User talk:Itzse

Welcome!

Hello, Itzse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 23:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page[edit]

I thought you might like to check out the new project I'm working on on my user page. Thanks again for your support of truth and justice. --GHcool 05:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-related Wikipedia articles[edit]

Of course, I believe that Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are all terrorist organizations. I also believe that the MR8 was a terrorist organization during the military dictatorship of Brazil, even though I personally supported the group's ideals. My own personal definition for a terrorist is any group or person that harms a third party individual or group in order to influence a political entity, but this is not everybody else's definition. Because of this, I'm willing to give the word "terrorism" the benefit of the doubt when it comes to NPOV.

As for the perceived anti-Semitism on Wikipedia, I think it exists more on articles related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict more than it does on other articles. Consider the articles for the 1948 War of Independence or the Palestine Liberation Organization. They are, for the most part, a pretty honest look at the subjects. It leads me to believe that the silent majority of Wikipedians are honest and try to be unbiased. --GHcool 18:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contact info[edit]

Hi Itzse: You have not enabled your Wikipedia Email feature in your "my preferences" at the top of your user page. Sometimes editors overlook that when it's a useful way of staying in touch with other editors. Best wishes. IZAK 03:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Haven't yet had the pleasure of meeting you but recently I enjoyed reading some of your edits. Good luck, Amoruso 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know that someone out there appreciates your work, and takes the time to read your edits. Itzse 17:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rebbe[edit]

Itzse! I have made a Template:Infobox Rebbe to help with pages for rebbishe bios. However, not everyone likes us and it has already been put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_Rebbe. If you would like to see it kept, you have your chance now.--Redaktor 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment to Klezmer -- our dispute is over because I finally just gave up and don't want to waste any more time or energy on it -- as you can see Klezmer stubbornly insists on ignoring and deleting and excluding any facts or truths, no matter how well known or accepted, that he can't find in his own "research" or in books with ISBN numbers, and imposing what he "knows" as the only facts on everyone else. Wiki's loss. --ChosidFrumBirth 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you started the page on Boruch of Medzhbizh thought you'd be interested - IZAK got in touch and convinced me to get back involved, so I did, starting with Klezmer's reverts on the pages on the Baal Shem Tov, Hasidic Dynasties, and Medzhbizh dealing with the fact that a Medzhbizh dynasty did exist (does) and Boruch was spiritual heir to his grandfather.

Klezmer again undid every edit because it didn't agree with his own personal view. He claims Boruch of Medzhibozh, grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, who argued with the Baal HaTanya over who was the Baal Shem Tov's rightful heir, was nevertheless a student and follower/disciple of Pinchos of Koritz and not of his own grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov, and the Ohev Yisroel was the Apter Rebbe, not Rov, and founder of the Medzhiboz/Zinkov dynasty, because he wants to "eliminate" or at least discount Boruch and the Medzhibozh dynasty, but he's got his facts wrong, and won't listen to anyone else. Just FYI in case you want to give your input because I'm about to give up again. --ChosidFrumBirth 21:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - The same issue effects 4 pages -- the Baal Shem Tov page, the List of Hasidic Dynasties, and the Apta and Mezdzhiboz Hasidic dynasty pages.--ChosidFrumBirth 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Going by and saying hello[edit]

Thank you for the warm comments on my talk page. As far as the Hezbollah article is concerned, I think the page is better than it ever has been. I would like to see the page unappologetically refer to Hezbollah as a terrorist group, but unfortunately WP:WTA does not allow for that. I just changed a word in the "Introduction and Background" section from "Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon was one focus of Hezbollah's early activities" to "Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon was the primary focus of Hezbollah's early activities." I hope it will stick. --GHcool 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the article as a whole you're right; it's better then what some would like it to say, but still quite short of the objective truth. But most people don't read though entire articles especially long ones. So to my understanding the initial paragraph of every article needs to give the reader some idea of the subject on hand; then the rest of the introductory paragraphs needs to give the complete picture in a nutshell; with the rest of the article going into all the details.

In this case the real introduction doesn't tell the reader the primary reason for which Hezbollah was created; rather we have another section following the introduction named "Introduction and Background". I think I'm going to rename it "Background of Hezbollah" or "Background" alone since all introductory paragraphs until a new section starts is really an introduction.

I gave a look at WP's rules on WTA and I plan to sharpen the rules and remove any ambiguity. I'll be bold and let the chips fall where they may. Of course I'm always open to constructive criticism. Itzse 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hasidic dynasties[edit]

I have drafted a template for use on all the (Hasidic dynasty) pages. Please have a look. There are still some details which need to be ironed out. --Redaktor 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good, but we need to break it down even more to include Bohemia and Moravia and many others. Itzse 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which ones (besides Nikolsburg) are in Bohemia & Moravia? --Redaktor 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, at the top of my head nothing comes to mind. I did actually have Nikolsburg in mind; but just like the present day Nikolsburger Rebbe has nothing whatsoever with the Rebbe Reb Shmelke of Nikolsburg; he was just looking for a catchy title, (I have nothing personally against him); so I predict that many more Bohemian & Moravian names will be claimed in the coming years because the Polish, Galicianer & Hungarian catchy ones were already claimed. So I thought that some have already been claimed & if they come to mind I'll mention them. Also I didn't mean necessarily only Bohemia & Moravia; the American ones also need a category.

BTW the Rebbe Reb Shmelke was more Rov then Rebbe in Nikolsburg just like in a lesser sense the Yismach Moshe was more Rov then Rebbe in I'hel. The Yismach Moshe actually feered Rabisteve in I'hel; but I have yet to find a single solid evidence that the Rebbe Reb Shmelke actually spread Chasidus in Nikolsurg, Moravia.

Yes a lot of stories are said regarding this; that The Rebbe Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk came to Nikolsburg, and that the Rebbe Reb Shmelke's talmidim of the third generation of Chasidus studied by him in Nikolsburg. But the sefer Koros Ho'itim; written by Avrahom Trebitch who was born in Nikolsburg in 1760; so he knew the Rebbe Reb Shmelke, only tells us what a great Tzaddik and "Chosid" (Holy) man the Rebbe Reb Shmelke was, and that the day he arrived in Nikolsburg he already performed a miracle & brought rain. What really stands out, is that Reb Mordecai Benet (claimed as a talmid of the Rebbe Reb Shmelke, which IMO is probably not true) had absolutely no Shaichos to Chasidus. I have yet to find someone in the know who can shed light on all this. Itzse 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of the British Mandate of Palestine[edit]

If San Juan can be the capital of Puerto Rico, Edinburgh can be the capital of Scotland, Toronto can be the capital of Ontario, and Atlanta can be the capital of Georgia, Jerusalem can most certainly be the capital of the British Mandate of Palestine. I have looked at the definition of "capital", and I would suggest you not make a derisive remark like the one you made in your edit summary without checking your facts. The definition – a city which is the centre of government of a country or smaller political area – most certainly applies here. -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now if you want to contest the source... that's another matter. The British Mandate of Palestine article states that a capital was not specified, but the source says otherwise. I'll look for supporting sources. -- tariqabjotu 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have already said what I was going to say that Wikipedia's own article on the British Mandate of Palestine doesn't state that Jerusalem was the "capital" of the mandate nor does it state that a mandate can have a capital, so first it needs to be established as correct before it is applied here. Secondly I object to that term as it has a certain connotation and I suspect it was put there with ulterior motives. So in the final analysis unless a qualified source can be established it shouldn't even be considered.

I certainly didn't intend to make a derisive remark, but in the short space allotted to explain myself, my words doubled up as pointing you to Wikipedia's own articles and that thay don't support that assertion. I should have phrased it differently that "Wikipedia’s article on capital doesn’t support its use", sorry for being slightly personal. But let me ask you, if you were slighted then why do you do the same thing and make a derisive personal remark that I should check "my" facts, without considering that maybe I did check my facts?

Putting the above aside with no hard feelings, let's deal with the issue. I disagree that the definition of "capital" supports the use of "capital" on an entity which has no ownership but is entirely an outside body administering a country. For example; can Berlin be considered the capital of the Allies administering defeated Nazi Germany? The examples of Puerto Rico, Scotland, Ontario and Georgia aren’t similar at all to our issue and our case fails both definitions of Cambridge. Itzse 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I looked at a couple of your last edits on Jerusalem and thought they were somewhat subjective or needed some more sourcing. Because it's up for FAC there are some who are scrutinizing every tiny detail and where it's attributed to. I am sure you agree about how important this article is, and how awesome it would be if it were accepted as only the second FA in all of Wikiproject Israel (3042 articles!) nadav 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand your concern, but I'm concerned for the truth regardless where the chips may fall. As I’m new to editing this article without the baggage of all the bickering to date, which I'm sure such an article would entail. So I thought that maybe a fresh seeker of the truth can straighten things out, and without reading the history of the article decided to take it head on. I'm certainly open to criticism and am more then willing to hear where I have erred. Please show me where I have erred and I'll either contest it or reconsider it. Thanks Itzse 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Kochba discussion[edit]

Your post on the talk page was very interesting, and it explains the reason for our discussion. I am looking now at an article by Lee Levine, "Jerusalem from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Second Jewish Revolt" (appears in the book Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism ed. by Hershel Shanks). He writes

Perhaps the most frequent subject of discussion concerning the Bar-Kochba revolt related to its causes. One was a decree of the Roman emperor Hadrian prohibiting the practice of circumcision; according to a fourth century biography of Hadrian this was the immediate cause of the outbreak of hostilities. However the Roman historian Dio Cassius, in his early third century History of Rome, tells us that it was the anouncement of Hadrian's intention to build a new city to be called Aelia Capotilina on the site of Jerusalem that triggered the rebellion...Opinion has been divided over which was the real cause,or, alternatively, which was the primary cause of the revolt. Both may well have constituted indispensible ingredients leading to the outbreak of hostilities. As we shall see, however, other basic conditions were also important in accounting for teh revolt.

He then discusses the context for each of these decisions, and how the Romans had done similar things elsewhere. He then continues:

While these decrees probably explain the the specific timing of the outbreak of hostilities, Eusebius, the fourth century bishop of Caesarea, in a passage often ignored, suggests that the revolt was not simply a sudden eruption of Jewish nationalist and religious fervor but was rather the culmination of a decades-long period of discontent and unrest following the destruction of the Second Temple.
Eusebius also notes that because the Romans were apprehensive of any type of messianic or royal claims, they sought to track down those Jews of Davidic descent.

In the next section, he describes revolts that had occured a few years earlier among Diaspora Jews, and the possiblity that there was some revolt in Judea at the same time. Archaeologists also have unearthed extensive road building in those years in Judea, which often had military uses. The most interesting part is picture depicting an Aelia Capitolina coin. The caption reads:

Minted in 131 C.E., this coin depicts the temple to Jupiter, flanked by statues of Juno and Minerva, which the Roman emperor Hadrian planned to build on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Hadrian's plan to transform Jewish Jerusalem to a Roman city named Aelia Capitolina sparked the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome in 132 C.E. The new Roman name for the city is inscribed on the coin COL(onia) AEL(ia) KAP(itolina), a name combining one of Hadrian's names, Aelius, with a reference to the three deities of the Roman Capitolina, Jupiter, Juno and Minerva.

I invite you to help expand Bar Kochba revolt especially, and maybe History of Jerusalem. The background section in the first one could use the stuff you brought forward. When I have more time in a few days I'll try to work on it too. nadav 01:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadav; for someone who had no expertise on this subject; your apprehension of the facts to put together the puzzle is impressive. My specialty is to try to reconcile where the Talmud contradicts the secular understanding of history. I have written extensively on this with most of it not yet published. A few of my ideas have already been used by others; but I'm keeping the most brainstorming of them to publish myself.

I'm thinking of placing a disclaimer, as people might think that I endorse the secular version of the Bar Kochba war as opposed to the Talmudic version regarding when the war was started and the duration of the war. But the facts like writings on coins need to be interpreted and attributed relative to the dates given and where two facts clash they have to be re-evaluated. For example, according to Rabbinic (Talmudic) chronology "Yetziyas Mitzrayim" (the exodus) took place in 1322 BCE. So to me as a Torah true Jew, that is a fact. Now the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt is given as ruling between the years 1550-1292 BCE. Therefore one might say, that because Pharaoh Ay ruled in 1322 BCE therefore he is the Pharaoh of the exodus; but it is not so, because the dates of the rulers and dynasties are interpreted relative to when the starting point, middle point or ending point is established. So to me the starting point or the ending point of the dynasties will need to be adjusted accordingly. The same is here in our Bar Kochba article, that relative to the secular dates given as when the war took place (even if I disagree with them) all the other facts like numismatic evidence needs to be interpreted accordingly.

The last time I thought out the whole scenario of the Bar Kochba war was a long time ago. Since then new information have come to my attention and old interpretations have been re-interpreted. To hash out the exact differences between the Talmudic understanding and the secular understanding and incorporate both correctly in the article is no easy matter. I only have so much time; but if others will help maybe in the course of time it can be done. Itzse 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just gave a look at the Bar Kochba article as you suggested. It has quite a few errors. I'll try to fix them. Itzse 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your most recent edits. I feel they were made in good faith but had the overall effect of degrading the article due to problems with spelling, facts and sourcing, and POV. I, like you, do not want the article to deny the reality of anti-Semitism nor the parallels between the actions of the Roman Empire and past actions/future plans of Arab leaders. However, making sure the edits reflecting this are of the highest possible quality will help greatly in the endeavor, as will putting proposed major edits on the talk page first. Calbaer 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your acknowledging that my edits were done in good faith, but I cannot understand why you reverted my edits. If the spelling isn't good then fix it. If you dispute anything I wrote then put a "citation" tag next to it. Regarding POV, I fail to understand what you mean; I do not think that my contributions necessarily reflect my POV; I'm very careful to leave different POV's even if I personally disagree with them. I equally included the Talmudic account, and labeled it as such, the losses the Jews suffered in Betar; and also included their victories, which Historians say that they wiped out the entire 22nd legion. As to the particular edits which you deleted, I'll explain them on its articles talk page. I want to remind you that edits need not be of the highest quality, any edits that add more information or enhance the existing information are welcome; and if you feel that the article was degraded then feel free to upgrade it; but not by wiping out wholesale someone else's work.

