User talk:Yidisheryid/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome 1

Welcome!

Hello, Yidisheryid/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

WELCOME #2

Welcome, Reb Yid. Stop by and join WP:JEW. See you around. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I believe you intended well, but please note that any form of attention exacerbates the matter. (see: Wikipedia:don't feed the trolls. Thanks. --woggly 07:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Since you've popped up on my watchlist, you're obviously the right guy to confirm, or not, my point here - "no ethnic slur" section Johnbod 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctor of Philosophy

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Orange Mike 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be what happened. Sholem aleichem. --Orange Mike 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Input needed about Hasidic dispute

Hi Yidisheryid, Vus Macht Ihr?: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). If you are able to help in any way with the issues it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. A Groysen Yasher Koach! IZAK 20:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

will have time will definitely give a look at length and voice my opinion thanks for caring.--yidi 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yiddish interwiki

Thank you for adding Yiddish interwiki link. Please take a moment to review meta:Interwiki sorting order. It states that on the English Wikipedia, interwiki links are sorted by the alphabet, based on local language. Therefore, yi: is between uk: and zh:. Thank you. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this so important since the intwerwikis gets sorted out by the bots anyways and Hebrew to English fonts is really hard to play around but i will try thanks for the comment.--זלמן לייב 10:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your input would be helpful

As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.--Wowaconia 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. -- Doctormatt 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amah.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Amah.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The book covers help illustrate the subject, make the article more readable, and are about publications that are very important in relation to the article. Please don't remove them without discussing it first.--יודל 16:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to add a fair-use rationale to the image, or they will remove it. See WP:NFCC. Reinis^talk 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Creationism

Please see the discussion about the lead on the article talk page. [1] I'm not the authority on what the lead must look like, so you should bring the question to all the editors there and reach a consensus. And frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Reinis^talk 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All i am trying to say is that this belief is the traditional and mostly religious view on life. Thanks for the link i will read it over to see if it has something against my edit.--יודל 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationism, by its definition, is always religious. [2] Reinis^talk 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the popular stance, but if you will ask some leading creationists, they will deny this and proclaim that it is pure science.--יודל 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They are an extremely small minority. See WP:UNDUE. Reinis^talk 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Minority indeed but they are the leading brains underneath this whole movement. This vocation is in some eyes for instance Richard Dawkins very controversial since he sees them very misleading. Nevertheless those are the leading voices in the movement. What point are you trying to make with WP:UNDO?--יודל 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE, not WP:UNDO, and I didn't say that "creationists and religious belief people are one in the same." Anyway, please do as I said and go argue about your changes on the article talk page, not with me privately. Reinis^talk 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be clear and say what do u want from me? U say clearly that u dont have a clue what i am talking about so please be open why you have decided to revert my edits without due process and trying to force me to talk to others while u don't give me any issue u found flawed with my edits?--יודל 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I want you to stop adding bad edits to articles. Reinis^talk 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call it bad, try to explain what's so bad and i will understand what bothers u. Thanks so much for erasing my bad edits, better half edits then non at all.--יודל 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true they are "leading" brains behind the movement, but constitute much less than 1% and even 0.1% of the relevant scientists (see level of support for evolution). They are closer to "crackpots" than real scientists.--Filll 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately (maybe only for u, or of them) those scientists you call crackpots are the leading figures in the creationist movement. Like it or not, it is part of the knowledge called fact.--יודל 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

warning and question

We don't do facts here, we do attributable reliable sources with the views expressed dealt with in a neutral balanced way, without reverting three times so I'll leave this reminder: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

It's not clear to me just who the "scientists you call crackpots are the leading figures in the creationist movement" refers to. If it's the IDists, they claim not to be creationists at the same time as they claim that their thesis is science. See the article talk page. .. dave souza, talk 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello please read before commenting, it was another user who called them crackpots. what do u want from me?--יודל 19:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was citing you, I didn't say you'd called them crackpots. As long as you know who they are, and provide reliable sources expressing the same opinion, them we can consider your claims. Rather than edit warring to make changes which, quite frankly, look incoherent, please set out your proposals on the article talk page. With sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

listen my edit was clear enough, all you do is talk about my words in the reasining behind that edit. say clearly what is your problem with the edit and i will fix it don't argue here becouse i don't see one single think we disagree here. is it a problem to write that the belief in a creator is traditinal? i don't think so. is the wording proper i believe yes. u believe not tell me why? and we will go on to the next subject--יודל 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is not traditional, only their basic Belief

If you find yourself with excess energy and want to edit such topics, might I suggest you consider:

Many of these are in sad shape and need assistance.

