Jump to content

User talk:IZAK/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

AJOP

Hi, I am having issues with YidisherYid again. This time it's over AJOP. Any help would be appreciated. Yossiea (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Izak, please see the related talk page, and its AFD discussion. I am looking forward to talk not only about Christian miniseries, but also about Orthodox Jewish missionaries.--יודל 20:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have had to completely rework, re-write -- and Wikify this article and the nomination to delete it will now hopefully be withdrawn. AJOP is a notable and historic organization in North America that has been in existence for two decades and has gotten a lot of attention, especially as an umbrella kiruv organization. I must say that I find it hard to explain how and why an article essentially connected to the Baal teshuva movement should be the subject of such arguments and votes during the Ten Days of Repentance (Aseres Yemei HaTeshuva) and on the eve of Yom Kippur? Gut Yom Tov to everyone. IZAK 09:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew my nom, and got rid of the AFD, but now YY wants the page deleted! Yossiea (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
U cannot close that request anymore yourself, since i seconded your request on the same reasoning, and i did not withdraw it, so the request page stands.--יודל 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's my request. I nominated the page. You fought against the nomination. You commented on every delete. You voted keep. When you suddenly change to delete, it doesn't mean it's your AFD now. I don't know what is so hard to understand. If you now want to vote to delete, open up a new AFD page. Yossiea (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
i did not fight i talked, that page was designated to change minds and hearts, it served its purpose and i seconded a request it should be nominated for deletion, i signed my name on the nomination rationale and it has become 2 requesters for deletion, so please not that the nomination is not withdrown until both nominators request that.--יודל 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You did not nominate the page for deletion. You just changed your vote from keep to delete. I, as the nominator, changed my vote from delete to keep so MY AFD is no longer relevant. If you want it deleted, start a new AFD and bring the Wiki reasons why you want the page deleted. It shouldn't be too difficult for you. It's certainly easier than just posting on user's talk pages on and on. Yossiea (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
first of all stop with the personal attacks never do i post more on talk pages then u, arnt i allowed to answer your arguments and show how false they are, what is talk pages meant if not for talking?! and to the point i request u stop telling me what i did and what not, i say that i did request that page nominated for deletion and u say i lie, i say its not a lie look at the edit history and you will see my request[1], please stop calling my truthfulness in question.--יודל 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Last comment: That's not a nomination. That might be a fake seconding, because you were so vocal in your keep request. But only one person can nominate something. That's what nominate means. Again, if you don't like it, open up your own AFD or go to deletion review. Yossiea (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am more vocal in my deletion reasoning then i was on my mistaken keep reasoning.--יודל 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, here it is, after Yom Kippur and I read this discussion. Hard to believe. User:Yossiea deserves the utmost respect for having the strength to reconsider his nomination and he should be complimented, certainly should not be subjected to any insults or abuse. Anyhow, perhaps it is because User:Yidisheryid has discoverd that AJOP was founded by some arch-Zionists (ironically based on my major hard-earned improvements to the article) that he now wants to have it deleted. Just goes to show how being motivated by a single cause is not what Wikipedia editors should evince. It's starting to look like this is a case of WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:POINT by User:Yidisheryid. There is surely a better way of functioning. IZAK 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody insults nobody except you, i have never ridiculed user Yosia's shenanigans of opening up AFD's nominations and then closing them, it only shoes who he is and i hope he continues with this intimidations so non-Jewish users can see what u guys are up to. As far as your personal attacking me of being a single issue user its ludicrous everybody who follows my contribution list, sees that i was not afraid to tackle you on many many issues, where i detected something wrong in my eyes, the least of them Zionist issues. I have argued with you about Chaim Berlins mention in the lead of Avigdor Miller's article. I have argued with you not to delete all those Christian messianic articles. I have dealt with your allegations that i am a sockpupet and have beautifully dealt with your constant personal attacks against me, i know you haven't learned your lesson 10 days for you being blocked wasn't enough, but i can further stay on topic and resist turning your personal attacks on me to something series i can take your abuse and i can be emboldened by it because i am a Satamr jew who will fight rather then capitulate, i still will love you as a Jew with the utmost love for my fathers child. Enjoy throwing stones at me because i do not mind it only makes for good entertainment how you wanted to get rid of User Eidah with your fake tears that he calls you names...