User talk:IZAK/Archive 49

Please don't let yourself get baited into these sort of arguments. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shabbos App may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to one opinion of Rabbi [[Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz]] (1878-1953) known as the ''[[Chazon Ish]]'') one is building and breaking a circuit and in violation of the prohibition of [[Activities

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed. [1] IZAK (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shabbos App, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yom Tov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• It was fixed. [2] IZAK (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App 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/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa (talk • contribs) [3]

• Thank you for informing me. IZAK (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Talmud concepts and terminology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for informing me. IZAK (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, is there any way you can help here with an editor who insists on adding extraneous and libelous information to these articles? See [4]. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Thank you for contacting me. I took a look, and while it is legitimate to add a "Criticism" section to an article, it is not acceptable to drag extraneous issues into a biography of a living person, a clear violation of ignoring the rules of WP:LIBEL & WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND that is obviously meant to smear and drag and damage that person by exaggerating and distorting things that are not even backed up by WP:V & WP:RS. Therefore please see Meir Zlotowitz#Controversy and my edit summary "Create ==Controversy==, remove stuff that has nothing to do with him but belongs in an a Weiss-Dodelson affair article, Zlotowitz was tangentially involved. Add controversy to Lakewood Yeshiva & Malkiel Kotler as Dodelson supporters to be even" [5]. Thank you and keep me posted, IZAK (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Northamerica1000: Thank you for letting me know. I have made the correction. [6] Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your past help. I won't be contributing to Wikipedia again, but if there are other ways I can be of use to you, feel free to let me know. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• @MarkBernstein: Thanks and thank you for contacting me I am honored and you should feel honored too for acting and being an honorable person and contributor. I have also responded on your talk page as well [7]. Best wishes and likewise, please feel free to stay in touch with me. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kehila

added a link pointing to Kehilla

List of Jewish communities by country

added a link pointing to Kehilla

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• The links need to stay because they convey the needed message accurately. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. You deleted the reference to the category "History of Israel" (which looked suspicious) and replaced it with a word which reminded me "liar" (with a spelling mistake), so I understood it as a vandalism. Actually, I know the אייר month name in Hebrew only , and did not realized that "lyar" is the English name. I am very sorry. Please forgive me. Ykantor (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Ykantor: Thank you for your response. You are wrong again because I did not "delete" anything! All I did was alphabetize the categories and add one more [8] (take a careful look again and you will see it for yourself!) You should have checked that more carefully before jumping to conclusions. Accusing an experienced editor of "vandalism" (when I have been actively editing WP for 12 years!) is a very serious allegation that should not be thrown about. We are free to disagree but not throw false charges in the heat of the moment. I have more to say, but for now we can leave it at that. Feel free to contact me at any time if I can be of help to you. Judging by other comments on your talk page you seem to be taking a lot of heat from a number of directions. I would therefore say, take a very deep breath, cool it,step back, maybe go on a WP:WIKIBREAK and never act impulsively or "shoot from the hip" because that style of reaction as we all go about building an encyclopedia will only paint you into a tight corner you do not wish to be in and do not deserve because you have a passion to help and should channel that in positive ways. All the best and be well, IZAK (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

-Oops, this is embarrassing. I apologize again, this time for the "History of Israel" issue. Sorry.

-Thank you for your wishes and kind advice. I will appreciate it if you read this talkpage section and tell me your opinion on both my content and whether I follow Wiki rules. I am sure that I am right but who knows? I might be wrong in some aspects, and it would be better to be aware of such mistakes.

