Misplaced Pages

Zionist spammer

Dear SlimVirgin:

Thank you for removing the spam from my talk page. I have no idea who the culprit was, and I don't recall editing any Israel- or zionism-related articles. --Eastlaw 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Zionism

I posted the comment on your page because you reverted my edit without explaining (or even acknowledging), and I'm tired of waiting around for you to show up. Mackan79 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverts?

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my (legitimate) change to the Holocaust template pretty quickly. I also see that other people have complained about your same behavior. Perhaps in the interests of good faith you should review the Misplaced Pages Revert Policy. Namely, the "Don't" section, which states:

1. Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
2. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith.
3. Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Thanks! .V. 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for voting for me at my rfa. I am flattered.--Berig 11:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights issues

Hello, I have posted some comments on the talk page for the animal rights article, better explaining more of the substance of my concerns and the reason for the dispute flags which I have added. Here is another link which you might find helpful. RegardsTrilobitealive 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sinjytrok

Hi. I thought you might like to know that this user is editing against consensus in David Irving and has invoked your name in doing so. They have also issued me with a tit-for-tat vandal warning. Anyway I thought you would be interested. Best wishes --Guinnog 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis

FYI: Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Misplaced Pages as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Misplaced Pages as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Misplaced Pages it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Misplaced Pages to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Misplaced Pages, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Misplaced Pages article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Frummer creates User:Jesus

Hi SlimVirgin: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus#Problem with your user name. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Misplaced Pages and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Misplaced Pages and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

1. No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
2. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
3. So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
4. What will members of other projects, such as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
5. Note: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Misplaced Pages projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
6. It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
7. Finally, Misplaced Pages is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Misplaced Pages:No original research; Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought; and Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi SlimVirgin: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575

He is back yet again. I opened a case at suspected sock puppets, this will be his third sockpuppet. His current IP is 169.132.18.248 this is his work IP. Yossiea 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

EB Antisemitism Article info

Dear Slim:

I see you've added this article to a footnote in the Martin Luther article. Do you have the author of the piece (it should be signed at the end of the article)m a link to the article oor the page number of the physical edition? That information would be quite helpful to have in the note. I'm away on Christmas holiday, so I do not have immediate access to it. Thanks! My wishes for a happy holiday season and a safe and prosperous new year. --CTSWyneken 18:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul Raj violating block

Hi, Paul Raj has violated the 24h block you placed for 3RR violation: . Thanks Parthi 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

SV, just so you know, I had been planning to properly report your 3RR on Folke Bernadotte along with your ridiculously blatant revert warring, but I decided the whole thing was just too silly. I guess at this point it's your call if we're going to continue being a waste of each other's time. I'd appreciate some sign of peace, preferably an apology for your attempt to bully and embarass me (no I don't go around reverting people; that's you guys to me, and no I was not those sockpuppets), but I guess I can't hold my breath. I don't hold grudges, though, unless you do. Mackan79 05:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)