BTW, almost all of my edits are done from memory, so I do make a mistake here and there. But eventually I revisit all these articles and if someone else didn’t catch the mistake, in most cases I will. As to the date I gave for the fall of the Byzantine Empire 1517; that was an oversight on my part as in the middle of my sleep if asked I would tell you that it’s 1453. Still doesn’t warrant a deletion but a correction. Itzse 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not perform a "deletion" or "wipe out your work"; as clearly stated in (the perhaps inappropriately titled) Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about Wikipedia, Wikipedia can only be added to, not modified, as your contribution remains part of the history, for you to use as you desire. Instead, I reverted from one version to another, feeling that the earlier version was superior. If you want, you can share your version on the talk page, indicating how you think it is superior, and, if others agree, I will gladly go with the consensus. As stated in Wikipedia:How to edit a page, "Before engaging in a major edit, consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page. During the edit, if doing so over an extended period of time, the {{inuse}} tag can reduce the likelihood of an edit conflict."

If you make a major change to an article, it should enhance, not degrade it. I felt that your contribution, on the balance, degraded the article, thus my reversion. I am not enough of an expert on the subject to correct every factual mistake that was made and I do not have the time to correct every linguistic mistake that was made nor to add a citation tag to every change in the article. If you want someone to do that for you, again, the talk page is problem a better place to begin, with the changes applied to the article page when they are ready. Calbaer 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not enough of an expert to correct it, then stay out of it and let those that do know take care of it. Wikipedia has enough experts on board who will eventually get to it. At the most you can challenge it, question it, but not delete it. I'm sure that there are enough articles where you have enough expertise to correct them. If you don't have the time to correct or challenge, then don't, and leave that job to others.

I think you got the concept of Wikipedia completely wrong. We are not talking here about two stationed versions and the question is which is superior. The article on Bar Kochba as most articles on Wikipedia aren’t complete yet, a lot of information is still missing. I or anybody else has no obligation to first ask for permission to add or edit it. The talk page is only there if anything's challenged. The old versions FYI is for all practical purposes gone and the latest version is what is worked with. The old versions are there to recover good contributions that are lost either maliciously or innocently or somewhere in between. Its history is also there so that vandalism can be reverted; but not for someone to come along and say that I liked last year’s version better so I'll revert it. If you liked last years version then the right thing to do is to merge the two and have the best of both worlds. If you don't know how, then leave it to those that do.

I'm just not in the mood to correct you on a whole bunch of issues; so in short; the spelling mistakes weren't mine except "burry" which I spelled with one "r" because I was in a hurry with 2 "r's". Jupiter as a planet was there by a previous edit. Grammer and linguistic mistakes will be corrected by the grammer and linguistic experts. Facts and sourcing; there is no requirement that you can't edit unless you give your source; most good edits on Wikipedia aren't sourced but eventually will, or it will not stand the test of time. POV; I have already told you that I don't know what you mean. Major edits; I do not think that my edits were major; they added considerable amount of information to the article where each bit can be accepted or challenged. As far as enhancing not degrading, who made you the arbitrator to decide that; by all means you be the one to enhance it but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Itzse 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't throw anything out. I reverted to a version I thought was better. I am the arbiter of that, just as you are the arbiter that yours is better. As you yourself say, any conflict can be discussed on the talk page. There's no requirement that a reversion "prove" the reverted material inferior. That is why I replied that you may want to discuss it on the talk page and why I didn't try to "sneak by" the reversion. I want you to have your say; just know that, like me, you don't have "final say" just because you wrote a certain quantity of material. It's quality, not quantity, that counts. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and anyone can correct mistakes, but that's no excuse for sloppiness. Expecting other people to find, research, and correct your misakes one at a time is rude. Degrade an article and you can expect your contributions to be reverted, even if parts are of good quality. Hopefully the edits you are currently making will be of better quality due to my questioning your accuracy, language, sourcing, etc. Again, I'm trying to help, not hurt, even if you're offended by my reversion. Calbaer 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was insulted by your suggestion to try a sandbox version first, even if you had a right to suggest that. In my almost thousand edits no one has yet suggested that. You gave me "credit" for all the errors you found even if it was already there from before. You seem to be missing the point. You are the arbiter and have a right as much as I do to decide what’s good, what’s bad and what’s ugly. What you don't have a right is to arbitrarily say that I liked it better before Itzse came along and added new information. If you don't like my edits then you change them not revert them. Let me explain it a little better. If you don't like someone’s additions then challenge them, enhance them, or leave them alone. Nobody has a right to say I don't like it therefore I'll revert it.

BTW I do not expect to have final say, that’s exactly why I can make edits on the fly and make edits from memory and am not afraid of an occasional error of mine. Some of my edits are quality, some are quantity and some are both, and to Wikipedia which is a work in progress both count. I totally disagree with you that "degrade an article and you can expect your contributions to be reverted". Even if in your eyes the article was degraded, you still don't have a right to revert it, only to enhance it. You just can't delete facts of information because you don't like the spelling and grammar. Itzse 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to insult you, and I didn't suggest you use a sandbox, but instead to use an inuse tag. I didn't point out any specific errors except for the Ottoman Empire one, though I saw many problems, not just with grammar. One of the problems is illustrated by your recent edits; although you know and even mention sources in the edit summaries, you don't use footnotes to indicate them! If want your edits to stand, adding a footnote is the most effective means of doing so. Everyone has a right to revert. If you don't like the reversion, there's re-reversion and there's the talk page. You seem to be asserting a "right" to have your version in Wikipedia, to have your edits rephrased rather than replaced or reverted. No one has that right. I, like you, am merely trying to make the article of as high a quality as possible. We have different opinions on how to do so, but you made your edits in good faith and so did I. So please let's move past this and just improve the article, making sure any edits do just that. Calbaer 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell I have nothing personally against you and you have nothing against me and that’s how it should be; just your suggestion on the articles talk page to first use the sand box upset me as it would you. There is a difference in our understanding of what edits are legit in Wikipedia. You seem to understand that every edit needs to have a footnote and quote chapter and verse. If that should be the case then 99 percent of Wikipedians should pack up and leave and only scholars should stay. But the way I understand it to work is that anybody who can use their knowledge to add or enhance an article is welcome even if they don't remember where they acquired their knowledge. Sure everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, but a lack of the sources at hand should not stop someone from making edits, as long as it's done in good faith. It is quite understandable that an article that has everything documented and is complete (which this article is not one of them), that new information should be supplied with documentation, but even then it is not an absolute requirement as it can be supplied later or by others. Again if I need to document everything that I edit then I'm very limited as I don't have my library of over 10,000 books on me. But if I don't need to document everything right now then I can probably write a complete encyclopedia on my own given the time. I do not think that I have any more rights then anybody else; I just ask that consideration should be given to someone’s contributions and leave them alone or enhance them unless you can show what's wrong with it. There was no need for me to first go to the talk page as I didn't anticipate any problems to begin with. Itzse 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice you've mischaracterized what I've said. This was done for the benefit of no one but yourself (who else is reading this?), to make yourself feel like you are the reasonable one and I am not. This I do indeed have a problem with. I pointed out the importance of sources, that if you know what the source is, putting it in the edit summary but not the article page makes no sense unless you're footnote-phobic. (People don't read the edit summaries to find out where a fact comes from unless they have lots and lots of time on their hands.) That's not the same as demanding a source for each and every fact. The second mischaracterization, the "sandbox" comment, clearly hit a sore spot, but I made the comment as a suggestion for what you could do for disputed edits if you didn't want to put them on the talk page, not a demand of what you should do before making any change. Calbaer 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear that there is a misunderstanding between us even if we both might be reasonable, therefore it's not worth agonizing anymore about it. I do plan to put on my user page a little bit more of my views about Wikipedia, my preferences and what makes me tick, and see what the reaction will be. I'm only here for a year and a half, so maybe my perception of Wikipedia is wrong. I'm still willing to learn. Itzse 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for interjecting) But may I also suggest that instead of bickering, we work on adding to the article? There is a lot to add. I suggested some things in the to do on the talk. I am sure you guys can suggest more. nadav 22:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem's "history"[edit]

What was wrong with "extensive" for describing Jerusalem's history in the lead. -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was wrong with "extensive"; I just thought that "rich" was even better as it gives a positive feeling. In reality all three: "storied", "extensive" and "rich" are all true; but I think you did the right thing by removing a qualifier altogether, as the content of the article should give the reader those feelings that Jerusalem has a storied, extensive and rich history. Itzse 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) at Mediation Cabal[edit]

Hi Itzse: A long-simmering editorial dispute between Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs) over how to deal with information about certain Hasidic topics has reached the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Please see and provide any helpful input at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Thank you, IZAK 15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Trailing interest[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Trailing interest, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/03/senate_credit_cards02.html. As a copyright violation, Trailing interest appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Trailing interest has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Trailing interest and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Trailing interest with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Trailing interest.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. </ref>

I rewrote it using Wikipedia's explanation of this term instead of Consumer affairs explanation; although they were only paraphrasing Senator Levin’s words. Itzse 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it appears to be a copyright violation itself, since I found substantially the same text at http://www.the-creditcard-review.com/articles/credit_card_101/what_is_trailing_interest.htm . Meaning maybe both articles need to be fixed. Looks like we've opened a can of worms. My apologies. --Finngall ^talk 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then why wasn't it deleted from the Credit card article? If it's a copyright violation then it should be removed from there too. Itzse 19:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to delete the section outright without a discussion on the talk page, but I've tagged it with a {{copypaste}} tag for now to draw attention to it. Other sections may also be in need of attention. --Finngall ^talk 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for rabbinical biographies[edit]

Hi Itzse: Congratulations on your overall excellent editorial and writing work. I recently came across articles you began about Rabbis David Tebele Scheuer, Mechel Scheuer, Abraham Naftali Hertz Scheuer, Samuel Benjamin Sofer. If the information is from the Jewish Encyclopedia please add the {{JewishEncyclopedia}} template to those pages. If you derived it from other sources then kindly add them because as you know sooner or later someone will come along and slap those kind of unsourced articles with {{unreferenced}} and/or {{not verified}} and/or {{cite}} and/or {{fact}} templates. Best wishes with you work and feel free to contact me. Sincerely, IZAK 05:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

Thanks for your kind comment, I appreciate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond[edit]

Hi Itzse: It would be very helpful if you would take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)#Summary Conclusions / Understanding and say what you think of the "understanding". Thanks so much and have a good Yom Tov. IZAK 10:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for mediation/Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. IZAK 16:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-Palestinian history denial[edit]

I was being honest.

First, I corrected your misspelling of "Israeli's"; it shouldn't have an apostrophe.

Second, I corrected your grammar. "Arabs living in this land prior to the founding of the modern State of Israel" is mis-matched. Since the State was established in 1948, there are no Arabs living in the land prior to 1948; they lived in the land prior to 1948.

Finally, the question isn't whether they now constitute a nation. As you wrote, Israelis believe that the sense of "nation-hood" was created by the PLO over the past 40 years, and few question the existence of a Palestinian identity today. The real question, as I wrote, is whether the Palestinian Arabs constituted a nation before 1948, which is why I deleted the word "now".

I'm not trying to be difficult or dishonest, and I'm not trying to misrepresent what Israelis believe. I was just trying to improve the sentence that you edited. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to these changes which don't make a difference. I was referring to the other change; which I made again now. While at it, I also made your above two changes.

I'll take you on your word that you’re honest and I apologize. Itzse 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary in which you made that comment was about these edits, which is why I explained them. With regard to my other edit, concerning Jordanians), I can only tell you that it's what I hear. I've heard Israelis say that Palestinians already have a state, Jordan, or that they have Jordanian passports. I've never heard anybody say that Palestinian Arabs in Israel are no different than Palestinian Arabs in Jordan. If that's what most Israelis say, I can only tell you that it's not what I've heard from the Israelis I know, those I've met socially, and the newspapers I read. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say that most Israelis say so. It says that "A small proportion of Israeli Jews" who advocate "transfer" they are the ones making that claim. Could be that many in the "left" or "center" believe so too but are more pragmatic. Be it as it may the article is referring to "Kach" and other right wingers. Itzse 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty).

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Palestinians or Palestinian People?[edit]

You started a message to me on my userpage, but terminated it in midword. Never mind, I read the arguments on this topic on the Palestinian Whatever-they-are discussion page.

I must say that it seems to me you are oversensitive. "Palestinians", "Palestinian People", "Palestinian Arabs" - doesn't seem much to choose between them as far as NPOV is concerned. The view that there is no such thing as Palestinian peoplehood is presented in the article, I think adequately. Likewise, the view that Palestinian nationality is a politically expedient reaction to Zionism is also presented. So when I read the article, I thought there was a basic fairness about it. In an issue as charged as this one, I don't expect much more in the way of NPOV.

What's more important to me is that I read the article and found it interesting. And found a lot of interesting information that I didn't know before. Bias I can live with - insipidness is unforgivable.

I suppose that's a very unwiki thing to say, but there you have it.

So I guess you can't rely on me for support in this round. But stay in touch. --Ravpapa 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding but I beg to differ with you. To me bias on the Street, I can live with - bias in Wikipedia is unforgivable.