-The issue is the cause to the Six-Day War. The article excludes the causes, and I want the causes to be included. I have listed plenty of wp:rs, including Arab sources, who claims that Nasser steps (during the 3 weeks crisis up to the war) made the war inevitable. Other editors are opposing this claim. It might be interesting for you to see the Israeli and Arab views concerning this war. Thanks. Happy Hanukkah. Ykantor (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Thank you for your kind feedback. In the kind of situations you are mentioning, where there are obviously conflicting ways of looking at a conflict/wars (naturally!), the only way to resolve it is by using the tried and tested way of WP formatting that would be worded as: "According to Israeli ABC historians/sources, the causes of the war were XYZ, while according to EFG Arab historians/sources the causes of the were 123, while according to other historians/sources it was a combination of XYZ+123" -- thus each side's point of view is stated as such, that should hopefully result in a WP:NPOV description and explanation of events. In such articles there can eventually be sections and even spin-off articles about the different views and approaches with the passage of time as research mounts. Obviously, "winners" and "losers" have different and contradictory perspectives of the same historical events. In Jewish History for example, Tisha B'Av is viewed by Jews as a great tragedy to be mourned for thousands of years, while for the Romans it was a great victory to be celebrated forever. WP does not choose sides, when there are conflicting points of view about still-simmering conflicts, everyone's opinion is considered and all sides get to air their views in as fair and objective manner as humanly possible. IZAK (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@IZAK: Thank you very much. I agree with every word of yours. Will it be possible for you to write at this talkpage section too? Ykantor (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Unless I am actively editing an article I usually do not get involved in the discussions on talk pages. In fact it is a general WP guideline not to abuse talk pages. That means that it is best to come up with WP:V & WP:RS that are solid enough and insert them into actual articles in the type of "framework" I outlined above. If after that the good sources are unjustifiably rejected then it is worthwhile trying to understand why they are being rejected or why they should be included, depending on the situation. It should be easy to prove that from the point of view of Israel's national security perspective the various steps that Nasser did such as removing UN buffer troops in the Sinai, banning Israeli ships from using the Suez Canal and finally blocking the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping in effect blockading Eilat, were all casus belli that any idiot could see were provocations that no self-respecting independent nation would tolerate. Of course there are fools that think that the Jews have no right to fight back in kind or that Israel should just let itself be allowed to be destroyed. While Israel itself out of its national right of self-defense chooses to defend its national interests and not ignore provocations and then takes the steps it feels to fight back against its enemies and inflict defeat upon them. As they say, the Arabs can afford to lose many wars but Israel cannot afford to lose even one war because the war that it will lose will be it's "last war" so to speak. Anyhow, good luck with your work and do not lose your cool. Stick to the WP rules of WP:NPOV that allows for all sides to have their perspectives stated and always rely on the best WP:V & WP:RS you can find! Stay in touch! IZAK (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes and spending the time needed for reading this talkpage. Unfortunately the other editors there are biased and unjustifiably reject the wp:balance rule. It is rather difficult to be the only objective regular editor there and to see that most of my contributions are deleted. Do you happen to know an objective editor who may be interested (infrequently?) in editing those articles? thanks again, Ykantor (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Try the following Users: Alansohn; Epeefleche; Davidbena; Brewcrewer; Galastel; Yoninah; Lisa as they are sensible editors often interested in this field, as well the following who are fair admins and have lots of experience in this area: Avraham; DGG; Jayjg. Keep me posted. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: Hi there! You must be mistaken because I have NOTHING to do with this image and I cannot understand why you have contacted me. Regards, IZAK (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an F2 Deletion, you may have added a tag or category on a local page? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: Where? No clue and absolutely no memory of ever doing anything related to this image and its subject-matter ("satanism")! Can you trace how you got to me in this regard? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, I can't find how your name came to be associated with this either. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: No problem, and thank you for caring. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeccaXIII (talk • contribs) [9] [10]

