Revision as of 22:21, 30 November 2006 editDaniel575 (talk | contribs)2,939 edits →Tell me where?← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:35, 30 November 2006 edit undoArmon (talk | contribs)4,546 edits I think your rv was a bit hastyNext edit → | ||
Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
==Forget about that== | ==Forget about that== | ||
One should not be ashamed for performing a mitzvah. And mocking A"Z is a great mitzvah. I love attacking Messianics. They should all be killed. It's too bad the guys who call themselves a 'Sanhedrin' are themselves kofrim. If we really had a Sanhedrin, with real authority to impose the death penalty, we could execute all Messianics living within jurisdiction of that Sanhedrin. I volunteer to carry out the executions. What do you think it will be, decapitation or stoning? --] | <small>'']''</small> 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | One should not be ashamed for performing a mitzvah. And mocking A"Z is a great mitzvah. I love attacking Messianics. They should all be killed. It's too bad the guys who call themselves a 'Sanhedrin' are themselves kofrim. If we really had a Sanhedrin, with real authority to impose the death penalty, we could execute all Messianics living within jurisdiction of that Sanhedrin. I volunteer to carry out the executions. What do you think it will be, decapitation or stoning? --] | <small>'']''</small> 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
== I think your rv was a bit hasty == | |||
I hadn't finished writing my rationale on talk. Please respond on ]. Cheers, ] 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:35, 30 November 2006
Important I prefer to keep conversations in one place. So if you send put a talk message on my page, I will respond there. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.
Talk Archive000 Talk Archive001 Talk Archive002 Talk Archive003 Talk Archive004 Talk Archive005 Next archiving will occur around January 1
JoshuaZ is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Thanks
thanks for the advice and help- i like to do what i can when i'm on here (which isn't very often), but i did just get a new computer which means i will be on more, so i will make an account and try to learn some more 70.176.114.118 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
let's just say i have some very basic expirience here (NOT in a good way)but i am more interested in the project in a GOOD way now- so i will check the page
Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident
I agree with your analysis of the picture, and even deleted it (as it has been established as a copyright violation). I believe we should wait a bit, especially if Striver decides to go through with the RfC, before unprotecting. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Some More Old News about JINXTENGU
Well again I'm sorry to hash some more old news about JINXTENGU. I submitted this check user report and as you can see they stated that the static IP of the multiple accounts would be blocked for a month. Well apparently he is still able to create accounts through various methods (as you can see on my recent talk page history and this diff page). I have officially submitted him now as an abusive sockpuppeteer with the recent accounts he created. I'm surprised he has not yet realized how pointless it is to continue creating these accounts that will end up getting blocked time after time.¤~Persian Poet Gal 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Admin talk same-sex marriage
Hi JoshuaZ: I just noticed that you and a few admins had a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#User:IZAK criticizing same-sex marriage on talk page that took place 16-17 November 2006. I would have liked to respond to the comments there at the time, but the page has already been archived, even though the question of editing the article is not over. So I am copying the following response to you, that I had wanted to put in. Best wishes, IZAK 09:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Response from IZAK
Hi folks I just noticed your comments here and I wanted to respond in my own "defense" to set the record "straight" (good pun, no? ;-}) So here goes: IZAK 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- If an article deals with same-sex marriage, then as long as the comment/s on a talk page (yet!) deals with that topic it is connected to it, even though it may be phrased in a way that may not always please everyone... because according to the Bible it is a shame on South Africa and any other place that makes same-sex marriage "legal" since the Bible condemns that kind of behavior. What if a law was passed "allowing" theft, or murder, or adultery? Would that make them "legal" too? This is not about WP:SOAP, this is about understanding why the majority of religious leaders and people are opposed to such things, and that can, must and will be part of articles like this. What can I do, I didn't write the Bible! Honest!
- At no point did I re-insert my comment 3 times into the talk pae within 24 hours, and to say that it violates the 3RR is false. I did it over a few days, so there could not have been any application of the 3RR in this case under any circumstance.
- תועבה can be translated in a few ways, I was using only one from the JPS version. Indeed, I actually prefer one translation given by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan who said that the word means "mistaken act" תוע-בהbut regardless of how it translated into other languages, the Hebrew Bible clearly condemns this act.
- The list of "abominations" in the Bible is long, and homosexuality is most definitely one of the abominations, so we can't argue it away with other comparisons that are not to the point.