If you don't have a zest or interest (insipidness) for this subject is forgivable and even understandable, but to me as a Jew whose heart bleeds for his people; this is not an over-reaction. This goes to the heart of the matter if Wikipedia can be a fair Encyclopedia or not. If it fails the test, I'm outta here; I don't work for the devil. Itzse 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I'm a little disappointed in your attitude, Itzse. You're essentially saying that you'll be watching my edits and arguments and if I ultimately come to a fair compromise, then you'll continue editing Wikipedia, and if not, you'll allow bigots to take over Wikipedia. This is just a website; this isn't the actual peace process. I will continue making edits and arguments with or without your help, but I'd prefer if I did have your help. --GHcool 18:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. I have been debating this within myself for a while if I should be editing in the first place. It takes a lot of time and energy, and for what? The only reason that I invest time here is because I came to the realization that this is not an ordinary web site; it is the web site. But as I clash with some editors and see that some biased editors are administrators and misuse their power; I start to question if Wikipedia is really what I thought it is. If it's not, then it’s a waste of time to be here. I also thought into, what you correctly said, that if I and other fair-minded people leave, then we'll be leaving Wikipedia to the bigots. But on the other hand if I do stay; what can I accomplish if one day the bigots gang up on us and carry the day. After all we are a handful of idealistic people who care and will do something. The majority even if they know you're right and even if they agree with you, won't lift a finger. I have already gotten a response by a well meaning editor that I overreacted. I wish we could have a good discussion on this to allay my fear and probably others, that all our work is for naught. I do understand that if I leave I will be abandoning you to stand alone (with a select few) against the world, and that thought presses me to stay. But if being here is just to hold out against the world, then I'll rather chip in and pay someone to do the job, as I have better things to do for Klal Yisroel.

I didn't mean to give you an ultimatum or to discourage you, but this particular case goes to the heart of the matter and could convince me if Wikipedia can be unbiased. Understand that my attitude is borne out of frustration, but I will try to do what I can regardless, even if it's difficult to help when you don't see any success. Thanks for standing up and being counted; I wish others would learn from you. Itzse 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find editing Wikipedia to be a burden on you, then by all means, abandon it. I find it to be intellectually stimulating. There are a million things someone that can do that are as good or better for Klal Yisroel than Wikipedia, so if its taxing on you then I won't blame you for leaving. I plan on leaving the minute this gets boring for me. --GHcool 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After so much time that I've given it, it's a disappointment to find out that WP isn't what I thought it is. I don't need WP for stimulation; I have more then enough in my personal life. Although I'll admit that it's fun, I'm here for the reason(s) I spell out on my user page which is that I enjoy doing something for Klal Yisroel; but I would prefer if it wasn't so frustrating.

What's your opinion? Can WP become a neutral source of information, and can it maintain its neutrality in the future? Itzse 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the chance of coming to a final peace settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between the actual Israeli and Palestinian leaders is significantly higher than Wikipedia to ever become a stable source of NPOV information on the level of the Encyclopedia Britanica. If this discourages you from editing, then I wish you good luck. This opinion is actually one of the motivating forces for me. Its kind of like tikkun olam in a way. --GHcool 05:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itzse, I'm afraid your edits on the talk page have raised hostilities and are counter productive. Instead of focusing on "truth" vs. "lies," its better to focus on verifiability and NPOV standards of Wikipedia. As far as I know, I don't think that any of the editors in favor of "Palestinian people" have told any deliberate lies. They are just poor arguers. What did you think about that American people argument? Pretty flimsy, huh? And then after I pointed out how flimsy it was and the guy even admitted that it was flimsy, he still thinks that its that the argument proves that "Palestinian people" is the right title. Is he schizophrenic? How can an argument be both flimsy and convincing? We can (and have) do better than that. --GHcool 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never admitted it was flimsy. Why don't you just come straight out and call me an idiot, if that's your attitude when people don't see things the way you do. --Steve, Sm8900 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GHCool, I'm afraid you're right. But what can I do when people’s agendas stare me in the face. I can see right through them. Where you see a candidate for Schizophrenia for losing an argument and still using it; I see a person who wants it his way and the argument is only for window dressing to officially be seen as following the rules. I keep trying to learn from you to stick to the arguments, but I can't help it when I see ill faith constantly. From a simpleton like Sam (who called him?) who doesn't see consensus and is ready to use his gavel immediately to Tiamut who is a veteran at skirting the issue and using every trick in the book to get her way. What can I do, I was raised on truth and to admit a mistake when you make one. It is extremely difficult to play the game of pretending although it looks like that's the name of the GAME.

Thank you for your decency and for being there when we need you. I would like to take this process through completion, even dragging it through arbitration as I think it is very healthy for Wikipedia to test its strength, and on the worst case scenario, I will at least have learned how to play the game in the future. Please bear with me as I am not that familiar with the arbitration process and how to start one.

Also where are the other administrators? Are they afraid to touch this topic with a ten foot pole? Had they made the move early on, we would have avoided trouble. Time is not on our side as people with agendas and ill faith editors outnumber the good ones and they play the game of stonewalling and foot-dragging. In addition a lot of fair minded editors don't want to reveal their views and would rather stay away and watch from a safe distance. At least I learned who are the brave ones; thanks to all of them. I think you might be right, Wikipedia can be intellectually stimulating. If you stay long enough here you'll become a psychologist in addition to another few "gist’s". Itzse 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it sure is novel to hear the outlook which the two of you both have on this. Maybe sometime you'll take the time to learn the real meaning of consensus, and how Wikipedia actually works. --Steve, Sm8900 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what consensus to you means? Do you expect everybody to agree to a move even those that have an agenda? Do you think that everybody has noble intentions? You have declared Tiamut as "a good-faith editor". Do you consider GHCool and me as not good-faith editors? Itzse 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, no; in other words, I DO consider you to be good-faith editors. My comment there was in regards to people who kept revcerting Tiamat, as if she were disruptive instead of simply engaging in constructive revision of the text.

Consensus means finding other good-faith editors who agree with you, and agree that your version of the name is positive, and think that way for neutral, non-POV reasons. Not everyone has an agenda, so if the name is as biased as you say, there should be other good-faith editors willing to support your opinion. If there aren't, then the change is probably flawed, and probably will not happen. That may not be a perfect process, but at a collaborative encylopedia, that is the nature of the editing and decision-making process. --Steve, Sm8900 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would expect you to be fair and support the move as almost a dozen editors are for the move or don't object to it. Ill will can't be proven most of the time, but it surely can be felt, and in Tiamut's case where she has numerous times reverted my edits wholesale and engaged afterwards in meaningless discussion, I have a right to consider her a biased editor. Also when two editors poke fun together at another editor; that speaks volumes. Will you support the move if a dozen editors are for the move or don't oppose it? After all it is being moved to a name which the article had for a number of years, and only recently one editor unitarily changed it. Do we even need a consensus?

the answer is no, i would never support such a move. The phrase to "Palestinian people" is so innocuous as to be almost meaningless. there is no reason to make an issue over it. Frankly, i think that phrase is better for the pro-Israel side, as it refers only to the Palestinians as a political entity, and does not give them an ethnic identity which they can carry from palce to place.

As for this whole move effort, I consider it totally counte-productive. The only goal seems to be to deny even a small semantic awarness of Palestinians as a group, since the word "people" confers abolsutely no political rights or status.

The way to gain consensus here on controversial issues is by granting some benefit of the doubt to some of the other side's basic premises, without yielding one's basic stance on important issues. If you simply fight all of the other side's assertions, you gain nothing and prove nothing. And again, using the word "people" is not a major assertion at all, in any way. --Steve, Sm8900 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are against the move beacuse you oppose it; why are you arguing that there is no consensus? If there will be a consensus will you defer? Itzse 16:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's a fair question. the answer is that if there is a consensus, the admins would probably defer, and would do the move. by the way, on article names, the process is different than debates on other changes. It is assumed that an article name is a fairly straightforward matter, so if there is a number of people who support the current name, even if it is controversial, the admin will put the burden of proof on those who want to change to a new article name, regardless of the issues involved. --Steve, Sm8900 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those that want to keep a controversial name, which was unitarily moved without consensus? Isn't it fair to first change it back to the name it had for years and then the burden of proof should be on those that want to move it to a new controversial name? Itzse 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you make some fair points. however, if that name really did not have a consensus, multiple editors would have requested a revert ~~it would have been instantly reverted~~ at the time, or also, they could easily request one now. ~~it could be easily reverted now.~~ the fact that it cannot, means there is a consensus in favor of it. the fact there was very little discussion before the previous name change does not change the fact that there now appears to be some substantial support for the current name. --Steve, Sm8900 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it was unitarily moved without consensus it was moved to a name that didn't exist which is "Palestinian people", therefore any editor can do that. But now it technically cannot be moved back, only by an administrator since the old name "Palestinians" actually exists as a redirect with some edits. So it is a technicality that it cannot be reverted by just anybody, not because there is a consensus in favor of it.

There isn’t any substantial support for the current controversial name by fair and unbiased Wikipedians. On the other hand there is a substantial support to turn it back to its original name, with also a few who don't see the need but don't oppose it. I think it is unfair to keep the status quo which is controversial to a lot of people and hide behind a technicality. Itzse 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. i have changed my comment accordingly. see above. --Steve, Sm8900 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see it cannot be easily reverted now, as there is a major effort at stonewalling and foot-dragging. So after three weeks of repeated requests first by Nadav then by GHCool what we get is only more excuses, and pity me if I allow myself to get frustrated; that in itself is used against me by those unfair editors who now engage in "righteous indignation" and will punish Wikipedia and reverse unashamedly their positions because they want to punish me. (See the comment about digging his own grave; it speaks for itself as to the intentions of its writer and those that chimed in). So it is clear that not fairness is sought but every means to block it. Do you still have any confidence in Wikipedia? Itzse 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask Steve : Have you ever thought of going into conflict resolution or counselling? Seriously. Your ability to see things from all perspectives and working towards consensus is so inspiring. Tiamat 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Tiamat! I appreciate it. In fairness to Itzse, we're not supposed to have our own discussion on his talk page. but I just wanted to reply briefly.

She proves my point. She has no sense of fairness, she has no problem wooing someone on someone else's talk page (Hagam lichboish es hamalkeh imi baboiyis (Do you want to woo the queen with me present) (Scroll of Esther). She is using Wikipedia to push her views and breaks all rules "professionally" as her record will indicate. I have no interest to engage with her in any debate; let other editors expose her. Just look at her record which is a record of arrogance. I will not say ignorance because she does know better. Itzse 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no pleasing you Itzse. Complimenting Steve shows I have "no sense of fairness" and that I am "wooing the Queen" with you present?!? Please. In any case, if it was rude or inappropriate for me to leave a note here without addressing you, I am truly sorry. I thought I hold my tongue and refrain from addressing you directly since your comments had piqued my anger at the time and I didn't want to go around being an angry WP:MASTODON. I think we should just try and keep it clean and directly relevant to article-building in the future since we seem to intrinsically piss one another off. With that, I bid you adieu. Tiamat 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are meant for the visitors to this page. I am not addressing Tiamut as she is helplessly biased; her record (go check it out) talks volumes. She has a habit of first reverting anything she considers against the Palestinian POV. She has reverted my edits and other editors edits wholesale without even bothering to explain on the "Edit summary". Even her attempt at damage control, she couldn't bring herself to admit doing anything wrong but had to use the "if it was rude" qualifier. She is a professional and if I were the PLO, I would hire her to work full time on Wikipedia. But even with a good command of English at her disposal; she and her cohorts here on Wikipedia will in the end fail, as false arguments and evasions will not last and survive. She actually admits to being rude and wants to drag me with her. Sorry but my record is clean; she only talks for herself. Itzse 19:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be quitting Wikipedia any time soon. --GHcool 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect you to be quitting Wikipedia, if you had convinced me to stay. I meant to ask you not to quit arguing for the page name change even if only a handful of Wikipedians are making themselves heard. Thanks for your help. When we agree on something I'll try to be of help too. Itzse 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian identity section[edit]

Hi Itzse. Notice you made a few changes in identity origins section. Looks like you have a good eye for detail. As you can see from the Talk page, some of us have worked on that section piece-by-piece, even vetting some changes on the Talk before making the edit. I'm wondering if you'd consider undoing most of the text about 1964 and "Instead, they rallied for ________." Or maybe you'd feel ok if I undo it? Your main concern seems to be whether statehood was on their mind in 1964. Could you note that on the Talk page. Plus, if not a state, what aspect of their identity after pan-Arabism did they shift to? You longer insertion seems to possibly distract the reader from the main point of the paragraph. See what I mean? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm aware of the discussion on the talk page regarding editing piece by piece, I don't have the time needed to digest it. My edits, I thought won't disrupt the debates going on the talk page. If I'm wrong, then feel free to adjust my edits. The line that the PLO was created in 1964 for the purpose of establishing a Palestinian State is fundamentally wrong which prompted my edit and a source for it. If it needs to be adjusted then go ahead but undoing it will render that line incorrect. Itzse 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually took the information from the PLO article, but first I checked it out for its accuracy, hence the source. After re-reading it, it might make more sense to adjust it. My main concern was accuracy as you can see that I'm a perfectionist. The way it was written was simply incorrect. Itzse 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being makpid can be useful here. I revised the text down to a correction about state. I tried putting your text into a footnote. Maybe check there if you feel like it. Kol tuv. HG | Talk 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk:Palestinian people. As you said, your tone was sarcastic. You keep asking me whether I side with specific people, you talk about being "in cahoots with them," and you describe things in terms of brothers and enemies -- all of which deals with Wikipedia as a battleground, which it is not. You also claimed that my involvement here is "unfair". You also imply that I am not writing in good faith ("Whom are you kidding" "don't pretend otherwise"). Such remarks do not belong on an article's Talk page -- please go back and strikeout or otherwise edit them. If you feel you need to pursue any concerns with me personally, it's better to first raise these on my talk page. It's difficult for me to converse with you on the substance if you are unkind to me and turning this into a personal battle. HG | Talk 23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen HG, you might be a good man; I simply don't know until you’ve earned it in my eyes. You surely agree with me that there are plenty of bad apples out there, and one can never know; after all Wikipedia is open for all and no background check is done. It is true that Wikipedians should assume good faith; but you will probably agree with me that at some point it is very difficult to assume good faith; and sometimes it's even more difficult to pretend to assume good faith; and at some point it becomes clear that someone has lost their integrity and we not only don't assume anymore good faith but we even admonish them, as for example vandalizers.