Izak, Shalom. Today, I made an edit on a WP article entitled Cyclamen persicum. I added the section entitled "Plant properties," now changed to "Uses." In it, I had written the sentence: "...The Bedouins of the land of Israel used to collect the root, and after grating it, would mix it with lime and sprinkle it over the surface of lakes or other large bodies of water known to contain fish," but another Wiki editor came along and changed the name "Israel" to "Palestine." I wanted to know if this is deemed proper procedure on Wikipedia, i.e., not to use the name "Israel" when referring to this country and to ignore, as it were, the political reality on the ground, or perhaps it is because the reference to the Bedouins there occurred during the British Mandate? Just curious. - Davidbena (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Thank you for contacting me with your important question. As far as I can tell anything that takes place within the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel = Israel. I suggest you also ask this question of Users @Alansohn: & @Epeefleche: & @Yoninah: as to what they would do in this kind of situation, and ask for the input of the fair and experienced admins @Avraham: & @DGG: & @Jfdwolff: and please keep me posted. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Izak, for this pertinent advice.Davidbena (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Thank you, no problem, travel safe on WP! IZAK (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would look for the best wp:reliable source on the subject. And see what it says. I can't see what the current ref says, as it is off-line. The edit summary used by the editor who changed your edit was non-sensical, btw, as the editor wrote: "geographic name," and of course the name he deleted was itself a geographic name. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for accusing you of personal attacks and reporting you to ANI. It was never in my intent to fight or even argue with you. For that, I'm truly sorry. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: Thanks for contacting me. I assure you that I have no hard feelings, seems to me that you were just a bit over-exuberant and then over-reacted, as I see you are still "getting the feel" for how WP works, something that is quite complex as things stand. In all my 12+ years on WP I cannot recall jumping to go to ANI even under the toughest circumstances. My own philosophy when disagreeing with anyone is to hash it out on the talk pages and arrived at WP:CONSENSUS. Usually I find that those users who run to ANI are either very inexperienced or too rigid in their outlooks unable to engage in debates with others who do not share their worldview. Another thing, never underestimate the intelligence and capabilities of other editors. I always assume that I am dealing with very smart and educated people on WP with whom I can engage in WP:CIVIL debates on points of contention, and when that fails I find it alarming that some editors cannot take the heat and resort to running to ANI and all sorts of maneuvers in order to get their way rather than realize that WP is all about finding common ground with others who do not share your outlook or vision of things. Feel free to stay in touch and kindest regards, and happy 2015! May it be a year filled with blessings and peace on Earth! IZAK (talk · contribs) 06:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Izak, I'm sorry to bother you, but I need help deleting some of the redundant "References" listed on the WP article Habban District. Davidbena (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Izak, the problem has already been fixed. Davidbena (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Davidbena: OK! IZAK (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:IZAK, can you please go to Bayt Nattif's Talk page, at the last section there, there is a debate between me and another editor concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. Looking for your advice. Davidbena (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Done [11]. Not worth the argument because Israel is now a reality that is not going to be "erased" or "pushed off the map" starting with WP based on silly WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT "arguments" buttressed by specious WP:LAWYERING, but it's an interesting debate nevertheless with the usual "politically correct" views popping up, as past facts and truths are conveniently ignored. Take it easy, IZAK (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct assessment. In the end I conceded that the wording there might not actually have any political connotation. Thanks, again, for your pertinent advice. Davidbena (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Shalom. Why did you do this? "Porte de Vincennes siege" may be the best title. The phrase has been used on the Jerusalem Post youtube channel by their presenter, and it seems to make sense. What happened was very similar to the incident in Sydney a few weeks ago. In any case, I don't think the current title makes sense--shooting belittles what happened, as another editor suggested on the talkpage. Would you agree?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Thank you for contacting me. The article was moved back to Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis by User Lowellian (talk · contribs) [12] who is an admin (using a rather weak argument I would say), so the point is moot. Most similar articles have been called "shootings" on WP (e.g. Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting; United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting; Toulouse and Montauban shootings and more like this) so I was using that as a precedent not to diminish what happened, but the end result was a bloody shooting and shootout, and not just a "hostage crisis" which could mean anything, while the word "shooting" means "shoot/ing to kill" that people were in fact killed/murdered and that is not a diminution of what happened. Feel free to be in touch with me at any time. Regards, IZAK (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, what happened is very similar to the 2014 Sydney siege, except that it is far worse. Now, is there a Wikipedia article about the freedom march, where many presidents and millions of citizens were present, not only in Paris, but all across the nation (and to some extent, the world)? The Paris freedom march would definitely qualify as an article I think, being such a historical event.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: 1 Firstly I agree with you there should be an article about the Paris freedom march (2015) because it was hugely important and covered by lots of WP:RS. 2 As for the word "siege" (look it up!), it does NOT last a couple of hours or days, in these modern cases of Jihad-intoxicated Muslim fanatics causing planned mayhem we are talking about where the main aim of the attackers is to murder as many people as they can in a dramatic fashion for PR purposes to frighten the rest of the world that they hallucinate will somehow cave in to them. This is a form of delusionary and megalomaniacal twisted "self-deception" of basically evil and crazy people who don't have anything better to do than to terrorize the rest of the human race that wants to get on with life peacefully. They are disruptive bullies that at some point will be dealt with in the same way they treat others. It is inevitable, that is what history shows. 