--יודל 13:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a point of fact. The allegations of your sockpuppetry were proven correct, so they are no longer mere allegations. Enjoy the rest of your day. Yossiea (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This ia a lie it was never ever proven, 4 users have said its bull and three users Izzak and Yosia and an other admin have said its proven. You keep on accusing me of being a sockpuppet together with Izaak, i have given my proof that u r here for the contrary, and i am not ready yet with my case against you so keep on calling me names and attacking me, i love it when other dig their own hole and make their own cases. keep it up!.--יודל 14:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to get into this again, but that's why you were blocked. You even admitted to such on your talk page. Yossiea (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Lie i never admitted to sockpupetry and i was unblocked because that admin acted recklessly against consensus. he has blocked hundreds of users and most of them wasn't right and there is currently a complaint against him being formulated to warn the use of his tools, but you don't stop bringing it up just to personal attack others, keep it up because u r helping to solve all this--יודל 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You were unblocked because you apologized and promised not to do it again. Don't forget, this is all open to the public so anybody can verify this. Yossiea (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
that was for my issue with vote socking, true i don't lie when all is documented, neither should you.--יודל 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
"Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours, because evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid shows that you have abused multiple accounts." That's a sockpuppet. TTFN. Yossiea (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Erectly and becouse the evidence was bull the blockage was undone.--יודל 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope. "Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I'll take the apology that you will not do it again." Not because the evidence was bull. Yossiea (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Those words are meant and refer on my apology, look what my apology was? Vote socking, i was wrong on that and i did it only once. and for that my Blockage was seen by some Admin as out of the ordinary, because in his eyes my apology, not for Sock-Puppet, but for vote socking was sincere.--יודל 17:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To Yidisheryid: Well I am glad to see you are reading up on my history at Wikipedoa, enjoy it, I have been around for almost five years here and I have had lots of experiences, some good some not so good, and I have always learned something from them. I may have made mistakes but I have mostly never regretted my actions because I think hard and well about what I do. Instead of throwing cheap personal insults at me and at other editors (you seem to act and think like it's all one big game, why is that?) as you have done here and in Emails to me. Being "Satmar" or any other type of Chosid or even Yid (not referring to you in this case) does not equal being "Superman" and as I have long asked: why do you call yourself a "Yidisheryid" (translated as: "Jewishjew") if you are so much in love with Christian missionaries which goes against all rules of logic and religion? (And I know you will start screaming what the heck do I know and who am I to say and so on...) But that is not my point at all to get personal. Although I do not know who you are even though you keep on telling the world you are "Satmar" (can you prove it by linking to any page on the web about who you are that will confirm this?), it has nothing to do with anything as no normal users ever tell anyone who or what they are because no-one cares. Really. On Wikipedia what matters is being a good editor. In my first year on Wikipedia there were a few editors who were maliciously editing articles about Jews, Judaism and Israel and they were clearly and openly antisemites (so I wouldn't want to open that can of worms again, would you?) and in my early enthusaism to fight that evil I decided to take some action against them. I may have been over-enthusiastic and blocked (after a long case) for ten days many years ago, but at least many of those antisemites are long gone. Now there are Christian missionaries and other crank-balls who think that it is a "mitzva" to play around with and destroy pages about Judaism on Wikipedia. Every plague is different but in the end people who only wish to disrupt Wikipedia have no future here because Wikipedia has a normal environment that governs the atmosphere, otherwise I would have long gone. Are you saying you want to be treated like the antisemites who wanted me blocked? That takes things to a new level. I warn you that I am also a Chosid of bigger Rebbes than yours and that I will oppose your destructive rampages on Wikipedia. I always respect the work of all editors, Jewish, Christian or otherwise but evidently you have taken it upon yourself to go way-beyond that and attack me personally all the time and justify yourself by saying you are "Satmar-this-and-that" and whatnot. Just be honest about who you really are, I doubt that Satmar cares, I certainly don't. IZAK 07:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