I have been involved on that particular page for the last two months. After numerous blanket reversions or ignoring my edit summaries, and some other observations of fowl play; it became crystal clear to me that Tiamut is NOT editing in good faith. Instead of admonishing her; I saw Steve shower praises on her, probably about 20 such praises in those 2 months; so what do you think I should have done; assume that those praises were done in good faith? I would have done that, had I not observed him engaging with Tiamut in mocking me. I also observed them pointing out to each other to look here and look there; which to me clearly showed that Steve is not here to help but to personally help Tiamut. This is what I observed on the pages of WP, and who knows how much communication they had via email or by telephone.

Itzse, I don't communicate with Steve over email or telephone. Before today, I hadn't even checked my email in over a month. Please don't make baseless accusations of conspiratorial actions or POV pushing on my part. I'm a good faith editor with a passion for my people and subjects related to them, but I do try to include other viewpoints when they are reliably sourced and required for NPOV. Please excuse my interjection here, but I'm getting tired of your aspersions on my character and would like to see them stop. Thanks for listening. Tiamat 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My aspersions of your character is based on my experience with you. When you will stop your POV pushing, that's when I'll stop accusing you of POV pushing; it's that simple. I also love my people with a passion, and am ready to give my life for them; but still I will not push my POV; I will add it where it's missing but I will not remove the opposing views; in other words I try hard to edit fairly and neutralize the article to a NPOV. I'll extend an olive branch and invite you to turn over a new leaf and clear your name. Itzse 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the POV I express on the talk pages with my actual edits to the article. If you continue to accuse me of POV pushing without providing any material evidence, I will report you to WP:ANI for your numerous breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I have simply had it with your groundless and repetitive aspersions and accusations. I think you have confused my lack of formal redress for your statements as a green light to continue. It's not. I hope I have made myself clear and that you will cease your personalization of the issues and harassment of me from now on. Tiamat 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your putting back the quotation in its entirety is a promising beginning. Itzse 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut was the one who reverted my renaming of the article, after I had put down my arguments and waited for a response and made my change in good faith. When GHCool, who is one of the fairest Wikipedians around, took up the issue; some worked very hard to derail it, which resulted that along came Stemonitis (on a weekend, my Shabbos - by coincidence?) and quickly made a decision not to move the page, and removed the debate. When GHCool accused him of acting in bad faith; the consensus debate went on for a while longer, but the damage had already been done. The arguments were scattered all over and again Stemonitis arrived and gave a copy/paste explanation that it hadn't reached consensus and quickly archived my asking for an explanation (because it had reached 32K?).

It is clear to me watching the situation that Stemonitis was chosen for this task as he is a regular on the move page and tried geting away with a run-of-the-mill explanation. Based on everything I have seen I think I have a right to feel the way I do that a lot of discussion took place outside the pages of WP.

So I started a new sector on the talk page asking a very fair question if the intro should have an objective POV or to leave it with a one-sided POV. Guess what happened? Instead of having a meaningful discussion, Tiamut talked for the sake of talking with Steve at her side trying hard that nothing meaningful should come about.

Now you come into the picture. Instead of trying to set Tiamut straight, you actually accused me. I noticed that she and Steve are regulars on your talk page and basically you agree with them. So when you come along and accuse me of being tendentious (biased/prejudiced) and you engaged in mockery (in the use of "ad nauseum") so do you still think that I should have assumed that your saying it in good faith? When I said that "whom are you kidding", I meant it; please look and think why I said it, I think it was still a nice way of putting it, and had I not been on WP I would have said much worse.

Look, you came after Tiamut playing her tricks, and after Steve's helping hand at obfuscation; tell me, what was I to think at your one-sided comments and trying to salvage some import in Tiamut and Steves comments? That's what prompted my saying that you’re in cahoots with them. If you say that you had no hand in the back room dealings of derailing my efforts; then I'll take your word for it and strike out the word "cahoots". Otherwise you admit that you used rather harsh language at me (by using "tendentious" etc.), so we're both human.

No, I don't describe things in terms of brothers and enemies. But you and Steve are Jewish and when you bend over backwards to help a Palestinian POV pusher against a brother who is for fairness; don't you think that it hurts? Itzse 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itzse, I appreciate your explaining how you feel and your frustrations (etc) with some discussions and decisions. Some of the admin decisions can be perplexing and difficult to accept, though I would advise trying to take people at face value, even when the outcome goes against you. That said, I have to plead ignorance about your particular situation. I'm sorry that you feel I accused you of something. I've already gone back and struck out my use of tendentious, which I did use to describe your question (but not you as person). I only used "ad nauseum ?" as shorthand to what you said about earlier discussions (you'd said "extensively ad nauseum in the past"), but I'd be glad to strike that so as not to be misconstrued as mocking. In #4, I talked about the need to depersonalize the conversation, but I'm as much addressing you as Steve (who focused on supporting Tiamut herself rather than her analysis). Anyway, the need to depersonalize isn't so much an accusation as advice on how to stay sane and civil in Wikipedia. Along these lines, I really think it reflects poorly on you to keep characterizing other people the way you do above. Even if you have reduced Tiamut to a POV pusher in your mind, it's more in keeping with Wikipedia etiquette to keep those thoughts to yourself and write as if each person is acting in good faith. Also, sometimes we jump too readily to conclusions about people's motivations, forgetting how easily we ourselves make mistakes and get misunderstood. Incidentally, from my standpoint, I have disagreed with Tiamut and Steve on both substantive and etiquette matters, as you can see in our correspondence and contacts elsewhere, and told them so. Still, I harbor some belief (or am trying to write as if) I "basically agree with them" and you on what we are trying to accomplish in writing encyclopedia articles. Anyway, maybe it's for the best that you've put this on the table here. Kol tuv. HG | Talk 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While my emotions are still high, I'll express it. It takes courage to say what you have said, and I accept it fully. Your showing that you understand where I'm coming from and why I jumped to conclusions on you is encouraging. I surely shouldn't have included you in the mix and I apologize. In retrospect I see that you said things that had a much stronger effect then you intentioned; as Barry Farber would say that "I was inferring what you didn't imply".

I agree with you that it's for the best that this was put on the table; it's usually better to lay it on the table then to harbor ill feelings. But how to stay sane and at the same time completely civil (read a diplomat) on WP is extremely challenging. Itzse 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

shalom my Jewish brother, I was wodnering if you could help improving the intro to Arab Jews. Its really bad. thanks Balu2000 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I would like to, but I'm not familiar with the subject and the term. The term "Arab Jews" seems to be a contradiction. If an Arab converts to Judaism then he doesn't consider himself an Arab anymore. If a Jew lives in an Arab country it seems to me that he would call himself an "Iraqi Jew" or an "Iranian Jew" etc. not an "Arab Jew". Itzse 22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re POV pushing[edit]

Hi Itzse. It's nice to see that you haven't changed your assessment of my editing style. I would be very confused if you did not object to my edits. Indeed, I might have to ask myself what I am doing wrong. Despite your assertion that Palestinians are not a nation, there are a number of reliable sources cited throughout the article that contradict your belief. Indeed, the introduction itself discusses how Palestinians first widespread conception of themselves as a nation or people occurred prior to WWI, in other words, some 100 years ago. I realize that this may be difficult for you to accept, but these are the facts as recorded in the article. There is no contestation around this, as Nadav and others have pointed out to you on the talk page. Those who believe Palestinians are not a nation are few and far between and that unsourced fringe opinion shouldn't determine whether or not we can use the word in the lead. With respect. Tiamut 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will discuss it on your page; stay tuned. Itzse 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the place for that discussion is the talk page. I have left you two messages there. Please respond there. Tiamut 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut and Itzse,

My input here is prompted by your various comments on my Talk page and then on Talk:Palestinian people. I'm rather honored and pleased that you're both interested in my opinion. I think both of you are motivated and working to make positive contributions. You're also both trying to stay calm and work collaboratively, and you're certainly welcome to rely on my Talk (and occasionally me) if that's helpful. That said, you've both gotten under each other's skin and lost your temper at times. So it's hard for somebody (like me) to sort out what's going on. Without further investigation, which I'm not inclined to do, here are a few comments:

It seems like Tiamut realized that she thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening paragraph. Tiamut added "nation" around Sept 5/6. (Or is it much earlier?) Here's a relevant diff. Edit summary was helpful: "new material for introduction - after seeing the Armenian page, I realized the intro here needed some work - comments are welcome"
Itzse objected to addition of "nation." I think you reverted w/edit summary "Nation" is POV". (Summaries are helpful, thank to both of you!) Sept 6th
From then on, it looks like edit warring. Tiamut restores ("restoring "nation" and "endonymic" use") and Itzse again, etc. Sept 7th. Afterwards, note that you both try to communicate through the edit summaries.
Also Sept 7th, Itzse posts "POV pushing" section on Tiamut's talk. Personally, I think User Talk pages can be helpful for ironing out inter-personal conduct issues.

Tiamut: You asked for my input, for better or worse. Well, you've done many things well in handling this situation. You try to stay on substance and you appeal to third parties (e.g., me and the RfC). Your initial comments on talk ("Reverting") were \ measured and substantive. You also tried to compromise, from what I can see in the edit summaries. I can empathize with your more heated reaction to Itzse, e.g. you say he's baiting you, though I believe that was unnecessary. More importantly, Tiamut, I'm surprised you didn't go to the Talk page earlier. You know introductions are touchy. Indeed, you had already struggled with the "people" language in the opening just recently. I myself tried to be helpful there. So, I wonder if part of this conflict could have been avoided, or w/less personally enmity, if you had proposed your idea on Talk first. In addition, why not stick to Talk once you saw that Itzse disagreed with the "nation" edit?

Itzse: You've been trying to maintain what you believe to be the right NPOV balance for the article. If you don't mind my saying so, though, you start the conversation with Tiamut on a very negative note, Itzse, with the "POV pushing" heading. Personally, I think Tiamut is fairly self-aware (maybe not perfectly, but who is?) of her POV and Tiamut makes a sincere effort to not impose her POV when editing the article(s). In any case, it's not helpful -- and a bad reflection on you -- to escalate with the POV pusher accusation. It's disruptive -- for instance, it has prompted me to spend more time on this than should be necessary. Plus, it throws your interlocutors off-balance, which isn't proper. Anyway, while I'm trying not to judge the substantive merits, you seem unnecessarily combative about "nation" given the content of the rest of the article. As written now, doesn't the article show both "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israel" sources accepting Palestinian nationalist identity? Even if you're correct, "nation" seems a plausible term for somebody to add to the intro. So why not just contest it in Talk? (Also, you were challenged by Nadav to cite sources to back up your disapproval of "people" in a Talk section last week. So you can assume that your concerns with "nation" also need to be reliably sourced. Right?)

Well, it's my hope that you both appreciate the effort I've made here. Please don't bite the messenger! If you feel I'm off base, just let me down gently. (I reserve the option of correcting my errors above.) Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really very difficult to let you down gently, because I find myself accused by you of edit warring which I totally reject. I understand that you might be doing it to pacify Tiamut but it’s unfair to do it at my expense. If I should speak softly then the above wrong image of me might stick in someone’s mind, which is unfair to me. This version that you are reading is a toned down version of the original. If I still hurt you (HG), then I apologize, as my intention is only to clear a wrong image of me in your mind and by extension in the mind of others.

I'm sorry to say, but you're totally off base. I'll take it that you haven't followed the sequence of events and are totally unaware of who edited what. If you would have checked out the exact sequence of events you couldn't have come to such conclusions and made such comments.

Frankly, I am very disappointed in you trying to equate us. While my reputation is unblemished and everyone who has followed me here knows that I'm here to add my knowledge on Jewish subjects for which I have barely scratched the surface, and although I am bold, I go out of my way to be fair and uphold the neutrality of Wikipedia. Tiamut on the other hand has one agenda, and one agenda only; to push a Palestinian POV. I'm sorry to say, but your trying to put her in a good light rings hollow. Please check out what many other editors have said about her and then tell me if you still think so. Sorry I cannot sit back and watch you trying to equate us. By equating us you are actually smearing my character and exonerating her which is really not fair. It seems to me that she cannot do any bad and I cannot do very much good; that's the impression I get from your comments.

Here are some things you say which I find incorrect or disturbing. The reason I am calm is because I have given up on her, given up on the mediators, and almost given up on Wikipedia. Only people who think that they can win or accomplish something are passionate in what they do. I'll talk straight and pull no punches. I made my comment on your page only to show you that Tiamut is lying, in the belief that maybe you’ll open your eyes. Tiamut hasn't gotten under my skin at all; I know what she is up to and want to stop it; but if you (not you necessarily) will try to stop me instead of her, then I'll bid all of you good bye and let you have what you deserve. I have no softer way of putting it, that I just can't take this crap that Tiamut thought it reasonable to add "nation" to the opening paragraph. No, she knows exactly what she is doing and such comments are what lets her get away with it. While Tiamut has lost her temper many times; I haven't lost my temper even once; disappointed, yes; lost temper, no. You say that you're surprised that Tiamut didn't go to the talk page earlier; I wonder why you're surprised; don't you see that she first tries to get away with whatever she can, then she'll engage in talk with no intention of compromising but to get part of her pushing accepted and put off the rest for another round. You say that I started my conversation with a negative touch by its heading of POV pushing. My purpose is not anymore to set her straight, which I have already given up. My purpose is to point out her POV pushing to all of you. Actually I think that I'm treating her with kid gloves compared to how administrators would have dealt with her, if they only wanted to. Lastly I completely object to your equating us both as edit warring. When one side explains, but the other side says one thing on the talk page and does something else on the article; then the explainer shouldn't be labeled an edit warier simply to be able to play the equation game. Please get it straight; I am an honest editor and she is a POV pusher, and the twain doesn't meet. She needs to be admonished not mediated; you cannot mediate with someone who will only play the game of mediation with no intention of good faith editing.