3 In military warfare parlance a real siege lasts a VERY long time, at least weeks, usually months and even years! 4 Thus: "A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition warfare or assault. The term derives from sedere, Latin for "to sit". Siege warfare is a form of constant, low-intensity conflict characterized by one party holding a strong, static defensive position. Consequently, an opportunity for negotiation between combatants is not uncommon, as proximity and fluctuating advantage can encourage diplomacy. A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that cannot be easily taken by a coup de main and refuses to surrender (military). Sieges involve surrounding the target and blocking the reinforcement or escape of troops or provision of supplies typically coupled with attempts to reduce the fortifications by means of siege engines, artillery bombardment, mining. Failing a military outcome, sieges can often be decided by starvation, thirst, or disease..." Be well and stay in touch! IZAK (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. The word was certainly widely used to describe what happened in Sydney--while it was happening, on live television. First time I had to watch TV in over ten years; I wouldn't be surprised if they misused the word. However, the word may have several meanings. Perhaps they/we are using the vulgarization of the word. I wonder what word will be used in academic journals of security studies--we will only find out in a about a year, as it takes forever to peer-review articles. For now, perhaps using the vulgarized meaning of "siege" is OK. I understand your perspective though. Would you like to start an article on the Paris freedom march? My internet is terrible in this hotel, so I can't do all the research necessary right now. Very frustrating.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lowellian: I think the name of the article should be "siege," not "hostage taking." The hostage-taking situation is over and now innocent civilians have been murdered. We both agree that "shooting" was a misnomer, given the connotation. See discussion above and let us know what you think. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also added a merge proposal for Amedy Coulibaly into the page we are discussing. He was a nobody before this happened and adding a few biographical details to the main article should suffice. I have also removed what looked like terrorist propaganda--the translation of his ramblings--from the page. I also added some info about the funeral. I however would like to just focus on historic buildings and polo now; I find editing those articles too strange. I'm really not enjoying it, but I felt I had to step in. Is someone else willing to argue for the merge and make sure the page is not turned into a crazy re-writing of history? Perhaps User:IZAK?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, User:IZAK. Would you mind doing the merger? We all agree. That would be greatly appreciated. My internet connection is very limited atm.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph J Sherman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jewish Temple and Kotel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed [13] [14]. IZAK (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Izak, Shalom. I need your help in moving a page that I created, entitled, Holy Incense: in rabbinic responsa, and having it read under the more correct title: "Holy incense (in rabbinic literature)". I am unfamiliar with the process of changing titles. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Izak, the change that I requested has already been done. Davidbena (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello IZAK, I don't think anyone's written yet on the history of organized Jewish wikipedians in organizing articles on Judaism, Jewish practice, Jewish history, etc. on Wikipedia. I'm a historian, Jewish educator, and wikipedia editor and I'd like to learn more about this effort from someone who has been involved from nearly the beginning of Wikipedia. Could you share your take on this history and who else might be good to ask? Thank you. Aharonium (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Aharonium: This may need official authorization from WP because I do not know of similar requests. Have you tried posting this "request" at WP:TALKJUDAISM? as that would open it up to a wider group. Has there ever been a request to ask all WP contributors to any particular field to do such a thing at any time? One problem is how would such an effort not violate WP:COI? In my 12 years on WP I cannot recall such a thing and that is why I think your request is very strange, in an interesting sort of way, but still unorthodox, and for it to go anywhere on WP you need to request at a minimum some sort of input and discussion first at forums such as WP:RFC/A or WP:VP/PR or WP:VPM. In the past I was officially interviewed by WP's own The Wikipedia Signpost concerning Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, see the interview with me @ Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-23/WikiProject report. I am asking a few other users, Users (DGG (talk · contribs); Avraham (talk · contribs); Jfdwolff (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Epeefleche (talk · contribs); Alansohn (talk · contribs)) some are admins, what they think, hopefully they will respond. Stay in touch, best wishes, and thanks for thinking of me. IZAK (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Organized Jews who are Wikipedians?" Not even sure I know what that means. Even the wikiproject pointed to is not one of "Jewish Wikipedians". There's simply nothing responsive that I am aware of.Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice IZAK and thanks for your combination of solid advice and patience. While I've been a casual wikipedia editor for years, I'm not an expert and by no means as familiar and agile with its internal culture, conventions, and mechanisms. I also could have framed my query with more carefully considered language. To clarify, if it's at all helpful, I was really intrigued with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism and the history of its organization. I'll also ask my question at Wikiproject Judaism. I only thought to ask you first because I saw on your user page that you were a 12 year veteran, and the first submitter of some of the earliest articles I've seen within the scope of that project.Aharonium (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the customary rules are at Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia. But the permission it talks of does not involve permission from the WMF or anyone here. Some things do require permission: see m:Research:Index and especially m:Research:Subject recruitment. whether what you propose doing would require this approval I do not know. Certainly anyone here may individually talk to anyone they please without asking permission.

