User talk:Avraham/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 8    Archive 9    Archive 10 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  25 -  26 -  27 -  28 -  29 -  30 -  31 -  32 -  33 -  34 -  35 -  36 -  37 -  38 -  39 -  40 -  41 -  42 -  43 -  44 -  45 -  46 -  47 -  48 -  49 -  50 -  51 -  52 -  53 -  54 -  55 -  56 -  57 -  58 -  59 -  60 -  ... (up to 100)


Joachim

Could you please revert your move of Joachim to Joachim {Saint). There was no discussion to make this move. In fact, it looks like the consensus at the AfD was to restore Joachim to the version before TenaciousT started adding Star Trek info. The disambig page IS helpful, I will admit, but it should be a link at the top of Joachim. The article Joachim has for a long time been about the Christian figure, and he is the most notable individual to go by that name, so there is nothing wrong with giving him the Joachim article, as long as the disambig link sits at the top. I do not have admin access, so I cannot revert your changes myself. I hope you understand. If you feel that the disambig article should be the top level article, maybe we can discuss that, but please do not go against what editors suggested be restored at the AfD. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of re-moving the page, I switched the main entry to redirect to Joachim (Saint) instead of the disamb. This way, there is more flexibility in the future. If you wish, start a discussion at Talk: Joachim about actually moving the page back. Thanks. -- Avi 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why your move can ignore discussion, but you suggest that my move needs discussion. Did you not read the AfD where multiple editors suggested the article be reverted back to the pre-TenaciousT state? If that isn't discussion, I don't know what it. On top of that, your name choice is problematic for two reasons. It goes against our capitalization convention (saint should be lowercase), and the word "saint" is POV, because not all Christians traditions believe in Sainthood (and the original texts that refer to Joachim do not use this title either). So again, I ask you to please restore the article to their previous state, and let any new move proposals go to discussion.-Andrew c 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but please take care of all of the redirects. -- Avi 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate this. Thank you. I know it is a headache for everyone when someone comes along and blanks an article, replacing it with another topic with the same name (as had happened with the Star Trek character). And I appreciate your efforts to restore the page histories. I apologize for overeacting. Thanks again (and I will check out the redirects ASAP).-Andrew c 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a little late

I forgot to re-reply when you left the last comment. You would already be chayav skiloh, Both CRTs and LCDs only run on electricity. SO, you would be mecholel shabbos if you did. --Shaul avrom 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Talk:Circumcision

Hi, Mets.

Can you please explain why you [Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. reverted] my removal of an off-topic diatribe/platform from the above talk page? Per WP:TALK:

Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

— WP:TALK

.

I think that the anonymous IP's comments had almost nothingto do with the article itself, and was merely an outburst of their own, rather distinct, point of view. I'd be glad to hear your opinion on the matter. Thanks! -- Avi 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry..I am a recent changes patroller and noticed a huge amount of discussion removed. Personally, I don't think anything should be removed from talk pages, excluding profanity, but it did look like your were reverting something that probably should have stayed. Anyway, my mistake! Cheers! MetsFan76 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBK

I never said it was a fraternity. I was just filling out the template. --evrik (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiest site 'ranking'

Apart from denying the overwhelming evidence supporting the Mecca-Medina-Jesurlalsm sturcyture, and ignroing basic facrs about the whole "Third holiest site" article and treating Muslims like total idiots by certain users - I'd like to remind you have that the point was not to get rid of the ranking structure, but to incorporate them into an article with a similar structure like "Air is colourless, howevver some poeple believe air is blue" ... And if you got rid of any xth holiest site statement about masjid al aqsa and/or medina , why not remove all the others too. thestick 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this but im having a stabbing headache and sore eyes for some reaosn.

I feel better now.

Alright, since this problem has been excavated again by User:Chesdovi. The historical evidence, common sense and general knowledge support the Mecca-Medina-Jerusalem "holiness" structure. It's ridiculous and frustrating to see that all the 'sources' are ignored and Muslims are treated like idiots that don't know a thing about the religion by some people behaving like cranks and behave as if they have false consensus syndrome. The point of the article was not to get rid of the ranking, but to put incorporate all the listed "third holiest sites" into a general article.