Creationism (as distinguished from creatianism) is a specialized sort of movement. And it is not always "traditional" by any means, since some variants of creationism rely on biblical literalism, and/or biblical inerrancy, which many scholars rejected well over 1000 years ago. It relies on a particular interpretation of one set of religious texts or another, and as such it is usually at its root a hermeneutic dispute, and one that often rejects scientific knowledge.--Filll 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fill on every word but still those crackpots belong in this broader group of people with this very ancient traditionalist world view that life is created. And this is a broad general basic very traditional outlook on life on which the movement in whole is based on. Thanks very much for commenting. I am not saying the movement in itself is traditional, indeed they themselves deny this. All i am saying is that the general point of their belief system is based and driven in most part by tradition which some of their leading figures claim is strict and pure science--יודל 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:User yi-0

Shalom! Can you please help me to copy the sentence from the userbox in Yiddish Wikipedia, and then put into that box? Thanks a lot! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User does not speak, and doesn't understand Yiddish--יודל 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Yidisheryid, please stop your vandalism. I have reverted your edits and will be closely monitoring your future edits. --Eidah 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make a fool out of yourself editing out articles that are not anti Zionists is not vandalism although we may disagree on this edits, please talk why those articles are defined by a belief that Zionism is not true judaism but that doesn't mean they are defined by being anti it. all Jewish groups don't believe in Zionism as a true ideology that does not make them all anti Zionists--יודל 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) --יודל 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Yeshayah Rosenberger. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. You can't just remove the template with the "I don't have time, but he is notable." line. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not create myself that article--יודל 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

INSTEAD OF REVERTING, WHY DON'T YOU VISIT THE TALK PAGE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

because i don't see what is the issue, u just revert by shouting vandalism i don't see where u found vandalism, and i do not just revert like this i explain every detail. . thanks--יודל 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. LessHeard vanU 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This block is for 1 hour only. Persistent reverting without discussion is considered vandalism. Once the block has expired it is recommended that you participate in a discussion on the article talkpage so you may make the argument for your preferred changes. Please remember that Wikipedia promotes and works best by WP:Consensus. LessHeard vanU 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yidisheryid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i did not abuse my privilige i spoke and explained every edit, i don't believe i broke the 3rr rule here please unblock me--יודל 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's only and hour, and you have been edit warring a great deal. You can sit the rest of the hour out, and as the article has now been protected for 3 days, you can use the talk page of the article (Talk:Haredim and Zionism) to discuss changes, like everybody else. All your current editing manner will result in is your being blocked; we want editors who are willing to discuss changes. People reverting your changes is a clear sign that they are not agreeing with your edits; please in future discuss things on article talk pages when this is the case. — Neil ム 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

YY, there is a talk page on the article for a reason. There has been a consensus on the article for quite some time. Your edits are going against those consensuses that we worked hard to get. You also never post on the talk page even when asked. If you feel that you have something to add to the page that is controversial, you should post on the talk page and get a consensus. That is how it is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

not one of my edits are controverscial and nobody ever claimed it is, i just deleted redundant sections and fixed some minor sections to merge them in their respective larger groups which eidah has agreed on, and reverted your revert on the word MO that eida also has agreed on, i don't see any claim here that my edits were counter to long standing consensus. i will never ever change a think like this only one part which was indeed explained by me on the talk page that some Hasidim are supportive of Zionists that is false and slander and indeed if consensus wants it inside the artice they must bring sources as i ask them on the talk page.--יודל 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any of your postings on the talk page. That is the place to discuss major changes. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Look better my friend and u will see everything i wrote on the tak page about this slanderers POV, if u choose to see only what u want don't cry vandalsim--יודל 14:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yidisheryid, I appreciate you are trying to improve the article, as is everyone else. They are asking you to use the talk page for a very good reason - the talk page is the place to discuss controversial edits. If someone else is not happy with an edit you make, then the edit is controversial, and it should not be made again without discussing it, either on the talk page of the article, or on the talk page of the user who disagrees with you. Let me know if you have any questions (once your block has run out). Neil ム 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Neil, Pease dont be part of their game here, this is 2 users who are evidently sockpupets and if they are not they are very clealy cold and calculated meat pupets; u dont know whats going on here and u slander me i was using the tak page very clearly here. they were silent on the talk page and on reverts by just saying i am a vandal and posting all around wiki that am a vandal please read my talk page and see for yourself how i beg them to explain what vandalism this was? with no answer just redoing this sin of calling me a vandal. i beg u to unblock me because this is a black shameful history on my record that i was blocked for something unruly or against policy. i beg u to reconsider this move, especially now that the page is blocked.--יודל 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