: First of all and foremost i would like to challenge Izak's assertion that i have ever personally attacked Izak. It is a non truth statement. Lets face it, Izak would not wait one day to block me if it were true and i had really attacked him personally, like he did with Eidah while all the admins and users laughed at Izak for faking his tears by blocking a Anti Zionist user through lawyering in childish arguments of being personally attacked when in fact it wasn't there, Izak just played the game of a victim with bruises full of make-up like in shoot out films. So i am glad Izak sees that the community knowes full well his edit pattern for 4 years now and he gave up on asking anybody to block me for his accusations that i am guilty of personal attacks.

As to the Izak's bitter motives in being so personal and below the belt, that he must talk about my Chasidus and my private life with such a unfriendly tone, declaring that he sees himself in dealing with Anti-Semites while talking to me, or his assertion that i am a Christian loving Jew, i would like to point out the obvious issue at hand it is simply put that he is hurt that somebody finely exposed his editing pattern, so he reacts wild and unruly.

He constantly accuses me of being single issue, he constantly belittles me in the talk pages that i make no sense, he reverts my edits that i am disrupting wikipedia, while its his friend Yosia who has nominated all those articles for deletion, he together with his friend Yosia accuse me of being a sock puppet, while they act obviously as puppet asking to delete all other articles and then asking to not delete since they have put some work in it. And so fourth daily new accusations on me, and he has never even bothered making his case, he just lets his friend Yosia do the dirty agitation work of reverting my every move so i should not be able to let my edit through because of the #rr limitation, and then he jumps in the fray to accuse me of what i did with Yosia, and is silent about yosia.

So everybody who looks at Izak's games, sees his so obvious maneuvering like in a very primitive Theater, we all understand his pain, and we understand that a wounded animal species is not in control while suffering in shock that his 4 years editing pattern is exposed once and for all, that's why he wont be blocked again for ten days, and now all his articles are being challenged to produce the same standards he requested 4 years of others, so he has nothing to answer those issues, he decides to go off on a personal diatribe against other users, to bumble and vent some hatred off his chest, we all hope he feels better. And we are waiting for his pain to go away and we are excited and looking forward to work with Izak on his issues. And we all wish him a Good Yom Tov together with his friend Yosia.--יודל 12:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yidisheryid: I just cannot believe all these things you are saying, they are clearly the most violent personal attacks, not worthy of responses. But I cannot let everything pass. I would say that accusing any person who may "go off on a personal diatribe against other users, to bumble and vent some hatred off his chest, we all hope he feels better" (and other such silly stuff you state above) is the worst sort of personal attack that goes beyond the pale. But I have told you a few times and I will repeat it here again, yet you do not seem to grasp this, I do not "hate" anyone or anything. While I do strongly disagree with many ideas and issues (that is everyone's right as long as it can be defended based on logic and not on tricks by using sockpuppets and the like.) I respect all human beings because we are all created in the image of God. Merely because I do not see things "your" way (I think that may mean the way of a Christian missionary based on your statements to me in past discussions, correct me if you think I err here) it does not mean that I hate you or anyone else. Get that into your head and stop spreading slander. You are under a severe delusion that User:Yossiea or anyone else on Wikipedia, as you also accuse User:Avraham, are in any way connected to me as an editor on Wikipedia. I do not know them personally and we hardly ever bump into each other in articles and in editing (as you can tell I meet folks like you a lot more often... more like crashing into unkown hazards in the middle of the night.) You once thought that User:Yeshivish was my sockpuppet, but he was finally blocked and banned for being someone else's sockpuppet. But you don't care, you just shoot from the hip making new false accusations as if what you said yesterday has been forgotten and does not matter. But I am watching you and it saddens me to see how you twist and turn to avoid taking responsibilty for your destructive behavior on Wikipedia, while you waste my time telling me what I have or have not been doing here for the last "4" years. I have told you many times in our Email correspondence that I am proud that I work alone, and I have never used sockpuppets on Wikipedeia that I consider to be reprehensible behavior. Why would anyone need two-faces or multiple-personalities in any case? which you may find hard to believe. You are also under a deep illusion about my nearly five years of editing and writing on Wikipedia to improve articles about Jews, Judaism, and Israel. I have always been ready to work with other editors, and I have over many years. Unlike you who at this very moment as you write the above drivel to me stands accused of incredible and incurable disruptive behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#In which there is a dispute between User:Yidisheryid and User:Avraham. and you are actually blocked right now, and of doing this on the Yidish Wikipedia as well, where they know 100% that you operate hundreds of disruptive sockpuppets according to User:Shmaltz: "Oh he has done that before, look for his edits on yi project here, there are at least (thats what he admited to) 100 (yes thats one hundred) usernames he has used on the yi project to edit with and push POV and disruptive behavior. Been there done that, my opinion ban him. It will come to it anyhow. I hope I am wrong.--Shmaltz 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)" [2] Are you not ashamed that at the very time you are now blocked and being castigated and condemned by the admins at WP:ANI you deem to "preach" to me? Shame on you! IZAK 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In one word: I was wrong., I ask for your apologies, and i except every punishment. Please forgive me and have my word that i will never do it again! Sorry and i love and respect you.--יודל 15:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yidisheryid: Let's try to be professional editors and not allow ourselves to get to a point where anyone needs to get into, or is put into, embarrassing situations. I am not sure what you are "pleading to" and I take what you say and express here with more than a large grain of salt I assure you. God alone knows the hearts and minds of men and what their true intentions were or are and what yet still lurks in the dark and thus what the future will bring remains a big puzzle as far as you are concerned. So far, to be honest, you remain a mystery, and at times it seems that more than one editor is editing using your user name as your writing style seems to veer from fairly good English usage to one with totally bad syntax. I often get the feeling that you have an assistant or typist or two who do the work of causing trouble wherever you appear (or maybe you have a boss or superior to answer to and it is they also) who substitute for you sometimes (and that is why "you" often seem to be casting openly contradictory votes and comments in quite a few cases, and later the "real you" wakes up, logs on to Wikipedia, and tries to do some sort of damage control which only makes you look even more foolish as an editor) so it's hard to know who is talking to me and who I need to talk to now because you have spoken to me with so many different voices and points of view that it is scary, so for now as far as I am concerned, the jury is still very much out and the final verdict is still not in as to what your fate should be on Wikipedia. I leave that for the higher powers to ponder and decide. There is no need to ask me for anything, including "forgiveness" because I am not God. Take up whatver issues you have with those admins who are dealing with you and with the ArbCom if you have to. I will only respond to edits and issues relating to article content, the other stuff and disputes (as regarding WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT, WP:GAME and WP:REICHSTAG) you are into is way over my head. IZAK 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gmar chasima tovah

