

Hi

I have put it back to standard version that I personally checked over one month ago. There is a anon vandal vandalising 68.241.250.155- check his talk page he has been warned many time. His versions are being reverted by other wikipedians.--Sikh historian 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted anon vandalism again and put it back to your last addition on 12 July.--Sikh historian 03:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisiton

Oy. I hate saying this, but you were right. link title (if that doesn't go through, then it's hebcal.com) says that Tisha B'Av is August 11, minus the ten days of the Gregorian Calendar reformation, so henceforth it is August 1, the day after the Jews were expelled from Spain. And by the way, Teh Anne Boleyn mole whoosy is documented. I read it in Carolyn Meyer's book Beware, Princess Elizabeth. So really, I am right about that one. So I will give you the Spanish Inquisition one since you were right, and I'll give a tie on the Rashi one since I think it's nice to stay fair. So we're even. bookworm415

Re: Jat Article

Hi Z, I was wondering if you could help out with this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people. As you can see John Hill who has tried to edit the page has recieved an incredible amount of abuse. Not only is the article in question promoting a POV it is very poorly written and the refrences are questionable. Burdak, DrBrij and Ravi Chaudry seem to be treating wikipedia as there own personal property. I think John Hill needs some help from other wikipedia authors. This Jat article really is a disgrace to wikipedia and needs some serious editing.--Sikh-history 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tisha B'Av Dates and Columbus

I'll have to take your word for that. Onto a slightly unrelated subject, Christopher Columbus-do you think that he was Jewish? I'm looking for opinions, I'm considering writing a book about him too. Because he left Spain on August 2nd, which could be almost like a mercy stroke from Ferdinand and Isabella. But why would they send a Jew? An opinion would be appreciated. bookworm415

Tisha B'Av/Columbus

Frankly, I don't know much about the Gregorian Reformation so I'll just listen to whatever you, the one who does know about this stuff, says. As for Columbus, I like your reasoning. It's said that he had a Hebrew-speaking Jew on one of the boats in case he found the Ten Lost Tribes, as a little side trivia.

For Private Use

75.33.0.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
75.35.96.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.198.100.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Jameswheelerprofessional12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EJ220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bookworm415 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Project tags

Please do not remove project tags from article talk pages. If a WikiProject wishes to include an article within its area of expertise, that is not only the project's prerogative, but a benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. Specifically, please stop removing the WP Alabama tag from Talk:Fred Thompson. Thompson was born and educated in Alabama, and he falls within our scope. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Hendel Lieberman

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Hendel Lieberman meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendel Lieberman. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are

Please read WP:SPAM. As far as for encyclopedia content it is considered spam. 124.170.172.142 08:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

I notice it was vandalised / edited in error in the past. If you'd rather it deleted instead of blanked, just let me know - Alison ☺ 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deirdre McCloskey

Re. "McCloskey also participated in a campaign of harassment against Bailey." - I just had to remove that one line. It's a serious accusation to make and it is not supported by the NYT article. In fact, they steer clear of stating that (and rightly so). Per WP:BLP, that should not be in there without an explicit, cited source for it - Alison ☺ 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning at Fred Thompson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fred Thompson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Please be aware that you do not own articles which you edit. You are not the gate-keeper to determine what can and cannot appear in the Fred Thompson article. Italia^vivi 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Italiavivi's WP:OWN point here, and we have disagreed more than agreed in the past. This edit summary is out of line - no one editor has to demonstrate relevance for something to be included - that's what consensus is about. I don't particularly like Ferrylodge's solution, but it's better than leaving the whole thing out, and meanwhile we can keep discussing this and perhaps get some outside opinions and then come up with something that acknowledges the fact that some editors feel that this information is notable and should be included. You had no justification for removing Ferrylodge's edit - it is at least in the spirit of what the discussion on talk is trying to deal with (and has been discussed in the past there too). Tvoz |talk 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, what part of the above did you not understand? You do not have consensus to remove the age difference from the article. It is being discussed - and several other editors have weighed in with comments about this. You can't unilaterally decide to take it out when others want it in. Again, you have no justification for removing Ferrylodge's words which were a suggested compromise and to which several editors have reluctantly agreed as an reasonable possibility. Make your argument on the Talk page for why it should be out, but don't just take it out - unless you are trying to fan the flamses instead of extinguishing them. Tvoz |talk 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be angry at Italiavivi, but try to separate that from what other editors say to you. I posted the previous comment yesterday to you about demonstrating relevance and you ignored it - or at least did not respond to me about it - only to come back in today and again remove the wording that Ferrylodge had posted, and which is under discussion on Talk. That's provocative and unilateral. This is not just Italiavivi and me - there are several others who agree that the age difference is notable and should be included. Sbowers3 has tried to move the discussion on to how it should be worded, and Ferrylodge's reluctant addition was one possibility - at least he was trying to compromise on this. There are several other editors on Talk who have said they see relevance to having either the specific ages or the age difference included. Just like on Kucinich and Edwards. I did, in fact, say that its notability derives from the fact that independent press reports have talked about it, such as the New York Times article. Whatever the history may be, the fact is that people have commented in favor of including some statement about the age difference, and you are unilaterally removing it - I don't really know what your motives are, nor do I care - I am interested in getting the rhetoric toned down so we can have a productive discussion, and your removing the words only makes it worse. Is it so offensive to you to see what ages they were when they married that you can't leave it alone until we reach agreement on the specific phrasing? If this is about your dispute with Italiavivi, please take it elsewhere. Yes, he can be difficult, and I've clashed with him too - but that doesn't mean I won't point out when I think his position is correct and support it, even if I don't like his tactics or approach. This isn't high school. Tvoz |talk 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi

This editor has repeatedly deleted your comments at the Fred Thompson talk page.