The development of articles on Jewish topics in Wikipedia and the history of Wikiproject Judaism are different topics. Speaking personally, I do not consider members of a Wikiproject to be "organized Jewish WPedians". Anyone may join any Wikiproject they wish, as long as they do not do so disruptively. I am personally a member of some wikiprojects with sharply contradictory aims, in order to keep in touch with them, and I personally would regard it as inappropriate to be asked here whether my membership in Wikiproject Judaism, or my editing of topics in that field, indicates I am a Jew, or indeed to be asked here whether I am a Jew, or a Christian, or anything else personal. I might or might not choose to say something about myself voluntarily, but we do not question people at WP about their real identities or affiliations. And, quite frankly, I would not be willing to answer any questions about personal identity or motivations of any of my fellow wikipedians, even when I might happen to know them.

But as I personally understand it, if you wish to confine your studies to what you can analyze from the logs of edits and comments, that is something you have every right to do: what we say and do here is public.

As Epeefleche indicates, I too am personally quite puzzled, however, by your use of "organized". This would imply your belief that there is some degree of collusion, as distinct from open cooperation. I know that some individuals at WP have admitted engaging in collusion on some topics, but we are not supposed to do that, but rather edit and discuss as individuals. If anyone has done anything of the sort in this field, I am not aware of it. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Haven't read the entire conversation, but I thought I should briefly mention that I am strongly opposed to this. First of all, it wouldn't cover an encyclopedic topic at all. We're not in the habit of doing original research, especially not about ourselves (Wikipedians). Secondly, I have created pages about synagogues and Jewish topics, and I am not Jewish. It sounds ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I really should have written worded my question around "Judaic" rather than Jewish which was a foolish error on my part, and which with some forethought, avoided misunderstanding. For sure, one need not be Jewish to be a wikipedia editor in order to be engaged in editing articles on Judaism or related issues in Judaic Studies. By "organized" I really meant efforts like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism in cooperating on the editing and review of articles within the project's scope of interest. I hope this is clear now. If I could, I would edit the section name for this query, and if it's not too late, please consider my query concerning the History of WikiProject Judaism. Please forgive me for the confusion. Aharonium (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Self identifying Jewish members of the community with an active interest in Jewish topics would have been a better description. I hear where you are coming from, an unfortunate turn of phrase merely I would say. Irondome (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be original research, pure and simple, which has no place on Wikipedia. I would nominate it for speedy deletion, then AFD, in a heartbeat.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the simple answer is that there is no "history of organized Jewish wikipedians in organizing articles on Judaism, Jewish practice, Jewish history, etc. on Wikipedia". Such a thing does not exist. Are you aware of any shred of evidence for the existence of a "history of organized Jewish wikipedians in organizing articles on Judaism, Jewish practice, Jewish history, etc. on Wikipedia"? I think your fundamental premise is flawed (or maybe I'm misunderstanding you). This topic, in many cases, predated Wikipedia. Many related topics predated Wikipedia by millennia. WP:WikiProject Judaism was and still is just a meeting place for the hashing out of ideas. Predictability is virtually nonexistent when anyone with a seemingly rational thought is allowed to provide input. The glue that holds good quality articles together is not the people (editors) writing them but rather the topics themselves and their supporting sources. Bus stop (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It also doesn't make sense because Wikipedians are anonymous, don't know each other, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with DGG, Bus Stop, and Zigzig20s that the subject is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. It seems more appropriate for an article in the general media, but as Wikipedia editors are anonymous, the most you could probably get to reveal themselves is one or two. The page idea intimates some kind of Jewish cabal, which is totally untrue, as editors bring their own backgrounds and interests to the table and do not edit en bloc. As on other WP Projects, the most anyone does to identify with Jewish topics is put his name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Members. Yoninah (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. I believe there is a place for narrative research into online collaboration, and of course there is a small group of editors with an interest in Judaism and Israel who have been on Wikipedia for a very long time, understand the project's workings, and have brought some semblance of organisation and standards to the content. However, there is a real risk that such a piece of research is going to expose editors and target them for abuse, as well as create a springboard for online haters ("I told you so, there is a Jewish cabal that subverts Wikipedia").

If such a project is to succeed, people would need to opt in, provide whatever oral history they wish to share, and have the option of remaining utterly anonymous. JFW | T@lk 10:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

But it would be original research. It has no place on Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This could be a splendid case study about how Wikipedia (and a Wikiproject) functions. Of course it's original research, but many scholars do research about Wikipedia. There's an incredible amount of publicly-accessible data, on WP, to write this history. With the protections afforded nowadays (whether by law or academic practice) for human subjects of research, interviews could be useful as well. The study could examine, for instance, types and strategies of cooperation, biases among editors, positive and negative behaviors, anti-Jewish attitudes and speech encountered, AfD conflicts, efforts by specific subgroups (e.g., Chabad), gender gap and gender issues, etc. It makes sense that this discussion is here, since Izak has been a major leader for the Wikiproject and associated articles. You might also want to interview editors who have left the Wikiproject or Wikipedia. Very fertile ground for research. It'd be great to do a comparative study of another Wikiproject (e.g., Military history or Chemistry or a thousand others) but not necessary. B'hatzlakha! HG | Talk 13:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should waive the rules concerning original research to have an article on Wikipedia and Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not (if you are asking me). Nor does Aharonium (the historian who started this discussion) imply that the goal is to write a WP article. Presumably, the purpose is to write about Wikipedia elsewhere, e.g., for Jewish readers. HG | Talk 14:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Not a Wikipedia article. My mistake. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, HG (talk · contribs) -- my goal in asking this question was not for authoring a wikipedia article on this topic -- I was actually just really curious and (I hope this is obvious to everyone by now) really naïve as to what my initial query might elicit. I shouldn't be surprised though that some of the good editors invited to this thread assumed my question was in regards to preparing a new Wikipedia article, but that is fascinating to me too. After this thread, I'm convinced there is definitely an ethnography of wikipedia editing culture that awaits being written (if it hasn't already). I mean that without any sarcasm intended. Thanks again for everyone who has contributed thus far to this thread. Aharonium (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of research on wikis, Aharonium, including many dozens on collaboration, see this list. Here's a link to research supported or indexed by Wikimedia. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope I never end up in any research papers for my Wikipedia editing. I am boring--a complete nobody--look away. You are wasting your time, User:Aharonium or User:Aharon. If you speak some Hebrew as your second profile suggests, perhaps you could spend your time far more productively, by translating some articles for the Hebrew-language Wikipedia instead. Good luck.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Aharonium: To be fair to you and to all the users who were caught up in this discussion, here is my initial reaction to what has just transpired above recently:

1. The following basically rejected and disagreed with you: Epeefleche; DGG; Zigzig20s; Irondome; Bus stop; Yoninah; Jfdwolff -- while only HG seems to have "sided" with you.
2. I think that where you went wrong is not being upfront and frank about your current interests and work on WP and from where you are coming from, as can clearly be seen from your current edit history.
3. From your recent editing history it is obvious that what you are very narrowly focused on is Open-source religion & Open Source Judaism & Open Siddur Project.
4. Therefore you have your own "agenda" (not in a negative way necessarily, just objectively speaking) in researching and, writing and editing about this particular field.
5. So that while it may be clear to you what you are trying to do, the way you presented yourself here and the way you responded to and at times spoke down to other editors, you left people confused, defensive and even hostile to your own ends (hopefully not calculated that way but that's how it came across to everyone here).
6. Thus you did not accomplish what you nominally set out to do, to attain the kind of consensus and cooperation that you had in mind.
7. Rather, you got people suspicious and wary of what it is that you really were up to and why it was so important to you, while perhaps even notable in and of itself, but it was totally lost on those you were trying to engage and get on your side.
8. Therefore you failed in your stated objective, namely to get editors who have an interest in Category:Jews and Judaism to "come together" the way you imagined or intended they do or should or could or would, and they may have seen your point of view had you been more honest and specific about what you are currently up to on WP, and why and what is so important about it to you and to the world at large.
9. Judging from the above reactions, you were rather seen as seeming to play around and coming across as enigmatic, perhaps hostile to some extent and even "manipulative" rather than genuinely curious and eager to create something new, positive and helpful and hoping to get the right feedback you wanted with the right results.
10. Hope you can digest all this and in future please let people know FROM THE GET GO and let them in what you are up to and what you want and what you are doing right now on WP in a more direct way that in turn will hopefully spark more interest, cooperation and input from the very people, users and sources that you are seeking to work with, and help to describe, explain and put what you mean, and wish to accomplish into a positive context.
11. You thus failed at building WP:CONSENSUS and to some degree crossed into the maze of conjuring up some sort of WP:CABAL.
12. Some pitfalls you need to avoid in your writing and editing efforts on WP are the famous ones of WP:NOR & WP:COI & WP:NPOV.
13. You should have definitely placed some sort of notice and started some sort of discussion at WP:JUDAISM and waited to get more input and feedback from those editors, many of them qualifying as WP:EXPERT & WP:COMPETENT in topics relating to Jews & Judaism.

Thank you and please stay in touch and keep everyone posted now that you have broken the ice and made yourself noticable. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a fair analysis. Regardless of my intentions, from the reactions I'd agree with your assessment. However negative some assessments these are, they are ones which, in hindsight, I could and should have anticipated and mitigated so your advice is appreciated. It's helpful reading this since this is really my first experience engaging Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia outside of some discussion over article edits. So a lot of the stumbling on my part is due to naïvité rather than to any intentional manipulation, and I hope the more experienced editors reading through this thread might consider that before coming to a conclusion that my question was intended to elicit some response through some kind of manipulation. Efforts in open-source and Judaism are subjects of interest to me (although not exclusively so). For the articles I've edited on matters of open-source, religion, Judaism, etc. -- I'd really like to see them improve with the contributions from expert and competent wikipedia editors. Inviting such participation wasn't what motivated my initial question, but if the result is more attention to these articles then that's great. Thanks for considering my query with diligence. Aharonium (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking in all of your suggestions, I've added a topic to the discussion board of WikiProject Judaism here. Thank you. Aharonium (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Aharonium: Thanks and please keep me posted. People are busy and there are few who seem to share your interests, so hang in there, and think of posting at other wiki-project pages or even WP policy discussion boards where there is perhaps more activity. Stay in touch, IZAK (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the full question @ User talk:Aharonium#Why two WP user names/accounts? as to why there is a need for both Aharon (talk · contribs) & Aharonium (talk · contribs)? Any ideas anyone? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on how to successfully merge the accounts. The history behind this is explained over on my Talk page and I see you also asked this question over there (which is fine). I'm not sure whether I should repeat myself though on both talk pages. Folk interested in this are welcome to click over there. Respectfully, Aharonium (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Aharonium: Getting a new user name and be in compliance with today's preferred WP guidelines is quite easy. Please carefully read and follow the steps at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thus, see this:

"In 2014, Wikimedia implemented single user login (SUL) over the entirety of Wikimedia projects, including the English Wikipedia. As all usernames are now global, and not project-specific, registered users on the English Wikipedia who wish a username changes need to have that request processed by a global renamer (which includes stewards) in accordance with the global rename policy. A global renamer, who may not necessarily be a local bureaucrat, will process the request. Requests for usernames which are offensive, promotional, disruptive, misleading, or confusing are not accepted. Please read this entire page of guidance carefully before proceeding to one of the two venues for making requests listed below."