Al-Aqsa Mosque being the third holiest in Islam is a an established fact, the others are just opinions, misconceptions or just - mistakes. Why should a site be 'third holiest' just because some Capt. E said so? Just to satisfy somebody's agenda? Shorely some mistake and you must know better. thestick 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have recused yourself.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Messianic Judaism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. inigmatus 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent involvement in article: Messianic Judaism

Avraham, I thank you for being so concerned about the quality of the MJ article, seeing your recent involvement. You have addressed several issues in the talk page. For the past few days, I have been working on a clean-up of the article that addresses many of your issues with weasel words/redundancy and such, adds some new sections, and some pictures. It'll be posted in a few days. Please hold off until then. Noogster 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting a bit too crazy with the citation requests. Most Wiki articles don't have nearly the same concentration of citations that you request, and some, even of considerable length, may not have them at all. I'll do my best to add citations with my cleanup, though. Shalom. Noogster 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow ΦBK member

Just wanted to let you know about the new userbox I created, {{User Phi Beta Kappa}}. (Surprised there wasn't one before.) --Lukobe 10:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

I apologize for deleting that text. It actually was not intentional, even if it looked like it was. My apologies -Woodstock

The MJ Template deletion review

Now that I look back on the old discussions for template: Messianic Judaism, I see that here at: [1] Inigmatus had made a case-by-case explanation for why each and every one of the links in the template was relevant and factually tenable. No one was really able to provide a decent rebuttal to his assertions about the link list. With that in mind, why do we need to go over this for a second or third time, when such an argument has already been decided by a landslide? We COULD repeat such a discussion again, just to be safe, but the genuine honesty of this whole situation seems to be on its last legs. Shabbat shalom. Noogster 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism

Why don't you allow me to update the Messianic Judaism's related information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ju98 5 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I read the copyright tag provisions of Wikipedia and everything appears to be mere technical jargon for me. It is so difficult to understand the copyright tag provisions because of so many caveats here and there,k even for someone like me who teaches college and has published four books each with a copyright under US intellectual property laws.

PGU images

What I would like you to do is to supply me immediately with a format that I could use and where I could just plug in the information you need for all the images in Pi Gamma Mu that you have a problem with. Thank you.Profdrmendoza 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOur v of my edit to the article

What have I done incorrectly? Frankly, it would be rather rude of you to revert hours of my work just in passing. Please tack your newer citations back on and make it more NPOV, to my new cleanup. Noogster 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well in that case I am very appreciative of the sheer amount of work you have put into making the Messianic Judaism article good. But I really think that it would be much easier to use my version and simply paste your citations back into the article; if you read the article carefully you will see that it is more NPOV than it has ever been, and even more so with your citations. Go for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noogster (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Good idea. You've done great citation work, so I have no reason to doubt your ability to implement my changes as professionally as possible. Thanks. Noogster 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've basically taken your version of the article and added some bits and pieces of what I had. This is not at all what I was hoping for, which would have been my article with your improved citation system. I don't consider this a proper merge, so I'll take the current version and my original article and do some more reconciliations (line by line). One of my criticisms of your style of editing is the length; it's too long sometimes, whereas I like to summarize, convey the same ideas with less words, let the obvious be written between the lines, and leave the rest to the external links. As someone very personally involved with the subject matter of the article, I ask for some leeway. Noogster 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've done a bit more. I think we can both be rather satisfied with it now. Now about all that needs to be done is adding a few more citations to everything as you are so skilled at doing. I assume there was some motivation for having removed two of the pictures? I generally prefer articles that have three or more pictures and I know many people that tell me they can hardly sit through reading something on the internet unless it is well-illustrated. Noogster 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm also wary about the following statistic in the introduction: By 1993 there were 160,000 Messianic Jews in the U.S. and 350,000 worldwide. By 2003, there were at least 150 Messianic synagogues in the U.S. and over 400 worldwide. The previous statistic had only about 50,000 people in the Messianic movement period (Jews or Gentiles) with only about 180 congregations worldwide. The following must be considered:
1.)Was the cited author by referring to "Messianic Jews" referring to any Jew that believes that Jesus is the Messiah? There's definitely a difference: Messianic Jews must A.)Be Torah-observant B.)Ethnically Jewish, either by birth according to Jewish law, conversion, or Messianic Jewish conversion (still rare, mind you) C.)Identify as Messianic
2.)Assuming that the movement is about 1/2 Jew, 1/2 Gentile (with a clearly Jewish majority as far as leadership), then the 50,000 statistic would have only been 25,000 Messianic Jews. How do we account for such a wide variance between the two statistics?
3.)The vast majority of the movement is concentrated within the United States, with a few Messianic synagogues in many other countries. If you just look at the UMJC's (largest M. organization) list of congregations, you'll see that it's about 3/4 within the United States. The cited author apparently says otherwise.
4.)A Jew that practices some conventional form of Christianity without regard to the Torah is almost universally frowned upon by Messianic Judaism and not considered a part of it. Such Jews are classified as Hebrew Christians and are not a formal/synagogal movement as is MJ, but classify an ethnic Jew that is a Christian. There are a lot of them worldwide when you total everything up. But they are not Messianic Jews or part of the movement.