BS"D

Und a git gebentched yor --Shuliavrumi 19:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You have mail

You have mail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Birya affair

Hello IZAK. Can you look at the above mentioned article? I wrote it two days ago, according to the opening sgement of the Hebrew article, and nobody looked at it ever since. I guess your english is better than mine, and I'm afraid there are many mistakes in the article's English, that needs correcting. Thanks again - Pelegisrael 04:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Peleg: Thank you for contacting me. The article actually looks not bad, but it's missing references, see WP:CITE. If you could add links to some reliable websites and sources that deal with this subject and also the names of some books and authors who have written about it, it would improve the article a lot. Best wishes, IZAK 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The Hebrew article has about 40 references, mostly in Hebrew. I'll add an external link in English to the English version of the Palmch site. Chag Sameach! Pelegisrael 03:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Baal teshuva

Please see and join in at: talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? -- Avi 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeshivish et al

Per discussions with Arbcom, please do not restore any of those pages. Thanks. -- Avi 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be restored by all means [3]--יודל 15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi: I certainly had no intention to "restore" any such pages and I would never do so on my own. I was trying to place the {{sockpuppet}} (see also {{sockpuppeteer}}) tag on it which it lacked, I guess only an admin can do that. IZAK 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on a number of e-mails between myself, one of the blocked users, and a member of Arbcom, the m:Right to Vanish was extended to this group. It has not been overruled by Arbcom, so the pages should remain deleted for now. -- Avi 03:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Avi: Thanks for clarifying this. See, I knew there was a "deeper meaning" to all this that I was not privy too, as I assumed that all sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer pages get treated the same way. I guess not. I cannot fathom the "generosity" of the Arbcom in this instance. Are they not opening up themselves to bad precedents by being manipulated and then blackmailed by sockpuppeteers who get exposed and then "plead for mercy" with crocodile tears in there menacing cyber-eyes? It's hard enough nailing and eliminating these villains who cause so much harm to Wikipedia, and now they get let off the hook? Beats me. IZAK 04:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
IZAK, should these group of meatpuppets return, they know that I will be the first to lock them down and restore any pertinent tags. I do not think the tears are crocodile in this case; of course, I can be wrong. -- Avi 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
What? There were indeed "tears"? Then as far as I am concerned they were shed by a worse monster than a crocodile. Perhaps it's a Medusa, and someone must have the guts to cut off its cyber-head! But since I have not been privy to what has transpired behind the scenes in this matter, only time will tell, but I think you have made a huge error. Let's agree to disagree and see what happens in good time. IZAK 06:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am certain you will be keping as sharp an eye on these topics as I am, so there should be nothing to worry about. If they return, they have broken their word/trust to me and will be met with immediate restoration of user pages, blocks, and links. If not, then are we not both agreed, you and I, that the matter is solved? -- Avi 06:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Avi: Fine, for now we are agreed. Thank you for your vigilance. IZAK 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
To be clear: This was in no way shape or form an Arbcom decision, this was one user who decided to revert and dismiss the grave concern of the community on his own, it should not stay like this unless consensus the other way. as it stands now 3 users have expressed that those sockpupets should be labeled for what they are, if their damage isn't gone their sockpupetry cannot neither vanish, wiki is a community based project we cannot alow one user to overrule 3 users unless he can proof with open links that he is not against consensus as he claims.--יודל 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Objectively speaking, the conventional {{sockpuppet}} and {{sockpuppeteer}}) tags should be placed on all offending users pages, and Avi has never made public his reasons, so the jury is still out, and the verdict is still not in it seems. IZAK 08:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Subjectively speaking, the subject has talked too much and more then we need to hear to pass judgment, the essence of it is 3 different points:
  1. It has tried to say that this wasn't his call but an Arbcom decision, when in fact it was indeed his decision.
  2. It is using some rights which have no place here: There is no possibility that a sockpuppet who has caused such horrific damage to users and such a great deal of articles which got deleted because of him, should suddenly have a right to vanish and disappear from our memory while we should be forced to live with the conditions he left us. This is your typical Hit and Run crime. Once the articles will be back and the users he besmirched will be apologized to, then a jury can look into this right to vanish.
  3. The subject is reasoning that we can detect easily a return when this went on for a long time and our subject was usually on the side of the puppets. So how exactly will he now somehow suddenly change his hat and detect them and rat them out?