YY, that is one edit on the page. That is not enough for your 30+ edits of the main page. Also, if you think Eidah and I are sockpuppets, you have another thing coming. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

only one of my edits to the page are controversial thats why i used it only once. and i am now ready for u as u can see i was blocked for one hour due to a complain which i did not see and notice at the time to answer so the sysops got fooled by seeing only one part of the story, this experience clearly learns me how to deal with u, i am looking forward my friend to this exciting experience, and let their be a more perfect encyclopedia throug our edits of each other.--יודל 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I see that you are contributing, so the block has expired. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Preview button

I have asked you before and I ask you again. Please LEARN TO USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON. --Eidah 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I now see the importance in it i will use it.--יודל 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jewish organizations

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jewish organizations it is very strange and hypocritical indeed that someone who calls themselves "Yidisheryid" ("Jewish Jew") should solicit the votes from some of the most pro-Christian and missionary POV editors, such as User talk:Inigmatus#Should we delete this list, User talk:Elaragirl#Should we delete this list, User talk:Badbilltucker#Should we delete this list, User talk:Wikijeff#Should we delete this list, User talk:Warlordjohncarter#Should we delete this list and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Should we delete this list itself! How can anyone call themslves a "Jewish Jew" and at the same time work for a pro-Christian POV as you do in the above vote? Maybe it's time to change the user name to something else like User:Christianjew or User:Goyisheryid? IZAK 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing my contribution, i have stated my view on that voting page very clearly it has nothing to do with a POV, please stop harassing me as if i am pushing a POV here all i did was stopping a deletion from some very openly biased users. wikipedia isn't a Yeshiva if u don't like to read who r the leading Messianic groups don't come with censorship close your eyes and listen to your rabbis: sell your computer. In the end i am glad you see that your shenanigans will stop. All the best--יודל 03:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm are they not "your" rabbis? You don't like rabbis it seems. Any reason? Do you like "rabbi" Jesus? This is very confusing indeed. You don't like Jewish rabbis but you do like Christian missionaries? Isn't that a contradiction for someone who calls themselves a "Jewish Jew"? Also, you obviously don't realize that rabbis say it's ok to own computers because it is the Satmar Hasidim who are selling millions of computers as in B&H Photo Video. Right now it looks like you have the monopoly on confusing Jewish/Christian missionary shenanigans. IZAK 03:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed like Rabbis, and B&H doesn't sell computers they sell cameras. Dear brother all i can tell you is i feel your pain my holy brother, i wish you get well soon. Its very painful to see your whole wiki carear go down the dumps over night. And for your personal harassments, insults and accusations, i will pass in silence and not answer any of them back, after all we are here to write an encyclopedia, not make wars, i have made my point regarding this deletion very clear, lets leave personal attacks and insults for other venues u have my email and i yours, so u know i listen and you are welcome to vent your darkestest fantasys at me i will hurl them back as best as i can, but this isn't the place i will answer u. Keep it clean.--יודל 10:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your sympathy is misguided and uncalled for. Indeed I always strive to keep things clean. IZAK 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment i appreciate it, i see where u r on this, and i clearly disagree. Please note that i respect you and love you despite our difference in opinion on this issue. Have a beautiful day.--יודל 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, your bias is evident when you view the work of any/all Jewish editors through the lens of "is it 'pro-Judaism' or 'anti-Judaism'". What is hypocritical about keeping a NPOV and judging articles on their merit? I'm a Christian and freely admit it, yet if I found an article that had been turned into a propoganda piece for Jesus, or others that were anti-Semitic/Islamic/Wiccan libel, I would work to correct them. Why would anyone expect any different? Maybe you need to examine yourself rather than judging others. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

Please note that you must discuss changes on the talk page before editing. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i do discus everything--יודל 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used the talk page. Visit it and you'll see. Stop your POV pushing and try to make Wiki a better place. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

that was after u reverted 2 times in silence and after u acused me of vandalism--יודל 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never reverted in silence. I've either used the edit summary or the talk page. You should use the talk page and see that we have been through all this before. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

when u revert something that i have addressed in the talk page and user pincus and user eidah have all agreed and don't those edits just be calling it vandalism it is indeed silence. but i am glad u talk now.--יודל 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough already! Your continuing to claim that you address the issues does not make it so. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)