Her response to you is a game which allows her to do what she wants while she is engages in dilly-dallying and in false placation. Tiamut has learned to play a game with all of you. She pretends to engage in discussion but in reality does what she wants and then has the audacity to reverse the sequence of events to make it look as if she thought she was doing the right thing. Now watch her threaten that she will report me; that's also part of her game, and if she succeeds then Wikipedia doesn’t deserve any better.

It's time to call a spade a spade; because otherwise Wikipedia will lose its valuable editors and stay with the crap. I’m really fed up with Wikipedia, and ready to bid everyone farewell. Itzse 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk. pls continue the thread there. Thanks! HG | Talk 00:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again. I've got your point(s), you don't need to belabor it (I highly doubt that Jayjg's absence is related to Tiamut). Be well, shanah tovah u'metukah, HG | Talk 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right, because I think he's the only one who has the wherewithal of saving that article, otherwise it's probably doomed. Itzse 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shraga Hager[edit]

Hi, there is currently a discussion about the notability of Rabbi Shraga Hager your insight on this would greatly be appreciated[1]. Have a beautiful day--יודל 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Wikipedia:Naming conflict[edit]

Hi Itzse,

Somewhat late I know, but I've reverted the changes you made to Wikipedia:Naming conflict on 12 July. I'm afraid your edits fundamentally conflicted with both NCON and the overarching NPOV policy, which specifically disallows the kind of alternative naming that your change proposed. My comments are at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict#Problematic additions by User:Itzse - please feel free to comment. -- ChrisO 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heter meah rabanim[edit]

Hi, I moved your question to Talk:Heter meah rabbanim and answered it there. All the best. DrorK 11:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

I'd like to send you an email, but you have no email address set up. If you'd prefer not to activate this feature, just email me instead. JFW | T@lk 01:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note[edit]

It is much appreciated. I'm really hoping people can put their (understandaby high emotional investment in this issue to one side and really focus on making a balanced, neutral article. It's a tough thing to ask people, but obviously there's no other workable way. IronDuke 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

Thank you for saying that, Itzse, it was very nice of you. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

I don't know what this question is about, but I would ask you to stop taking such a personal interest in me. Wikistalking is frowned upon. Tiamut 01:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal interest in you whatsoever; your indignation is misplaced. You stated that you do not read Hebrew, so I wondered if your claim that you're a Palestinian is true? Don't Palestinians your age read Hebrew? Itzse (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Palestinians in Israel under the age of 50 do read Hebrew. I lived outside of Nazareth for some time, studying in North America for most of my schooling and university years, obviously carried out in English. While I understand some Hebrew, I don't read it very well at all. Sorry to disappoint you Itzse but yes, I am a Palestinian, and yes I do exist. Tiamut 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I was right that you're a misplaced Palestinian; (hope you find it punny). Why should I be disappointed that you are a Palestinian; I am too. What makes you think; that I think you don't exist? Itzse (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While on topic let me say that I'm flattered that you use many of my arguments and ways of saying it, in many a debate, and get praised for fine prose. Imitation is the best form of flattery. Itzse (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you want to accuse me of stalking; let me tell you that I'm not stalking; I'm watching you; you are one of the lucky ones on my watch list. I do this as a free service to Wikipedia. Itzse (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read WP:wikistalking very carefully and consider what I wrote to you below as well. The next time you make a personal attack which focuses on me as a person, rather than commenting on the specificities of my contributions here as they are related to an article's improvement, I'm going to have to ask for help in getting this harrassment to stop. Tiamut 02:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it very carefully and it does not say what you want it to say. It actually says the exact opposite.

It says that wikistalking is "editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor". I have no intention whatsoever to annoy you or cause distress to you. We edit some of the same articles because we both are on opposite sides of a very controversial issue; where I feel I'm doing a service to Wikipedia by making sure that both point of views are represented and Wikipedia's non negotiatable policy of NPOV is upheld.

It also says that "Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason". That's exactly what I'm saying that it's there for good reason; and exactly for the reason I mentioned before.

It also says that "proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". Again that is exactly what I believe I'm doing; "fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy"; in my case "NPOV".

Sorry, that you feel the way you do; I surely didn't intend it as such. You must understand that I will not compromise on NPOV; and labeling me as fringe, annoys me no less then it does you. Itzse (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

Hi Itzse, thanks for your note. I have worked with Tiamut on and off on a number of pages, some contentious, some not, and have found her to be intelligent, gracious, well-informed, courageous with bullies but generous and self-deprecating with rivals who respect her (and the encyclopedia). Granted she and I agree on many things, so feel free to handicap my words of praise accordingly, but note that I would say the same of some editors I don't often agree with (HG, Andyvphil, Ironduke, each in their different way). I can see that you are trying to move things forward on the talk page, and I noted and agreed with your words of support to Ironduke the other day, but you do need to realize that you are telling Tiamut, who if I'm not mistaken is Palestinian, that her nation doesn't exist. If Tiamut or I went to the Israel talk page and said we wanted to move any mention of Israel as a "country" out of the lead, because we don't want to prejudice the reader as to whether it's a state or an "entity," I don't think three days of debate (alternately footnoted and freewheeling) would ensue. I think there'd be some very angry and hurt editors, some admin intervention, and some blocks and bans. I read on your talk page that for theological reasons you're not a Zionist; so maybe statements like that wouldn't bother you as much. But with a great heave of the sympathetic imagination perhaps you can picture what it would be like to be bothered by that.

Not being Palestinian myself, I've limited my responses (whether serious or sarcastic) to reminders that you're building on assumptions about nationhood that are not taken very seriously among reliable sources on the subject. If I were Palestinian, however, my responses would probably be mixed in with emotions of a different sort, even if I didn't want them to be.

Have you ever held an egg in your hand and squeezed it? So long as the pressure is applied end-to-end and it's not constricted from the sides, it doesn't break. It's because the shell shape is parabolic. The dome of the Pantheon in Rome is also parabolic, which is apparently why it doesn't cave in from its own weight. Both the chicken egg and the Roman house of the gods have this amazing integrity.

Be well, Itzse, and know that Tiamut is a good egg – the finest of eggs – if you'll only stop pushing her the wrong way.--G-Dett (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett; I appreciate your frankness. I think I got the answer; which is, if you love someone and agree with someone; then you can't see all their faults. I agree with you that she is intelligent, can be gracious, well-informed, courageous; but here is where I part company with you. She is doing here similar to what I would like to do with all the articles on the Jewish religion. I would like to prove and point out that all other interpretations of Judaism and the Bible is false; and the only correct version is the way I believe. You probably gaged that I'm a deeply religious Jew and believe in God and the Torah and in the Jewish people with all my heart and am ready at every moment to give my life for it. BUT still I recognize that there are different opinions even on the most dearest to me; and never ever have I pushed my point of view here to the exclusion of others. I truly believe that the Palestinians are not a people; surely not a nation; and all agree, not yet a "nation" (state); and as an historian I also know how all this happened and when and how it was concocted. The difference between most editors and me is that most of them deal with it in quite a cool way; I'm trying to do the same; but when she comes and takes center stage to the exclusion of all the other fine editors; and she is the one who sums up the page with about four different paragraph names all dealing with if the Palestinians are a nation; not if the word "nation" belongs in the lead; in short she becomes the Judge, Jury and executioner; there I take umbrage and point out where she is coming from. I think I have been very gracious to her recently without attacking her directly; what I'm attacking is her views which she would like to (pardon the word) push on us.

Let me ask you; is it within my rights to believe and say so? Again, thanks for engaging in a meaningful dialogue. Itzse (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would tell me that the Jews are not a nation; I wouldn't be offended. If someone would tell me that the Jews are not a people; I wouldn't be offended. But if someone would tell me that I'm not a Jew, then I would be offended. Similarly if I were to tell her that she is not a Palestinian; then and only then she would have a right to be offended. What I am saying, is that this "people" and "nation" business is a "spiel" used to further a cause; and I think every decent person would be against using Wikipedia to further the Palestinian or any other cause. Itzse (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain from telling you what my honest opinion of you and your attacks on my character are at this very moment is Itzse, since it would probably be a most egregious violation of WP:NPA. I will say that your single-minded interest in denying Palestinian nationhood based on nothing more than your own personal opinion, and the persistent personal attacks you have mounted have created a poisonous atmosphere of mistrust between us. How to resolve this problem is beyond my ken. I suggest, however, that you stop littering people's talk pages with your spurious complaints about me. If you feel you have legitimate cause to view my editing as disruptive, please take it to Arbcomm. If you fail to heed this request, I myself will be forced to seek another more formal resolution process. Tiamut 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itzse, Tiamut is right that it's inappropriate to post your critiques of this or that editor on the talk page of a different editor, and I regret compounding the error by responding.

I applaud your restraint in resisting the temptation to disseminate theological beliefs via Wikipedia, but I really don't think there's an appropriate comparison in there with Tiamut's editing or mine. She and I have "pushed" for the article to stop weaseling around and just use the word "nation," not because of our strong belief that Palestinians constitute a nation, but because of our informed and as-of-yet-uncontradicted hypothesis that this is the consensus of reliable sources. This has to do with sources, not beliefs. Beliefs are another thing entirely. I don't know what Tiamut believes. I believe there should be a bi-national state with Walt Whitman as its poet laureate, and free ice cream on weekends. I believe West Bank Palestinians should set up an armed settlement in the middle of Tel Aviv and see how they like it. I believe Sabbath's Theater is the funniest and most moving novel of the last 30 years, and should be taught to high-school children in America. Credit me (and Tiamut) with restraint equal to yours in not pushing our beliefs on Wikipedia.--G-Dett (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deserve any credit for not disseminating my theological beliefs via Wikipedia because that is the right thing to do. I don't even have to restrain myself.

I understand your speaking for yourself as to your motives; and I give you the benefit of the doubt; but I really wonder how can you vouch for someone else's motives? Is it indeed impossible for people to have ulterior motives? and is it impossible for such people to come here?

What I have to say about her motives I have already said. I asked you if it is within my rights to say so, but you didn't answer that. I just would like to tell you; that my sentiments are shared by numerous other editors who have said the same thing.

I didn't invite her here on my talk page; she came scorning me falsely for stalking her. She is on my watch page as I suppose I am on her watch page; and for good reason!!! Itzse (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not on my watchlist Itzse (though it's interesting to me that I am in yours). I saw your message on G-Dett's page (which I like to check out sometimes to see what she's up to, but even her page is not on my watchlist) and I clicked here to see her response. Stop speculating as to my motives. Comment on content and contributions, not editors. You can't read my mind and you don't know me from Adam. Indeed, my own views are quite similar to G-Dett's, (free ice cream on weekends and a bi-national state sound great and much much better than what we have now). Anyway, I hope the message has come through. No more trunkling about trying to smear me based on WP:OR speculations as to me intentions Itzse. The love affair is over. Move on. Tiamut 02:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you; but the love affair never started. I will however extend an olive branch and hope that we can work together in the future respecting each others diametrically opposing views; the honeymoon starts now. Itzse (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict[edit]

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not involved in that dispute, and am not interested in getting dragged into any disputes. I haven't been following that page; and I don't even know what the dispute there is about. If I was named as a party because of some pre-conceived notion that I'll take a side; then let me state categorically that I don't take sides in Wikipedia; I edit with the utmost care not to impose my views on Wikipedia; and expect everyone else to do the same. It is despicable that someone named me as a party to that dispute. Please be so kind and remove me as a party; thanks. Itzse (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. The Arbitration Committee will evaluate the individual actions of all parties to the case (and all applicable users), it does not mean anything bad if you are on the participant's list, but you might want to comment on the case to defend yourself. Cbrown1023 talk 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried at all. My objection has nothing to do with "defending myself". I'm not a party to that dispute and I do not want to be dragged into it. As a non involved editor in that dispute; don't I have the right not to be dragged into it? Why such a gross way of dragging me in against my will; and these editors feel that they don't even have to explain. Itzse (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

« שמועס »[edit]

Dear friend please come to ‎« שמועס »‎ to see if we can use this channel as a place for Yiddish chats. This form should work at ‎װיקיװערטערבוך‎ when you are using Firefox, Konqueror or Opera. Unfortunatelly if does not work yet in Internet Explorer.‎
Please search in ‎װיקיװערטערבוך:הויפט זייט‎ at the seventh item in נאוויגאציע.‎ It is ‎« שמועס »‎.‎ I assume that you agree to add such an « שמועס » item at ‎װיקיפּעדיע‎‎ to נאוויגאציע as soon as our friends m:n:en:user:bawolff ... have fixed the code. Please do not hesitate to write your comments in the comment section.‎
Please make proposals about translating of the text / help: Only Latin characters and Latin numbers are allowed as « Your Nickname: » . Exceptions are « tekhniker|avek » , « ales-viser » etc. Please add some explanations about accessing the channel « #kavehoyz » by using the page chatwikizine: One should select the channel « #kavehoyz » from the channel list, select a Nickname and hit enter. All other fields are optional.‎
Thanks in advance and Good luck! Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles[edit]

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you did say, and how I took it[edit]

The ArbCom is over and has decided to tighten the rules and watch more closely. OK, that is good and very much needed; I believe that what was said and alleged is over too, and I’d like it to be that way. Let us both move on. You feel that your post was not personally directed at me and therefore you were unjustly accused. However, you did inquire about it and I do feel obligated to explain how I felt and why I reacted as I did. You wrote:

'Forty years ago was 1967; since then the PLO was created (actually in 1964) and the Western world especially America has been forcing a solution on Israel. This solution first entailed a confederation of the West Bank (known historically as Judaea and Samaria) with Jordan who had before then occupied it; then after some strategic maneuvers; Jordan all of a sudden distanced itself from the West Bank; and a new strategy of creating a country called Palestine for a "Palestinian people" was implemented. This strategy has worked in many ways; it bought part of the Western world who wanted desperately for their own selfish reasons to see an end to this conflict. It bought lots of simpletons; lots of ignoramuses; and sure, it goes without saying, it bought all the anti-Semites of the world.