- I subsequently expanded the implications of what I had written on the talk page, but it was not written in "religious" terms, but that addition to the article was deleted because an editor there said it was "all made up".
- At that point, after someone threatened to block me, instead of practicing what they preached and engaging me in a serious dialogue on the issues and not as a distraction about what I was doing, I took the entire matter to Mediation Cabal where it has remained this past week. See Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa and Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa, where you can read the series of events and when they took place. Please feel free to add your comments there as well, I'd love to hear from you.
- Finally, when the dust settles I will go back to work on the article and provide many more quotes and references, so that the article can reflect all parties views in South Africa, and not just those of the ANC-South African Communist Party-dominated government, parliament, and courts. There are always at least two sides to every story, right? That is the essence of NPOV. IZAK 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
happy Turkey-Day!!!!
I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandizi! --Randfan please talk talk to me! |
- Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!
Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
- Obviously your busy, but you might want to archive, the page is getting really long. :) Cheers! :) —Randfan!! 17:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
inappropriate intervention in a debate you've shown interest in
JoushaZ wrote:
- "Excuse me? Where have I participated in this discussion? JoshuaZ 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)"
You deleted another users comments on the talk page whom you disagreed with. You provdied no explanation in the edit summary, and there was clearly no violation of wikipedia's ettiquette in the users remarks. Whatrsmore, the editors edit history indicated this editor was very new (only making a few edits) so if any action was warranted (and I don't think there was any action warranted) a simple explanation of what the editor had done wrong would have been sufficient.
Regardless, your intervention on the discussion page — whether appropriate or not (I think not) — demonstrates you are not a disintrested administrator when it comes to this article. You should be recusing yourself from actions related to the article: especially blodking other editors. --Cplot 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
regarding Logging in and wikipedia policy
Misplaced Pages states: "Logging in is not required for viewing pages, and not even for editing them. However, it provides additional features, and in general projects recommend it." 136.183.146.158 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I am being disruptive
I don't believe I am being disruptive. I wish to edit in peace and not got annoying emails from the likes of ReasonisBest 136.183.146.158 03:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
logging in, continued
I am not getting as many harrassing emails now that I am not logging in. The proof is in the pudding. Secondly, not logging in is not sockpuppetry. There is nothing on Misplaced Pages saying not logging in is sockpuppetry. I also am not being disruptive and doing things like "voting twice" vis a vis different usernames. 136.183.146.158 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
ken
You are right. I am not in the best frame of mind or best mood. Sorry.--Filll 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Pharisee
Here is the sense I wanted to use that phrase in:
frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous , the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person
The only part I would disagree slightly with, for the gentleman in question, is the phrase "rule-followers". I am talking about someone who makes a big show of his faith and is overly self confident and disdainful of others with other beliefs.--Filll 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Status of Mechitza
Josh, I changed the Mechitza article to say more about Moshe Feinstein's ruling that a Mechitza is required as a matter of Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Feinstein's perspective is quite remarkable. The idea that there is Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai out there that was never identified as such by the rabbis of the Talmud or the Rishonim may prove to be as capable of supporting radical innovation as it is of supporting existing viewpoints. I altered the definition of Oral Torah in the intro of that article (which had claimed that Oral law consists of things not in the written Torah but in the Mishnah and Talmud) to accommodate this concept of a late identification of Sinaitic law. I suspect other articles may need changes to accommodate it as well. There can certainly be an argument made against Feinstein's perspective, and also an argument that it doesn't apply to e.g. Torah reading, but it has had great influence. I would think that any contemporary discussion about whether a Mechitza is or isn't halakhic in origin or application would have to lay the viewpoint out and wrestle with it. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
who is a jew? edit
your edit to WIAJ was good, but now, in reading that third section, I have to wonder if that entire para is phrased right at all. It opens with the idea of how to ID jews who've walked or converted AWAY from the faith. However, it seems to end, again, with the Haredi assertion that only converts TO judaism who 'count' are those living orthodoxly. So to me, it seems the para 'turned left at Albequerque', to paraphrase Bugs Bunny. ThuranX 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Messianics again
Hi Joshua: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this.