Today, Italiavivi deleted my comments here and here. Italiavivi has also been uncivil here (“You are a liar") and here (“telling the same lies”) and here (accusing others of “screaming”) and here (more accusations of “screaming” and “goading").

If you would like me to help take action with you against this person (such as a Request for Comments), then please let me know.Ferrylodge 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You and Zsero are WP:POTs in the worst kind of way where civility is concerned. You have both accused me of being the first editor to add the Thompsons' age difference to his article, which is a falsehood, a lie. You seem to dislike this lie being highlighted, and are now colluding. I gladly await your attempts at defending your false statements, and find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to let go of them. Italia^vivi 20:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Italiavivi received at least three separate warnings from administrators on August 22, for his conduct. Both LessHeard vanU and Tango warned him here, and ElinorD warned him here.Ferrylodge 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hasidism vs. Charedism

I noticed your comment that Hasidism is part of Charedism. Though this is a common conception, it makes it no less incorrect. It stems, I think, from an incorrect equating of religious Jews with Orthodox Jews when they are in fact distinct adjectives. Both Charedis and Hasidim are religious - they keep the Sabbath, attend synagogue, as well as following the many other obscure rules that the Bible and the Rabbis mandate. They are not, however, the same, or even related. (I went to a Charedi school in a largely Chassidishe neighborhood - seriously, though this may seem incidental, to many people it isn't. The differences matter.) For example - Charedim have Rabbis. Chasidim have Rebbes. The distinction is not simply lingual but also in its almost mystical emphasis on them that Chasidim place. Charedim wear business suits. Chasidim don't. Again, this may seem incidental, but it comes from a basic debate over the Jew's place in the modern world. Charedim study Hebrew. Chasidim speak Yiddish. Unimportant to be sure to those who don't speak either language and can't tell the difference between them, but the scholarly battle over the individual's place in God's world has a huge effect on political debates as are most evident in the case of the Satmar and Neturei Karta. This is only a sampling of the many major ways in which Hasidim and Charedim differ. This may seem bizarre to those who've never seen the inside of this world, but Hasidim are not ultra-Orthodox Jews; they're not even Orthodox Jews. They're something distinct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elsaamo (talk • contribs) 05:20, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Tom Smith Article up for Deletion

The article Tom Smith (filker), which you have contributed to has been listed as being considered for deletion. Please add you comments to the discussion. Shsilver 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi

Since Italiavivi deleted this from his talk page, I'm adding it here: All of the above is true - a misstatement of fact need not be a lie, and it's a violation of AGF and CIVIL to call it a lie without proof. But in this case it goes beyond that, because what I wrote wasn't merely a good-faith mistake, it was true. That is, not only did I honestly think it to be true, but it actually was. In calling me a liar Italiavivi was not only uncivil and not AGF, he was also factually wrong. I could fling the L-word back at him, but I won't; unlike him I will assume that his memory was playing him false, and that he honestly believed I had got things wrong. He still should not have called me a liar for it, but he wasn't deliberately lying himself. Or at least, I'm prepared to assume that in the name of civility. Zsero 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not first include the Thompsons' age difference at Fred Thompson. Cease repeating this falsehood, especially in my User space. Italia^vivi 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I never once claimed that you were the very first person ever to note the age difference, or to use the "junior" language. I did say that you were the one "insisting on adding it when it wasn't there before" - and that is the honest truth, as I have documented extensively. It is also the truth that you were the one who started a whole edit-war to insert the "junior" language, which had only ever been on the page for 4 hours before you came along. You also made the utterly false claim that the "first attempted removal of the info was June 6th, I didn't start editing here 'til June 12th"; a claim that you have not yet retracted. You are in no position to accuse others of lying while your own misstatement of the facts stands. Zsero 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You said that I added it when it wasn't there before because "it is obviously important to me for some reason," which did not assume good faith, was uncivil, and focused on the author rather than the content or merit of argument. Your false claim that I first inserted the information was a distraction and a lie. If you find it tiresome that your falsehoods are being debunked, cease spreading falsehoods and don't return to my User space again. Italia^vivi 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See here.Ferrylodge 01:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I did not realize it until now, but you have breached the three-revert rule on the Kaifeng Jews page. This warning should have come sooner, but I just checked the edit history. You have reverted the "see also" section 5 different times. I will be reporting you to admins. In addition, please see WP:OWN and Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also. --Ghostexorcist 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)