Who didn't fall for it; were obviously all knowledgeable honest people; the good Christians of the world who are familiar with their religion and history and all good and decent objective people of the world.'

Well, starting from ‘Forth years ago’… and ending at ‘This strategy has worked in many ways’, we have a lot to discuss in future collaborative edits. Simply put, I believe America has not forced Israel into anything other than what it may decide for itself; I see little progress and only a decision not to decide on Israel’s part, given the high price the US tax payer has contributed to their government's endeavour. In your litany of a ‘changing strategy’, if I can put it that way, you seem to leave out some basic facts, like UN242 land-for-peace, and wrongly equate facts/events and reactions to them (i.e. history), as part and parcel of some pre-planned strategy; this is not accurate. The PLO’s strategy theorectcally has changed; they justly and wisely decided to give up the unattainable dream of all of Mandate Palestine and decided to live in the real world with what they had left, the West Bank/Gaza. Israel theoretically has made the same parallel decision to give up the unattainable dream of all of Mandate Palestine (Eretz Israel) and live in the real world with what they gained, pre-’67 Israel. The difference I see is that, in reality, only Israel has the governmental/military power to implement those decisions. I also see that both sides are hobbled by those trying to ‘keep their options open’ and do not want to give peace a chance; they both want it all, exclusively. I see myself, as you likely do, as being part of documenting these facts and factors, this ‘history’. We thus become part of the conflict (on another front) and do our part, as we see fit.

Given the assumption that documentation of this conflict brought you and I here, and that editors come ‘attached at the hip’ with that history and how they see it, I state my objection. I object to and feel insulted and defamed by, the continuation of your post starting with (the next words) ‘it bought’ ….includes… ‘for their own selfish reasons’.. and …‘lots of simpletons; lots of ignoramuses; and sure, it goes without saying, it bought all the anti-Semites of the world.’ It ends with (in the next pargraph) your statement that everybody who doesn’t ‘fall for it’ are not ‘honest people’ and ‘the good Christians of the world’. Itzse, does anyone who ‘falls for it’ possibly include other editors of Wikipedia in general and me personally? You used the noun, not the adjective. These statements of yours are personal and are just plain inaccurate, wrong and insulting.

First, you assume a lack of good faith not only on the part of western world governments and institutions for their actions (or inactions) for the last 40 years, which most would call ‘history’, but which you package as part of some pre-planned strategy; equally, because editors come attached to that ‘history’, you similarly assume a lack of WP:AGF on the part of any editor who supports another view. Secondly, you insult and defame that ‘history’ and it’s other attached Wiki-editors. Thirdly, you seem to indicate that your POV is the whole truth and nothing but the truth; this is not NPOV. I don’t know how you think, I try but I can’t; we are obviously different, but other editors do deserve a higher level of respect, and the principles of assumption of ‘good faith’ and ‘be polite’ to a much greater degree than you showed with your post above.

If you truly think that all this history, and the Wiki-editors who are attached to it, are anti-semitic, you are free to feel that way, but I personally can neither fathom why nor make such a basic assumption of bad faith. I suggest in the future that you keep those thoughts to yourself and away from your rather poison pen. If 'it goes without saying', I suggest that you don't say it. I hope that this explains how I felt and why I acted as I did. The advice I received in such matters was, ‘If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything.’ and ‘It is best that the mind is engaged before the mouth is in motion.’ I repeat, this response is intended to explain and to help cool the atmosphere, not inflame it. Please accept it in that light, I will likely be as tight-lipped about it from now on, as I was when you first inquired about it. I hope it is over, Peace, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the word peace; it is difficult to write what I intended to write; but I have a practice that I don't delete discussed issues; instead if I was wrong then I apologize; but if I am right then I will defend it. As a matter of fact I stand behind everything I ever said or did on Wikpedia; and will defend it if challenged.

When I wrote my words I had no clue who you are; what you are; only that you were defending an opposing perspective. Your defense of that perspective; which you have all the right to do so; wasn't limited in arguing on the substance of the matter; but you actually attacked me with the words "we also appreciate you noting their humanity" which in essence was trying to paint me as a bigot. I never let such an accusation go unanswered, (the most recent one was G-Dett); sometimes I use sarcasm; sometimes irony; but I will always put my attacker in place and call their bluff. I responded at that time to you with "I object to your painting me as questioning their humanity; It’s a shallow trick." The rest of my response was in arguing that the Palestinians are not a nation; which was the question of that paragraph; and went into detail on how such a farce was perpetrated and the history of its development. In that context I said that those holding that view are either governments who are doing it for selfish reasons; or simpletons; or ignoramuses; and sure, it goes without saying, all the anti-Semites of the world.

I don't know why you decided to put yourself into the last category. It reminds me of a story where a teacher enters a classroom and says: Fool; leave this class immediately. One little boy gets up and protests to the teacher; but what did I do wrong?

I understand that you didn't want to place yourself in the category of simpletons or ignoramuses; but you could have placed yourself in the company of many governments who take your POV.

Looking at your background; I totally understand where you are coming from. Having lived among Arabs a good part of your life; I'm sure you made many friends; and not being attached to the situation, and seeing mainly only the suffering of those people; not the suffering they inflicted on my brethren; it is understandable that you would have sympathy for them. Based on your words I see that some people (probably Westerners) have accused you of anti-Semitism; and not being guilty of it; you are upset at being called one. That is why I wrote that you seem to be ultra sensitive on this issue and you therefore inferred what I did not imply.

Lastly looking closely on your record; I do see that you are not an anti-Semite and I hope in the future we can collaborate on writing good articles even with the understanding that we don't think alike. Peace begets Peace. Itzse (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itzse, good post. I appreciate the slack you have shown and will reciprocate. I appologize for my sarcasm, which you simultaneously understand. I never looked at your page prior to the events, as you didn't either. But we have both done so since. I also note from what you have said, that your family's history has been quite different than most; it seems quite unique from what I know and you should/must be proud of it; it is who we all are. At the same time, I must mention that the 'people versus a people' question might be understood from the specific distinct differences between 'your people' and 'their people' (I know that is a crude split but needs only a few words). Specifically, you existed as 'a people' for centuries/millenia, although with different roots, books, beliefs and totally different geography, but you had something that you (plural) and the world recognized held you together; the other side has had only a common geography, and domination by others for a millenimum. Given that, their path to 'a people' is totally different, but no less real and deeply felt, than your own. We shall see each other among these pages in the future. Shalom. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being a gentleman. I never intended to call you an anti-Semite; therefore I cannot apologize for something I didn't do; but far better then that, is when people can understand each other; which I think we have now achieved. You keenly detected that my background is quite unique. I am multi-cultured, which gives me an advantage to see things Jewish from every perspective, and as a result have no bias at all towards any Jew. I would rather not get into a discussion which we could discuss for days and in the end we probably won't agree with each other anyway; but I do have to note a few points. What held the Jewish people together for the last two millennium is not geography, but indeed a common belief in the same G-d, in the same Torah (and all books derived from it) and an immense kinship as "one people" practicing the same religion. In medieval times a Jew had the advantage of setting on a journey to the other end of the world, without taking along with him translators; because he knew that "wherever" he will step foot, he will find his people, and they will give him a helping hand. That’s why IMO, the Jews were so successful as merchants. Another point I would like to make is that; regardless that we disagree on a peoplehood for Palestinian Arabs; we cannot deny that there are numerous statements to the contrary by Palestinians themselves; who caught off camera will tell you that a peoplehood was invented for political reasons; not to mention that Arab nationalism doesn't see the Palestinian Arabs as a separate people. If as I suspect we still don't think alike; then we can still work together to make sure WP encompasses all points of view in a neutral presentation. I wish you well my friend; Peace unto you. Itzse (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenician gene[edit]

I've prodded this article for deletion due to a total lack of sources using the term. If you have any reliable sources that do use that exact term, please add them to the article and we can remove the prod deletion tag. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenician gene[edit]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Phoenician gene, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why the article should not be deleted on its talk page; and removed the delete template. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenician gene. Itzse (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comment and restored the deletion nomination tag which you deleted. Please WP:AGF and let the dleetion debate run its proper course. My nomination of this article has nothing to do with any alleged personal grudge, and everything to do with the lack of information supporting the notability of this article entry. Please do not delete the nomination tag again. That's a violation of AfD procedures. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given our history, and with the knowledge that you know what I have written on my user page; I find it inappropriate for you to have been the one to nominate it for deletion; not withstanding your claim of a longstanding concern that this article fails to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and that's what drove you to try to get it deleted. I also find your wikilawering way too harsh which makes it difficult to assume good faith.

I could agree with you that maybe I shouldn't have gone as far as removing the tag; but I didn't see anybody addressing the reasons I've given why I think the article should have remained. The redirection of the article sits fine with me; but I'm wondering why you haven't seen fit to challenge and delete it there. Itzse (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Phoenician gene[edit]

I have nominated Phoenician gene, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenician gene. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Tiamut^talk 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bans & I-P articles[edit]

I posted a couple of thoughts at Addhoc's Talk Page, but with the benefit of 10 second hindsight, most of them were in response to issues you'd raised. Not trying to invite or kick off a huge debate, but I thought I'd post a link here on your page rather than run the risk of clogging up Addhoc's talk page with any more thoughts that happened to come up. --Nickhh (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very big of you[edit]

Thank you Itzse for your comment on my talk page. While I do not share some of the perspectives you put forward there (and elsewhere), it was very very magnanimous of you to apologize.

On an extremely personal note (and so as to hopefully put to rest your concerns regarding my being on the take from the PNA or some other Palestinian organization :), I do spend an inordinate amount of time at Wikipedia as it has become something of an addiction. I'm a writer by choice (and do sometimes still manage to write under my real name) but I am quite privileged in that I do not have to work at a full time job in order to make ends meet. While I am also married, my husband's work is often conducted from his computer, which now sits beside mine (we used to have them face to face :), but his work also takes him on long, extended trips outside of Nazareth from time to time. When he comes home after such a trip, I tend to disappear from here (as I did when you and I were in the middle of our discussion on Palestinian people) for whatever time I can, particularly since reunions after such partings are not moments to be wasted. :)

I also suffer from bouts of rather serious insomnia and have often gone 72 hours straight without a drop of sleep. One of my many aunts also has the same problem, so I guess you could say that it runs in the family. But I have learned to function without sleep quite well. As you noted, I can spend about 24 hours here (and sometimes more) without much difficulty (though I eventually do start leaving typos behind in my wake).

In any case, I very much appreciate the sentiment behind your message. I hope that we can retain this sense of mutual respect into the future, even when finding ourselves on opposing poles when discussing a given issue. I wish you the very best in all that life has to offer (both here and in the non-virtual world). With respect, Tiamut^talk 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alls well that ends well; hoping for better days; thanks. Itzse (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict[edit]

You are free to edit this article as you wish (obviously) however for certain key content disputes, any changes must be mooted on the talk page first. The way to find out is to check the talk page to see if what you want to edit is the subject of a fight. The reason we have this situation is because there are too many edit wars on this article, which have resulted in bans, blocks and now general sanctions. Regards Suicup (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Suicup; I do not know where to even begin, or how to begin. I think I'll explain myself in the edit summaries; leaving the talk page for more contentious issues. Itzse (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" awarded, for being a defender of the Wiki[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar. On the one hand, I'm glad this whole thing is over. Hopefully the issue will not resurface. --GHcool (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GHcool[edit]

I thought this might interest you. --GHcool (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing. I guess someone doesn't like what they're reading and wants to silence you; ignorance is bliss.

After some introspection; I find it troubling that you would be put on the defensive. It doesn't bode well for Wikipedia; and I feel vindicated on having given up on it. Even though this time some editors stuck up for you, maybe beacuse you are a popular editor; there are no guarantees for the future; not for you nor for anyone else. After it had milked everything out of us and used us as guinea pigs; we will put out to pasture. Remember we're still needed; therefore editors matter; the minute we won't be needed; the rules will change. Itzse (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof[edit]

I just finished reading your user page. I never realized how dati you are. Subjects on which we both completely agree on are probably few and far between, but you are a good Wikipedia editor and probably a good Jew as well.

G-d knows I am all in favor of expressing strong or contentious points of views on one's own user page, but I found one statement that perhaps you may want to change or clarify. You write in the "Zionism" section, "I do believe that most people who are Anti-Israel are also Anti-Semitic and the burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise." Actually, that is not how burden of proof works. In rhetoric, if a positive claim is challenged, the burden of proof always falls upon the party making the positive claim. Consider what an editor might think if he/she ran across a user page that said, "I do believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax and the burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise." I would imagine the editor would roll his eyes and say that this was a case of inappropriately shifting the burden of proof.

If I were you, I would reword the statement so that you meet your own burden of proof. You can say something such as "I do believe that most people who are anti-Israel are also anti-Semitic because these people judge the actions of the Jewish state by different standards than how they judge the actions of states facing similar threats" or "I do believe that most people who are anti-Israel are also anti-Semitic because they use the words 'Israeli' and 'Jew' interchangeably in their criticisms" or anything else that begins with the word "because." --GHcool (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping me a line; I'm open to all comments and criticisms from anyone; especially from you.

I think we are a good example of how people with different views on many important things can respect each other and get along, to say the least; you probably by now know that I admire you.