- User:Stjamie (contributions) created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about Boaz Michael (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)
- I'm looking into the matter although I will say at minimum that I don't think the modification of the template constitutes "plagiarism." Whether this is part of the more general strategy of messianics to deliberately confuse matters is a separate issue and if the template is to do that then we have an issue with abuse of Misplaced Pages. However, it would seem to me that having a project on the topic and having a template would reduce rather than increase confusion about the topic. JoshuaZ 01:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Maryville High School
Thanks for your protections of Maryville High School. Homer Croy has a reference. Albert David belongs but I can't find a formal reference (and so am keeping him off). Dale Carnegie does not belong (he moved before graduation). Sadly, the anonymous disruptions are achieving their effect. Americasroof 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Adolf Jellinek and his Christian son
Does anyone know what kind of "rabbi" and Torah scholar Adolf Jellinek was (Orthodox, Reform, none-of-the-above, all-of-the above?) The question is important because he had a son Georg Jellinek who supposedly became a Christian, and the article about him says that "Jellinek, the son of Adolf Jellinek, a rabbinical scholar, converted to Christianity." Making it sound that the alleged conversion of George Jellinek is somehow "enhanced" (like a "hidur mitzva - lehavdil) by the fact that he had a "rabbinical father." Anyhow, the portrait of Adolf doesn't look like it would make it into an ArtScroll anything right now :-} In addition, in the List of converts to Christianity from Judaism Georg Jellinek is listed and his picture features very prominently. If anyone has any more information on this, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. IZAK 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 27th.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Messianic "Halakha" etc?
Hi JoshuaZ: On 25 October 2006 , User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair 'nough
I see that you appear to not appreciate my preference to encourage inclusion of all valid and cited schools. I may be much more alone in this preference than I suppose. I guess I find it sad that underfunded schools that just get by, but do play important roles in their communities are not currently considered valid for wikipedia. Maybe that will change someday, as things have over the past few years here in wikipedia. I have read your comments to this end regarding statements made in 2003 by Jimmy Wales. Regardless...keep up your hard work...Best, Kukini 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't an issue of valid, it is an issue of notable. There are all sorts of things in this world which should get recognition. There are people who come from rich countries and go risk their lives helping give out food in medicine in war torn countries. They should be honored and acknowledged. But that is not Misplaced Pages's job. Misplaced Pages is trying to be an encyclopedia. Similarly, I would agree that many underfunded schools do just get by and play important roles in their communities and that should be recgonized. But Misplaced Pages's job is not to recognize them. Not everything that is good or should be done should be done by Misplaced Pages. JoshuaZ 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Not everything that is good or should be done should be done by Misplaced Pages." I ask you...why not? What harm is including all verifiable schools? Does it take up too much memory? I am not sure the rationale behind the passion to delete. Maybe if I understood better, I would join the forces of deletion. I dunno. -Kukini 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm generally in favor of the merger of such articles. But there are in general a variety of issues- 1) maintenance. School articles are some of the most heavility vandalized and recieving the most OTRS complaints and having many little school articles just exacerbates such problems. 2) General notability. One reason Misplaced Pages has even the tiny bit of credibility we have is because we have standards of inclusion which don't let random data get thrown in even if its verifiable (see for example, WP:PROF,WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. 3) Misplaced Pages is not a directory and many of these school articles end up not being any more than directories. To me at least these are the main reasons for reduction of school articles. JoshuaZ 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed and respectful responses. Best, Kukini 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I think there are about 5 other reaons that also argue for deletion but I don't think of them as highly (I'd discuss them now but right now I require sleep and will be more than happy if you want to discuss them at a later date). JoshuaZ 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed and respectful responses. Best, Kukini 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm generally in favor of the merger of such articles. But there are in general a variety of issues- 1) maintenance. School articles are some of the most heavility vandalized and recieving the most OTRS complaints and having many little school articles just exacerbates such problems. 2) General notability. One reason Misplaced Pages has even the tiny bit of credibility we have is because we have standards of inclusion which don't let random data get thrown in even if its verifiable (see for example, WP:PROF,WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. 3) Misplaced Pages is not a directory and many of these school articles end up not being any more than directories. To me at least these are the main reasons for reduction of school articles. JoshuaZ 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Not everything that is good or should be done should be done by Misplaced Pages." I ask you...why not? What harm is including all verifiable schools? Does it take up too much memory? I am not sure the rationale behind the passion to delete. Maybe if I understood better, I would join the forces of deletion. I dunno. -Kukini 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Oh, the humanity!