I chose to keep it this time but it's worth discussing. Noogster 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yediot Archonot

I notice that Israel's largest newspaper doesn't seem to have its own Wikipedia article. Perhaps if you have the time or resources you would like to help get an article for this newspaper on its legs or at least as a stub? Noogster 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

I've a feeling that I may have missed something. In this edit were you cleaning up after another editor? I'm just puzzled as to how it got into the article in the first place, and wondering if I've been half asleep. :-| Jakew 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actuary

Thanks! — Malik Shabazz | Talk 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MJ Article

Thanks for getting a lot of the article summarized and cleaned up a bit more. I am really happy with its state now.

I guess the Rabbi Yeshua website is really strange; they refer to him as Rabbi (which obviously makes him simultaneously Pharasaic), the website looks and acts Pharasaic, and there is a Talmud quote on the margins of every other page, yet another article turns around and says the opposite.

And the attempted re-create of the template, I must say, is total garbage. Add only things that have to do with Messianic Judaism? Everything on Inigmatus' version of the template had to do with Messianic Judaism. I can't believe people are trying to do this without Inigmatus' say on the matter. Noogster 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Picture of the Year - 2006

I assert that I am the same as commons:user:Avraham on Commons. -- Avi 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda_Ashlag

re: this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yehuda_Ashlag&diff=109823796&oldid=109819423

Wrong town.

Parysów http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parys%C3%B3w vs. Pruszków http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruszk%C3%B3w

For example try this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%28+%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%91+OR+%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%91%29++AND+%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%92

Here is some more english citations:

http://www.jewishgen.org/rabbinic/journal/hasidic2_appendix.htm Yehuda Arye Leib Ashlag 1886-1954 of Parysow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Ashlag In the same article further down - Admor from Pursov

etc

Yirmeyahu ben David

http://www.netzarim.co.il/Museum/Sukkah10/Sukkah10.htm#bio-ybd

How feasible do you think it is to make a Wikipedia biographical article of this guy? He made official aliyah to Israel (letter from chief Ashkenazi Rabbi and all) and apparently very accepted in the Orthodox Jewish community, and perhaps a thousand people may claim affiliation with his group, but it seems very difficult to find reliable sources.

He also sees to have his own Torah feed on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Netzarim

Is there a Wikipedia article of a Jew by Orthodox conversion that exists? Preferably one that has made aliyah? I could use it to see what kind of citations and sources to include for an article on YbD (formerly Clint Van West). Even if the article does become up to snuff, it may be too controversial to not get deleted; in very simplest terms, this guy believes in Jesus (albeit in a way that is arguably entirely consistent with Orthodox Judaism, i.e. a human Mashiakh ben Yosef named "Ribbi Yehoshua"). You're very experienced with Wikipedia so I would like to know what to expect here. Noogster 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noogster 03:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google book link