Now all flattery aside; technically you're probably correct; but I must confess to never having studied rhetoric's; it seems that you have, and you're probably correct. To be honest; the purpose of my writing isn't to prove or disprove anything; where I need to present logical arguments which are accepted in a court of law. My sole intention is to put any anti-Semite out there on the defensive and on notice, that although clad in innocence and executed professionally; I for one don't fall for it and usually can smell a rat long before it rears its ugly head.

My statement that "I do believe that most people who are Anti-Israel are also Anti-Semitic and the burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise." is only talking about me, and what I believe, that although not being a Zionist; it doesn't automatically make me see things anti-Israel with favor; to the contrary I believe that most anti-Israel positions taken are consciously or subconsciously a result of anti-Semitism; and if anyone feels otherwise, I expect them to prove that their intentions are pure. Until then I look at their actions with justified suspicion. It doesn't mean that I'll act upon it, as we need to AGF; but AGF doesn't mean being someone's fool.

As to the technical use of it, if it's justified; I noticed that in Burden of proof (rhetoric), that there is a difference between "a burden of proof" and "the burden of proof". Accordingly all anti-Semites should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, based on "a burden of proof". But according to "the burden of proof"; I'm assuming that someone speaking or acting like an anti-Semite - is an anti-Semite. If such a person wants to "change" my opinion of them; "It falls on the person proposing such change" to prove to me otherwise; and my putting the onus of "the burden of proof" on those acting negatively seems to be justified. Additionally, rabbinically speaking; there are numerous other ways of assuming and reaching conclusions based on rov (majority, or in most cases) or chazokah (presumed, or assumed to be) which can also play a part on how to perceive, see and assume things. Itzse (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your approach. It relies a little too heavily on a negative proof for my taste. Anyway, its your user page after all so you can decide to write virtually whatever you want on it. --GHcool (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

שלום לך[edit]

הבנתי שאתה חרדי הכותב בוויקיפדיה האנגלית. זה מאוד נחמד שגם בארה"ב תורמים חרדים לוויקיפדיה. בוויקיפדיה העברית יש לנו קבוצה של תורמים חרדים, שמשתדלים להגן על הערכים שלא יהיו אנטי חרדיים. האם גם לכם יש כאלו בעיות? האם יש אצלכם הרבה כותבים חרדים? אשמח לקרוא תשובותיך, גם אם הם בדרגא מציעא דעברית. בברכה - Borry (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl[edit]

Hi, I just noticed your edits on the page, and was wondering why you put in such descriptive prose which calls for a citation? Do you have a source for your insert? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yoninah; response on your page. Itzse (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itzse, thanks for your reply. I just wonder if you've read WP:PILLARS and especially, WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of facts, but a resource whose content can be verified. Books have been written about Rabbi Weissmandl and articles have been published on the Internet. Surely you weren't around to witness the fact that you put in; you read it somewhere. It would be better for you to put in a citation next to your fact than to make it look like you don't know what you're talking about — because the next editor might just delete it altogether. So, where did you read it? Yoninah (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response on your page; as my page is already too clogged up. Itzse (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itzse, thanks for responding again. I agree that most articles are written by people who don't look at books, but the fact is that I do take the time to look up books and internet articles to research biographical articles such as these. In fact, I have been amassing quite a few newspaper articles over the past months (it was Rabbi Weissmandl's 50th yahrtzeit) to flesh out this article more. At that time, I would probably take out the line about Mrs. Baldwin because (a) it already says "citation needed" and (b) it really doesn't add anything to the narrative (it would be enough just to say that someone defended him, especially as there's even have a question mark next to her husband's name). I'm sorry if I've taken too much of your time on this issue.

Regarding your talk page, see WP:ARCHIVE#Cut and paste procedure for an easy-to-follow way of archiving (that's what I did on my page). Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I researched a bit the subject at hand and will update the article accordingly. The "citation needed" was there before I added my edit. Now that I'll give more detailed information which can be enhanced by other editors; I'll remove the citation tag and give a chance for others to expand on my edits and find written sources.

If you have anything specific in mind, you can ask me, as I have heard much about this great man. He is one of my greatest still unsung hero's. Itzse (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do! (Just saw your edits on the article — great job!) Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would be nice to see the letter-to-the-editor that she wrote to the New York Times. I'm told that she signed her letter: Mrs. Hans (or Hanson) Baldwin; sometime in 1947-48. Itzse (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby present this award to Itzse in recognition of his efforts to improve Wikipedia with new, well-researched, and well-linked articles and edits, and for maintaining such a genial correspondence about the editorial process. Keep up the great work! Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid[edit]

Please see Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Offtopic discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page misuse warning[edit]

Please do not further misues talk pages, as you did in these three edits. Wikipedia is not a forum or battleground, talk pages are not for subjects other than article improvement, and "he started it" is not an excuse for misusing Wikipedia. The debate has to stop somewhere and frankly, as an uninvolved administrator, I've stepped in and said that it stops here. I recognize your effort to compromise by re-removing the section, but I'm afraid it's not acceptable. Please don't do it again. (You may be sure that anyone else who continues will be warned with at least equal firmness.) -- SCZenz (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three edits you point out are justified and please check them. I even went the extra mile to explain myself in the edit summaries. I am upset that you didn't take into account that I am the one who was attacked; I did not attack anybody. Had you issued warnings to those who were engaged in attacking me; I could maybe understand; but accusing me the victim is unfair. I think I have a right to defend myself; please retract. Itzse (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped an ongoing irrelevant and uncivil discussion, and made it clear it violated policy. I'm warning everyone who persists in restoring the section, I assure you; I did not warn others earlier because I hoped a strong edit summary would make the situation clear to all. It was in some sense "bad luck" that you were the first one to push this after I started warning people, and I will be the first to agree that some of the preceding edits were highly problematic. However, you do not have a "right to defend yourself" on a Wikipedia page designed for improving an article, and although I sympathize with your desire to do so, I am afraid I'm not going to let the talk page be misused further by anyone. If you feel you've been wronged on the talk tage, feel free to use the diffs in an appropriate forum for dispute resolution. But two policy violations, or twenty, don't make a right. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I accept your explanation; but I do want to make you aware of why it upset me. I got onto my computer today and found an entire section dedicated to attacking me and try to portray me as a bigot; which I'm very far from being one. So I felt that I needed to answer these accusations; and that is what I did here. Then comes tarc and does this; is that acceptable? Then an attempt is made to attack me again; so I wrote again to clarify my name, and then clicked save page only to find that the accusations against me will stay on the record but my vindication won't. Therefore with the utmost care I edited in my vindication and turned it back in respect of you; only to find myself bitten by the one I tried to accommodate. I now accept your explanation as you do come across sincere; so I'll end it in peace; thanks.

It would be a good idea for someone to post warnings to everybody engaged in attacking editors in these controversial articles. Itzse (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand why you feel that way; thanks for letting it go so I can focus on my (admittedly self-appointed) job of trying to keep the talk page in better shape. And yes, I think I may spend some time keeping a much closer eye on everyones' behavior on some of these pages. Neither the level of incivility nor irrelevant argumentation is acceptable. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; thanks again. Itzse (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah lol[edit]

thanks for your contributions in allegations of israeli apartheid. it's nice to get support from people who aren't completely blinded by the israel hate. unfortunately i was blocked (24 hours) for accusing another user of being racist, even though his userpage says differently. i was merely making an observation and they blocked me! like wtf?? if i put "all arabs are racists" on my userpage, and someone calls me a racist, do they get in trouble?? i know im probably sounding a little incoherent but it's late and i dont feel like using fancy words or elaborate sentencing. : ) thank 4 any response! Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the user was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RolandR btw.

Murishkes[edit]

How funny it sounds, this was how they were called, please follow the references. The word is said to have been derived from Murry, I have forgotten the exact meaning in Arabic. HagiMalachi (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response; and for those that don't know; "mureshkess" in Yiddish are small bugs specifically ants; hence my wonder.

I wish you good luck, as we have very few frum editors. Drop me a line if you need any help or have questions. Itzse (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ketav Sofer[edit]

I have just issued this link since the original article was named in a manner that no sole should be able to access it. I just wrote you a note which was lost because of an edit conflict. You made a big mistake about the Ketav Sofer, because I have "added" those words you are claiming that I deleted. Some days ago, I was reading in this place that one of the most "popular" descendents of the Chatam Sofer was a guy that not I neither you have heared his name before! and the linage of sun and grandsun who sicceded him was completely ignored! HagiMalachi (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I misread the diff, assuming the red on the right side was deletions rather then additions; I guess reading from right to left might have such an effect; sorry. Itzse (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solachti.HagiMalachi (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you left out Zechariah as in HagiZechariahMalachi; what did he sin? Itzse (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was seazed while young. HagiMalachi (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yishuv haYashan[edit]

I have no further geduld to the Yishuv haYashan battle, you sound to be smart and professional enough to do a good job. A good source is a link that I have placed to the book from David Rosoph which is in English, I have the Hebrew version at home, and I could e-mail you a pdf from the second volume of מרא דארעא ישראל if you could provide me your e-mail address (I found it on Otzar haChochma). HagiMalachi (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC) BTW I searched Google for Yishuv haYashan, and I found it to be on Wikirage the list of the hottest articles on Wikipedia. HagiMalachi (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you have already unblocked me; so unblocking isn't the issue; but correctness and a fair record is. Someone must have alerted you to reversions going on that page, and I must assume that without checking them out, blocks were issued; so for the record let me state that I did not violate the three revert rule.

I was editing three different issues on that page and all in all I made three reverts in total; not a fourth revert, which even if a fourth on a page instead of four on a issue is counted; I still didn't violate the 3RR rule. On the other hand Tirpse77 made six!!! reversions on that page, and even if per issue is counted he violated the 3RR rule on one of those issues.

To make it easy for you to see what I am saying, I'll give short names for each of the three issues: they are; "academics", "blockade" and "its control".

Tirpse77 reverted "blockade" (reversion 1), "its control" (reversion 1) (reversion 2 for page), "its control" (reversion 2) (reversion 3 for page).

After three revisions of his on the page; I reverted "its control" for the first time. Then he reverted "its control for the third time, fourth reversion for the page. Then I reverted "its control" for the second time (also second time for the page; BTW thinking that I'm reverting "academics"; see my edit summary and comment on the talk page, and you'll see what I mean). Then he reverted "its control" for the fourth time (fifth reversion on the page). Then I reverted for the third and last time on this page. Three issues; all in all only three reversions; so how dies this violate the 3RR rule?

After that Tirpse77 reverted for the sixth!!! time, my edits on that page. Where were the administrators then; while he managed to revert a fifth and sixth time?

As I already said, I was already unblocked; but still, in all fairness for the record; please remove the block in retrospect. Thank You. Itzse (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections[edit]

I am inviting you to stand as a candidate for Administration, as you can see it is very important. HagiMalachi (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation is very appreciated; but I do not want to be an administrator at this time for various reasons, which I do not want to get into. But thanks anyway for the invitation, and good luck. Itzse (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information[edit]

Rabbinical Authority of Yishuv haYashan, thanks HagiMalachi (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this. - HagiMalachi (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter[edit]

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 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

Sorry for missing that. Basically, it's too stale for me to take any action on it. Unless you can provide new evidence (in a condensed format), I can't do a thing. I apologise, my friend. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'll do, I'll look at the diffs in more detail later, okay? (I'm busy right now) I can't remove a block from your block log (just take a look at my own block log) but I can make a null block of 1 second and I can add in a summary stating the block was invalid. But that depends if you didn't actually violate 3RR. See you later. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; I do not know how this works; but the way you describe it sounds fine with me. Please do look at the diffs and you will see that I wasn't upset for nothing. Thanks for being straightforward and fair. Itzse (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I do apologise. You made only 3 reverts. But remember in future that 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reverts in 24 hours. Also, my unblock summary of "Block defunct..." (etc.) is enough to tell people that the block wasn't needed. There's nothing more I can do apart from that. MediaWiki software doesn't allow block logs to be cleaned. If you are thinking of running for administrator I will make a comment about the block being an error so as not to reflect you in a bad light. I'm sorry that this is all I can do. Thanks for your persistance in getting me motivated though! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I do not plan or want to be an administrator any time soon as it takes up too much time and is a great responsibility, dealing with the sensibilities of people; but I'm delighted that you are. As long as there are enough fair administrators with the courage to act responsible at all times; that's good enough for me. Thanks my friend. Itzse (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shituf[edit]

I understand you're pressed for time. When you get a spell, if you could let me know what was watered down in the wording I'd appreciate it. We worked really hard on it, but that was just two of us, and maybe you can help us improve it.

Thanks.Tim (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not minimizing the hard work and good intentions that went into it. Just, that I feel such an important a subject should be properly written. I am no expert on that subject, that's why I suggested that Professors Berger and Leiman would be the proper candidates for that. I'll try to point out what I don't like on that talk page. Itzse (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Thanks :-).Tim (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shituf (2)[edit]

I honestly wish you'd been here last week and the week before. We had an all out edit war because I think what you just said on the talk page of the article is 100% correct.

But only one person took my side on it, and that rather lukewarmly, and it turned into a huge edit war between Tim and me. Absolutely, you're correct. But you're also a little late.