I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll have earned your full confidence by the next time around. Kafziel 14:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
Recent edits to Beit Hanoun article
Striver got an admin to undelete the two pictures. No actual discussion of the matter took place. You may want to talk to the admin and/or Striver. The idea that one of these pictures is fair use has some minimal plausibility (incorrect but I can see why soemoen might think it) but the idea that both of them are fair use in the same article is laughable. JoshuaZ 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The allegation that Striver just talked to an admin is not correct. I responded on the talk page for the article. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to inform you...
I added another revert to the report. There are more, if you want them.--Vercalos 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Beit Hanoun incident may need protecting again.
It seems like editors are back to fighting over whether to include the picture. JoshuaZ 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not necessary, in my opinion. We ought to warn them about the 3RR (because this isn't really coming from all ends), and block them if they persist. -- tariqabjotu 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know who the "we" is in that sentence. At this point I'm a bit too involved an editor to be doing any blocking. I'll put a note on the talk page about 3RR which should get the point across. JoshuaZ 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, maybe just "an admin." I might be too involved in this now too. Nevertheless, I warned Striver he's close to violating it (his 12:07 (UTC) edit counts as well, correct?). -- tariqabjotu 22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There's now a section regarding the article on WP:ANI. -- tariqabjotu 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Email Contact
On your user page you ask blocked users to contact you by email but there is no email address given. What's up with that? This is a dynamic IP so please don't respond to it as I won't be able to see the response. 66.61.147.73 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the left hand side of every user page on Misplaced Pages is an option titled "E-mail this user". The option is right below "User contributions" in the toolbox set (under the search bar). If a user has an activated email account this allows them to contact the person in question. JoshuaZ 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
JfJ RFAr
Aye, but as I said, as far as what i've written, most of it is probably at least borderline quote mining in a more objective sense because I haven't been able to provide the diffs or much context :/. (September 13th in particular was a very hectic day on that talk page) Not that i'm trying to deliberatly misconstrue what people have been writing or anything, its just i'll have to confirm all of this if the case is accepted. Homestarmy 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, perhaps, though i'm still concerned that Paradox might get upset and do something that permanently cements the block :/. (Though, there seems to be so much consensus for it so far, it might be too late....) Homestarmy 05:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia
No bad faith?? I am not sure we are reading the same page. the nom is clearly uncivil and the biased. I am not the only admin who agrees. I am keeping the page and having the writers clean-up the OR. I was thinking of warning the nom with {{civil}} but i don't think it merits that. And how can you call 17 references OR? Betacommand 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Tell me where?
Hey, kako si, na koji jezik hoces da pisem? sluzili Engleski? -> I assume you are Serbian so I would like to know in what language you prefer I write? But now to the matter, you are calling a simple list pov? Just tell me one thing, where do I repport you and your companions and hopefully get you shut off 4ever? And in what section should the repport be, vandals or what? My sincere regards Ancient Land of Bosoni
- I'm afraid that I'm not Serbian. My ancestry is mainly Polish and Russian. You'll have a much better chance at getting the article kept if you explain why it is a useful or necessary fork from the main list than by attacking editors. If you do feel some sort of need to report, I suggest you go to WP:ANI and continue the section you already started there. Please remember to refrain my making personal attacks. JoshuaZ 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You want a reason, okey I didn't registrate that earlier. Hmm let me see, okey got it, serb army soldiers make up about 95% of the war criminals prosecuted by ICTY. Hmm want more?..is that necessary? but well okey: hmm roughly 90% of the civilians killed in bosnia were bosniaks, and srebrenica is the worst killing in post-war europe. Ancient Land of Bosoni
- And that justifies a separate list why? JoshuaZ 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Forget about that
One should not be ashamed for performing a mitzvah. And mocking A"Z is a great mitzvah. I love attacking Messianics. They should all be killed. It's too bad the guys who call themselves a 'Sanhedrin' are themselves kofrim. If we really had a Sanhedrin, with real authority to impose the death penalty, we could execute all Messianics living within jurisdiction of that Sanhedrin. I volunteer to carry out the executions. What do you think it will be, decapitation or stoning? --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think your rv was a bit hasty
I hadn't finished writing my rationale on talk. Please respond on talk:Juan Cole. Cheers, <<-armon->> 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)