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice, IZAK. I will do that. Aharonium (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just an update, right now the change is on hold (at least until April 2015). We're waiting on something called the Global Merge Tool. Aharonium (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you may be interested in the deletion discussion for Category:Rakkah Family. Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mosaic faith. Since you had some involvement with the Mosaic faith redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for letting me know. I have commented. IZAK (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sad, but fact ,that we only have 3 really active users, 1 is an administrator. We(the 2 others) feel that he is kind of a control freak. he is not a native yiddish speaker (as it says on his user pageuser:redaktor but still claims he knows bettter yiddish. We would like him to have a little more sympathy with others. There is no stuart on yiddish wikipedia so this is my only place to express, thanks and all the best.--Alefbeis (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alefbeis (talk • contribs)

I agree. he is like a dictator and does not value other people's work or what They think. he is already there for a long time but I see users have had always complaints on his actions as he does whatever he wants without really talking or asking anyone. he clearly abuses his power and this has cost us a lot of users in the past as nobody can work properly with him. he acts like its his own encyclopedia. I would really appreciate if you can do something about it. thank you very much. (im sorry about my poor English). נייגעריגער (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Takke a probleim! Is the problem over WP:CONTENT or WP:CONDUCT? Fights over content need to be settled between editors. But if it is a problem with conduct/behavior then you can go to the general WP:AN/I and tell them what you mention here because Redaktor is very much on the English WP. Keep me posted! IZAK (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestion (back in June) to create this article. I thought about it for a long time, but it finally started coming together in November with Ami magazine's Kosherfest issue, which included articles right on this subject. I added cites from other books and material I found online. I would appreciate your going over the article and making any changes or suggestions. I did not get into the subject of hechsherim for meat at all, nor did I include it in the history, as unreliable shochtim have a hundreds-year history. I also didn't find sources to talk about materials that need kosher supervision. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Thank you for letting me know and thank you for all your great work! I looked it over and it's more than good! Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to have your advice concerning the Holocaust article name.

In the Holocaust article it is written:"Peter Novick argued: A moment's reflection makes clear that the notion of uniqueness is quite vacuous [… and], in practice, deeply offensive. What else can all of this possibly mean except "your catastrophe, unlike ours, is ordinary."

There are repeated talk page discussions whether "The Holocaust" refers to the murdered Jews or the all the murdered people during those years.

In response, I wrote there: "Please have a look in the Porajmos, Armenian Genocide, Greek genocide, Assyrian genocide, Rwandan Genocide, and more at Category:Genocides. Should not the Jewish Genocide have an article? The article name is of secondary importance. In my opinion it may be called "Shoa" which is the Hebrew name for The Holocaust. "