If you want to challenge what's there, I'll back you, because I happen to agree with you. But I won't do it myself. Not after having come to a consensus the way we did. I'd rather have it be a little weaselly than be the out-and-out false statement that it used to be. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time nor the will to do it now, and I'll be entirely honest to you. I cannot shoulder the responsibility that comes with editing such an article. If anybody comes to any wrong conclusions because of me, I won't be able to live with my conscience. If I was forced to edit then I wouldn't budge without consulting higher authorities. I do not mean to frighten you, as somebody must edit that article, and it takes two to tango; but as my mother always says; "you be the scholar not the janitor". I do encourage you to pursue what you think is right. Itzse (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Lisa a copy of what I wrote to Dr. Berger and Dr. Greenstein, and I'll give her the replies. My Rabbi gave the green light to it from his own knowledge, and suggested a follow up with those two sources.Tim (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, but I suggest, tread carefully; you have a great responsibility. Itzse (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Thanks. For what it's worth, if the definition Lisa and I came up with is NOT in the scope of meaning used by the term; that is, if "internal aspects" is NOT seen as an association forbidden to Jews, then maybe that should be noted. But I don't see how that does anyone any good. Jews really DO say that Christianity itself is an association that is forbidden to Jews. If that ascribed association is not accurate, we're back to the previous article -- which is infinitely less desirable than the excellent work Lisa did the other day.Tim (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with a previous article nor with the work Lisa did. I take your word that it was excellent work. I've gotten involved more then I ever wanted. I wonder how I chanced onto that page, as it wasn't on my watch list; I'll subscribe it to Hashgocha protis. So my friends as I wrote on the article talk page; I do not want to get involved in debating the nitty-gritty of this; I do not consider myself qualified enough nor do I want to shoulder the responsility. I would rather that Dr. Berger have a say. If you could show and discuss this article with him, it would be greatly appreciated. On that page I thank you both and wish you goodbye. Itzse (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Tim, that's not it. I don't know if it's honestly that I'm just incapable of explaining it cogently. It isn't a matter of "internal aspects" being forbidden to Jews. Any worship of a trinity is forbidden to Jews, whether the idea behind it is "internal aspects" or anything else. The whole "internal aspects" thing is a huge red herring. Once it's a trinity, it doesn't matter what the intent is. Just like someone defecating on a statue of Baal Peor has violated avodah zarah even if his intent was to show scorn for Baal Peor, so too is any worship of a trinity with any and all intents, ideas, philosophies, theologies, rationalizations or flights of fancy that the worshipper might come up with. It's the act of worshipping a trinity that's forbidden. The "why" doesn't matter.

I agreed to let you put the "internal aspects" in there because I just got tired of fighting with you about it. But from the point of view of Judaism, Trinitarianism and Arianism and Tritheism are all the same thing. There is no difference, because any difference is on a frequency that we aren't listening to, and will never listen to.

A car with two doors is a car. A car with four doors is a car. A car with four doors and a hatchback is a car. Suppose I have a 16 year old daughter, and I tell her she isn't allowed to drive a car. Now... she might come and say, "Well, that's a coupe and a sedan and a station wagon there, and I use the word 'car' only for sedans, so I'm going to go ahead and drive this coupe." And I'll reply, "Very nice. You're grounded." Because while there is a point of view in which the distinction between sedans and coupes and wagons is of interest and value, I don't care. I told her she can't drive a car, period. No car, no how.

Judaism says that anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic. How non-monotheistic is it? A little (shituf)? A lot (avodah zarah)? That's not the point. And Judaism says that worshipping a trinity is a car. If you want to say that Christians say it's a sedan, and not a station wagon, well, who am I to argue with you? By all means, let Christians call things sedans and coupes and station wagons and insist that they're different things. Maybe they even are different things. But they're all a subset of "car". And Trinitarianism and Arianism and Tritheism and any other -ism that has ever been or will ever be created to explain the worship of a trinity are all "worship of a trinity". And Judaism says that's non-monotheistic.

Again, I'm not saying anything I haven't said before, and I know it's as unlikely to be understood this time as it has been in all my previous attempts, but I can't help it. There's a little part of me that is certain that if I can just say it clearly enough, it'll be understood. You might disagree, but at least you'd understand. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, I totally agree with you; what more can I do? Itzse (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I've put the response from Dr. Berger on Lisa's page and copied her note here and my response. That way you won't be cluttered up with our discussion (unless you want to! :-).Tim (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cluttering, is one of the least things that bother me, but I guess it's better there. Itzse (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why?[edit]

eh, it's just refreshing to see someone who doesnt bend over to biased wiki authority unlike the many political tools here. are you going to stop posting in wikipedia from this point on? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'm not encouraged to edit anymore either. There are days which I just don't want to look at Wikipedia, but I keep coming back because my entire life, I've been fighting anti-Semitism (and also anti-Judaism), and here educated anti-Semites and self-hating Jews seem to be congregating in great numbers. They have never had it so good, as in real life, face to face, they have never gotten the better of me or of any well educated Jew, (in my case not even physically).

You're quite new, but if you'll be here for a while you will see that when statements like mine are made, all of a sudden, the Charlatans will wake up and take your words out of context and accuse you of calling all editors who edit anti-Israel as Anti-Semites. This game is played over & over again. Now tell me in a world of close to 7 billion people, even if just a small percent of the educated are anti-Semites, do we even have a chance? So for what are we laboring? "Im Hashem lo yivneh bayis, shov omlu bonuv".

I'm still out here but do need encouragement to continue. Encouragement means helping me fight for neutrality, not admiring and clapping from the side. Itzse (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

I know this might seem like an odd/inappropriate question, but what exactly do you do for a living?

Fighting anti-antisemitism on the internet is a noble feat, but surely you must do other things? I'm just genuinely curious. Other than myself, I've never seen someone so upset (justifiably) at the system. I'm honestly shocked. thanks for the well-thought out response! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell you what exactly I do, as I prefer to remain anonymous. Even my email address is disabled as I prefer to talk in the open and abhor behind the scenes chicanery. What I can tell you is that I'm a man of many hats, have many accomplishments on my belt. I am a born idealist who will fight for what is right and fears nobody but G-d. I credit being an idealist on my love of history which made me more aware of the plight of my people. As a little boy when my mother used to read me a story in bed, I remember her telling me that a Russian Jew got 25 years in prison for attempting to flee the Soviet Union. I couldn't sleep that night, thinking about that unfortunate Jew and started calculating when he will finally be free. Enough said; my user page should give you some idea of me, which for now is the best I could do. I'm also curious as to what is your doing if it won't give you away. Itzse (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow that's quite the response. uhh...i rather not say what i do or who i am exactly, but for curiosities sake i can tell that i am also interested in fighting for what is right and protecting jewish/israeli topics. your grasp of the english language is well beyond most people i see on wikipedia. have you considered authoring books? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already co-authored a book and written a few articles which were published and well received. I'm in the process of writing numerous books and articles, which are in all stages of production, from just the beginning to some which are close to being finished. Almost all of these, I've written in Loshon HaKodesh (holy tongue) or in Yiddish. English is my second language, which I started speaking when I was six; Yiddish is my mother tongue. Throughout the years, it has gone through my mind to write many books, maybe close to a thousand, pertaining to Judaism or Jewish history for which a complete study hasn't yet been done. I enjoy buying books that I had the thought of writing them, and am happy to say that many of them have been published by someone who finally did do the job. The bottom line I'm always asking myself is, should I be neutralizing Wikipedia which reaches the vast multitudes, or rather write my own books. Do you maybe have the answer? I'm perplexed. Itzse (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imo, writing books seems like a far more productive activity than pushing for a neutral wikipedia. controversial topics, especially those pertaining to jewish/israeli subjects will always be extremely biased no matter how hard i, you, or anyone else fights it. i think you'll get a larger audience by writing books than editing wikipedia articles. :D but eh, it's probably best to do what makes you happy. getting upset at wikipedia is just a waste of energy that could be put to good use elsewhere.

one of my fav authors, Charles Spurgeon once said, "anxiety does not empty tomorrow of its sorrows, but only empties today of its strengths". Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue doing both; but for now I'll put the better of my time towards some more deserving projects, like the ones I mentioned above. Thanks & lots of luck. Itzse (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter[edit]

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 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Userpage[edit]

Shalom,
I'm just writing because I'm a little concerned that the part of your userpage where you outline how you feel about Zionism may violate some of our userpage rules, specifically the one about using your userpage as a soapbox. Userpages are intended to be used to foster a sense of community and collaboration, and while we do have a significant amount of leeway about what can go there realize also that the people you are working with are going to read it and words like those you have written are by their very nature quite divisive. Try to imagine how you would feel if you read something similar on someone else's page, but with the words changed to American, Jew, etc. You might not be as interested in working what that person, right?
I'm not necessarily asking you to remove it in its entirety, but simply for us to talk about it and perhaps remove the parts that are problematic. Rav todot! L'Aquatique[talk] 02:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I disagree with you on the premise that we should not state our opinions lest someone will get offended. This issue has been beaten to death on other user pages, and I have no intention to discuss it with anyone. To me it is an open & shut case and would rather resign then to give in on this. Everyone has a right to express their opinion on their talk page with the known few limitations. My expression of my thoughts is gold compared to many which you will find on these pages. It's very nice to be a goody-goody, but for yourself - not to be concerned when it comes to others.

I'm a seasoned Wikipedian and have fought strong battles in the past with those people who I had in mind when I wrote my opinions; had they thought for a minute that it violates any rules, they would have taken me on, on it. Let's first straighten out Wikpedia, and then we'll worry about straightening out its editors, which IMO is impossible. Shalom U'bracha. Itzse (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do respect your opinion and I understand, both from a historical and religious standpoint, why this is important to you. You need to realize, however, that Wikipedia is not necessarily the time or place for this. We are an encyclopedia, a collaborative encyclopedia and we rely on social relationships and a common goal to be just that. When people write divisive and potentially hurtful things on their userpage, collaboration is discouraged, instead of encouraged, and everything falls apart.

As an American, I treasure the right to free speech just as much as you. However, Wikipedia is not America, it does not follow the bill of rights, and you do not have a right to free speech in the same sense. You are largely allowed to say what you want, but when what you say only serves to alienate people, we have got a problem. Realize here that this has nothing to do with whether I personally support Zionism (I do) because this has nothing to do with zionism at all. This has to do with the parts of your userpage that could easily be construed as racism and hate speech against Arabic people- that is the part that needs to be removed. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you are not the first one (go to the second paragrah with this name). If you want I'll direct you to hundreds of user pages I don't like. What I wrote is my humble opinion; should I lie and write what some would like to hear? To me it is cut and dry, that a social contract exists between WP and its editors, who are volunteers and give of their time. Again I would rather leave instead of being censured on my user page. Itzse (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter[edit]

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 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mechutan[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mechutan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RayAYang (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RayaYang, This word belongs to a group of words used by English speaking Jews; and this term is not just a word, but it represents a certain meaning when used. Perhaps it needs to be expanded to include its bigger meaning, but I just started it, and I'm sure eventually, someone will eloborate on it. It belongs to a group of (Category:Hebrew words and phrases) and (Category:Yiddish words and phrases), which has similiar words like: frum, Tzadik, Gadol, Da'as Torah, Posek, Baal teshuva, Kanai (Judaism), Tchotchke, etc. There are thousands of such words/terms in Wikipedia. I understand your concern and thanks for raising it. Itzse (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mechutan[edit]

I have nominated Mechutan, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechutan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RayAYang (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained it above. If you think that "this" word/term merits deletion more then all the words of its category, then please look at all those words and explain the difference. Itzse (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shlom bayit[edit]

Just to let you know that a consensus discussion is underway about changing Shlom bayit to Shalom bayit. Please add your opinion at Talk:Shlom bayit#Requested move. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username advice[edit]

Hi there. I am asking all currently active native Yiddish speakers (Category:User yi-N) for their input at WP:RFCN concerning the username "FeygeleGoy". The main question to be answered is if you, a Yiddish speaker, encountered that username in your editing, would find it offensive or disruptive. If you have any comments, please add them at WP:RFCN. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original userpage?[edit]

What happened to the Arab/Israeli and Jewish-identity commentary that was on your userpage? Is there away I can access it? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for the time being, but you can see it by doing a diff with a previous version. I got no feedback if anybody was interested in it so I finally removed it, but we'll see. Itzse (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool. I'll take a look if that's all right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atheism[edit]

Hello Itze,

I believe that science has, in principle, all of the answers. I will admit that scientists have done a poor job putting the whole body of science in a proper context. It is because we don't tell our children the scientific creation story that children end up believing in a religion.

I actually go a bit further than just rejecting religion. If everything can in principle be explained, then the universe itself must be purely mathematical in nature. If the physical universe is more than its mathematical desciption, then the most fundamental structures are, by definition, physical properties that explain everything else but these things cannot themselves be explained any further.

Then, if we take the view that everything is purely mathematical in nature, it is easier to make sense of subjective experiences that seem to defy any scientific explanation (e.g. what is pain?). I have discussed this in this blog posting

Then, what also happens is that any possible world exists as long as it is formally describable. Now that comes quite close to religion, but it is not religion in a dogmatic sense.

Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is a religion in the sense that it is a belief system. Nobody has any proof for Atheism, yet you want to believe it. That is an opinion based on a belief, not on any proof. Nature and the subject of science cannot show how matter came into existence. Matter can be made only from other matter, but matter cannot come from nothing; only G-d the Omni-present can create matter from nothing. First there is no proof for atheism or for the lack of existence of G-d. On the contrary, there is a ton of proof FOR the existence of G-d; besides that G-d revealed himself on Mount Sinai to an entire nation; not in a dream, nor in any explainable man made form, or told in retrospect, but as nothing ever before or after. Since then the message has passed from fathers to sons in the collective memory of an ENTIRE nation, all the way to my father then to me, and from me I hope I instilled it to my sons and daughters who I hope will further instill it in their children and so on and on.

I am always amazed at the ability of the human mind to discard everything and to believe in something that doesn’t make sense at all. The only reason I can think of why some people do believe in Atheism is because if a G-d exists then “sin” also exists and man will have to give an accounting one day for his deeds. That dreaded thought drives people to believe in anything but G-d (“ABG” a.k.a. Atheism). Itzse (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

I'd love if you help me improve this article I wrote: User:Yosichen/Jewish views on marital relations Yosichen (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Levi Pante for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Levi Pante 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/Levi Pante 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. bender235 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shlomo Zalman Porush[edit]

The article Shlomo Zalman Porush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. Article tagged "Notability" since 2008.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Proposed deletion of File:JudenhutGroschenObv.jpg[edit]

The file File:JudenhutGroschenObv.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]