I'll be interested to know if the link stays stable; if so I'll have to start putting them in my cites. I am now aware, thanks to you, of the newish isbn= field and that I should be using the pg. or pp. abbreviations for pages= . -- Kendrick7talk 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avruhom Yehida Balser

I've created a new article for Avruhom Yehida Balser. Tell me what you think and add to it if possible! Noogster 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the intro in article Messianic Judaism

I've shortened up the intro of the article Messianic Judaism (it was still a bit too long). It still has several questionable citations, ranging from people remarkably ignorant of MJ (ie. thinking that Jews for Jesus is affiliated with it or represents it) to those remarkably ignorant of Jewish law (ie. believe that Messianic Jews somehow magically cease to be ethnic Jews). Please comment. Thanks. Noogster 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the intro is just plain wrong. Messianics don't "worship Jesus". The "tallit" part of the intro was already too specific. And as I said before those estimates for #s of MJs may not be reliable. Those were some of my reasons and I think they are good ones. Noogster 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IZAK can be properly called an extremist so please don't compare me to him. But I would really like a second reliable source that says they do "worship" (G-d forbid) Jesus (which is Anglicized from Greek Iesous, which translates from Aramaic Yeshua, Aramaic version of Hebrew Yehoshua). And of course if you ask the vast majority of Messianics whether they do or don't you will get a clear response of 'no'. Noogster 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest article

Could you have a look at Circumcision policies of various countries? While it was too quote-heavy as part of the main article, it served a function of sorts. On its own it isn't an article but more a kind of scrapbook. It doesn't quite fit CSD G12, unfortunately, though it is pretty close. What are your thoughts? Could it be rescued, or should it be nominated for AfD? Thanks, Jakew 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Yechi into Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch

Hi Avi, could you please comment on whether Yechi should be merged into Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch at Talk:Yechi#Merge to Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch. Thanks, Shlomke 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anshei Sfard

What do you think about my new article, Anshei Sfard? Noogster 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice editing

That section is actually easy to read now. Jakew 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarial arrogance

Just because you are an ACAS doesn't make you G-d. It is not nad never is objective science. I've never never heard a chemist call himself an chemical scientist, but a political scientist is not and never a scientist. Actuarial science my lord! hmmpf Chivista 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Think about that before make a snide comment![reply]

I am not the only editior who knows that "olitical scinece" and "ctuarial scienc" are not pure sciences. Look at the edit that happened after I tried to put it in. Some guiy name Malizz removed it with a comment that they are not science! Chivista 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal opinion, it is objective fact that the fields that are sciences as in the pure science article by some happenstance don't call themselves science like "chemistry science" but pseudoscience like creation science need the label of science precisely because it is not a science. This is NOT my personal opinion. it is a fact that should be in articles. Just because YOU are personally invested in your profession cannot change an objective fact. There is no reason to feel bad that it is not science. Lawyers don't feel bad that we are not legal scientists. ;) Chivista 16:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M.J.

I am not just going back to my original formulation, but trying to iterate it to meet your objections. This is being done in good faith.

The general issue is this: I am a mainstream Jew; I am not a messianic Jew; I have no sympathy for messianic Jews religiously. But it really is silly to suggest that their belief is anything less than a standard trinitarian effort to worship one God in three persons. Just quoting one odd description, without any qualification, is odd and misleading.

If we were talking about Mormons, for example, the issue would be very different. P.D. 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to censor the source. Adding a qualification that a characterization is "in the words of" an author is not censorship.P.D. 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: John Jorgensen AfD

I saw the article AfD pop up in recent changes. I always believed there was an article about a very notable guitarist by that name but when I looked at the page it had been hacked. Tracing back through the article edit history I found where the original article content was lost(early December) and restored it to the version prior to the vandalism. Just thought I'd let you know as you, very justly, tagged the "as is" version for AfD. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright violation of Society of Actuaries in Ireland

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Society of Actuaries in Ireland, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.actuaries.ie and its subpages, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

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

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Society of Actuaries in Ireland/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Society of Actuaries in Ireland saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! timrem 05:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham/Archive_9&oldid=299841172"