What is your opinion concerning adding an article that will be dedicated to the Jewish Holocaust.? Ykantor (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Ykantor: Thank you for contacting me. As things stand right now, The Holocaust article is about the Shoah, so I am not sure what your issues are because you need to be more to the point and very clear especially when tackling such a complex and controversial subject. Of course there have always been discussions about using the term "Holocaust" and there always will be, but it is not clear to me EXACTLY what is bothering you and EXACTLY what you want done. I think part of the problem is that English does not seem to be your natural first language, so that makes both understanding you and your desire to convey a message as to exactly what you mean to say a big problem, and it's even more difficult to read you since you try to tackle some of the most difficult and controversial subjects. Hope you can understand and please stay in touch. Suggestion: How about you try getting a discussion going at WP:TALKJUDAISM? All the best, 06:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I think I fixed the mal-formed AfD nomination. Since everybody has voted keep, hopefully somebody will put it out of its misery soon.   — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I would appreciate your point of view on an issue that was raised on my talkpage. Please feel free to comment at User_talk:Debresser#Palestinian_prefix_mishnah-related_articles. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Debresser: Done [15]. Thanks for contacting me. Keep me posted about such things. Regards and Shavua Tov! IZAK (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you be able to revisit the discussion? I am trying to get editors to comment on the real issue, after they strayed away a little. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I would be happy to but I can't see how the conversation is changing in any way. Could you please in two or three very short clear sentences ("kurtz und sharf") state what your goal is and what it is that you want to see and achieve exactly and precisely. Then I would have a better idea of what you want. Right now, it is not clear to me what you are really getting at and what results you want to achieve. Thanks and have a great Shabbos. IZAK (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Judaism in Persia and Iran, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DGtal (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for letting me know. I have commented. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• @DGtal: Thank you for your courtesy and understanding in withdrawing the nomination! Please be in touch with me if you ever have any questions or doubts about any WP articles relating to Jews and Judaism especially. Chag Sameach! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:History of Purim, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for informing me, much appreciated. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:IZAK, Shalom. I'm in need of your assistance again. There is an (Arab) editor who is deleting my edits on Zekharia, and I wish to bring this to the attention of an administrator, one whom you think will be helpful. If you wish to know what exactly has been transpiring between me and the other editor, you may wish to see the Talk page on Az-Zakariyya, under the section: "Merge." I would hope that the administrator that you suggest will be willing to solve our dispute, but more importantly, that the editor in question does not continue to disrupt my editing, just as I would not disrupt another person's editing.Davidbena (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Davidbena: Thank you for letting me know. I have voted to "keep" both articles, and have commented as well. All the best, IZAK (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, IZAK! Shabbat Shalom!----Davidbena (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:IZAK, Hi. I have been informed that all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). I understood this to mean that we cannot "undo" another editor's edit more than once in a 24-hour period. But does this also mean that if a certain editor was displeased with one aspect of my edit, and deleted it entirely, that I cannot come back and make the correction according to his directives (reason for deleting)? Or, if I re-worded my original statement so that the general text differs from the first, would that also be considered "making two reverts" in a 24-hour period? I am in need of this clarification, since an editor on the WP-page West Bank has addressed me on my personal Talk-Page that I may have infringed the rule of one revert per 24-hour period, when, in actuality I only reworded my edit to alleviate a certain difficulty. Please check my edits on the page West Bank. Thanks. Give advice.Davidbena (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You'd be better off going to the article talk page and acquiring consensus there first. I say that because 1RR isn't the only rule in play, any edit which could be described as "disruptive" could potentially be sanctioned under the sanctions in place in that topic area. If another editor is going to take you to AE for your actions, the best thing to do is wait for him to give you a notice of AE discussion and say what you said above there. But, short of that, if for no other reason than to ensure that you don't do anything potentially sanctionable, the best thing to do would be to take the proposed change to the article talk page, and maybe add a link to that page somewhere, where you propose the revised version and where you can get consensus for the changes before making them. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I have already done what you suggested.Davidbena (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Juana Bormann.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:EasternFront1917.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:EasternFront1914a.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:EasternFront1914b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:EasternFront1915b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:EasternFront1916a.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:EasternFront1916b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Egypt.HosniMubarak.01.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Elisabeth Volkenrath.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: I have nothing to do with this image. Why are you WP:STALKING me? I await your reply. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The notification always goes to the person who created the page. Since the notification went to you, it means that you created this page. Since we don't need local file information pages for Commons files, the local one was tagged for speedy deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Stefan2: Huh? Could you please show me where or when I "created" any of the pages as you claim! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:IZAK, who is best qualified (amongst fair and impartial administrators on Wikipedia) to help me out on the Bayt Nattif Talk-Page, under the section on the bottom of that page, "Unbalanced, 1948 section"? I need quick assistance, Izak, by a good and wise editor who can see the injustice in the smear campaign being carried-out by one of the co-editors on Wikipedia.Davidbena (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Davidbena: Thank you for contacting me. First decide if the issues are over content or about behavior/WP:CONDUCT, often it can be a mix of both and requires a deft hand to sort it out. If it is a question of troublesome behavior you may want to go directly to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents boards and lodge an official complaint. If it is a dispute over content then you should follow the procedure outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or try reaching out to Jfdwolff or Avraham or DGG who are very fair-minded admins and see if they can be of any help. Take care, IZAK (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The issue does not concern behavior, but rather a dispute over page content.Davidbena (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot reasonably help on this as long as the Palestine-israel 3 Arb com case is open. Possibly the decision in the case may clarify some of the isues involved. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: and @Davidbena: Thanks for the wise guidance! IZAK (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what is meant by, "as long as the Palestine-Israel 3 Arb com case is open." What is it?Davidbena (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ashkenazi Jews topics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• @PanchoS: Thank you for letting me know. I have responded. Regards, IZAK (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi IZAK! I remember your name from years ago when I was a more frequent editor. Looking for your assistance now in this issue. Someone is trying to rename "Haredi Judaism" into "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism". So far, there hasn't been any opposition (except procedural) other than from me. Your involvement would be greatly appreciared. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Piz d'Es-Cha: Thanks for letting me know. looks like nothing happened. If you see that i do not respond (sometimes I am busy with other things) then please Email me via WP ASAP as I do check that and will be informed. Thanks again! IZAK (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Counter-missionary. Since you had some involvement with the Counter-missionary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:IZAK, Shalom. As of yesterday, there was no specific article on Wikipedia dealing with the specific Jewish festivals known as a "Festival-day" (Yom-Tov). That means 15-years of Wikipedia without an article on the Jewish "Festival-day." This prompted me to write an article yesterday on the subject, which you can read here: Festival-day, but now a person has wrongly suggested that it be deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival-day. Can you please ask some of our orthodox Jewish friends to comment on whether or not the article should be deleted, as their view is important here, I would think. It's urgent.Davidbena (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:IZAK, you are a shining example of what we all should be like, here on Wikipedia. Yeshar koach!! It's good to know that there are a few good and decent souls in this world. May G-d keep you and bless you.Davidbena (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, am totally new here, hope this thing is not seen as a capital spam sin

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxorazon (talk • contribs) [16]

• @Maxorazon: Hi, thank you for contacting me, please let know here what it is that you wanted. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@IZAK: I am rewriting the UAV article and left concerns in many parts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#UAV_revamp

A bit asking for help, and got a specific question about CatVisor : are you tied with Daniel Kinzler whom designed this : https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryTree?

BR Maxorazon (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The truth is that I was the one who created this page, dumping in all the historical background that I felt was clogging up Shmita. I'm not at all inclined to work on it. I did want to improve Shmita and got as far as the lead. But 7 years have gone by since that time, and I've put my mind to other things. Sorry. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Bashert! And I had no clue it came from you. Maybe when you have some time...Be well, IZAK (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Reb Zalman 2005.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Izak, you may find some interest in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the 21st century - the Netherlands. gidonb (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:11th-century BCE Judaism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)