Conclusion as it seems the verdict is in 3 against 1, those tags should be restored.--יודל 13:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, you are making sense, and wow you must have taken a college-level course in English overnight. Congratulations! Oh, and I think "the right to vanish" as you put it is a subterfuge, because I assume that User:Yeshivish will neither vanish nor go away because he is with is on Wikipedia as just another user/puppet and that he is manipulating User:Avi. You know, this game of keeping up with sockpuppteers can become very confusing and frustrating, which is just what they want, so that they can hide in the shadows and smokescreens that they create to hide for themselves to hide under as they plan and continue with thier mischief under new identities. Pesrsonally, I prefer writing and editing articles than chasing idiot sockpuppeteers who are just a bunch of overgrown or shall we say underdeveloped clowns (err puppets). See ya. IZAK 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists

Hello, IZAK -- Just wanted to let you know that I would have been more than happy to leave you a note re my response on Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists if it had crossed my mind that you weren't keeping a close eye on it. Naturally, I was expecting to see a reply from you, and would have thought it quite puzzling if you had nothing further to say! Regards, Cgingold 15:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A personal note

Re your accusation that i said i enjoy destroying your work. I would like to clarify to u that this is not true. i have never said it. And neither do i enjoy it. I hate it. And it is with great sorrow and screeching pain when i must talk with you in certain subjects that i feel need clarification.

I would like to thank you for all your answers to me, you clearly were not obligated since your group has already declared me unwelcome here. but this comes to show how far you will go for the good of wikipedia. And how far i must go to show respect for your work here.

Please feel that i have great respect and love and i do cherish every word you write here like diamonds and gold, I have nothing but holy humility towards you, the truth is my enjoyment derives only and strictly in regards for the so many thinks you have teached me, and the way u have teached me it. I understand it wasn't easy for you, but know that i would never do something that can affect my positive attitude towards you, yes i would sacrifice everything to learn from you, and it is unfortunate i was blocked in this process, but i have used great caution not to redo my mistake i hope i will succeed further. Nothing will come in the way to somehow minimize my respect and love for you, please feel that i consider your contribution here for Jewish related subjects the most valuable phenomena happening in the history of wikipedia.

A Good Yom Tov.--יודל 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Pres_GW_Bush_in_Army_jacket.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pres_GW_Bush_in_Army_jacket.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. The image in question was uploaded on June 1, 2004 [4] and met Wikipedia's requirements at that time. Some requirements may have changed since that time. IZAK 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal: front page

I noticed you are the most recent editor of the portal. I wonder if it might be a good idea to update it, seeing that the High Holidays and Sukkot are over. If you would like help, I'm offering.... Egfrank 22:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Lamm-portrait-.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Lamm-portrait-.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. The image in question was uploaded on April 29, 2004 [5] and met Wikipedia's requirements at that time. Some requirements may have changed since that time. IZAK 23:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Rabbi_Ovadia_Yosef_Voting_in_Israelis_Elections.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rabbi_Ovadia_Yosef_Voting_in_Israelis_Elections.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. The image in question was uploaded on May 2, 2004 [6] and met Wikipedia's requirements at that time. Some requirements may have changed since that time. IZAK 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Rationales for use provided. -- Avi 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
But you need to provide the source, IZAK. -- Avi 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Avi, it's been about three and half years since then, so digging for it now won't be easy. IZAK 00:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I didn't at all mean to imply that Yeshiva people are one dimensional. My apologies if my edits came across that way. Adding the word "primary" was a good call. Kol tuv, Egfrank 06:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, I was not attributing anything to you. In fact I did not know who made the edits, but there was room for improvement, as there always is. Incidentally, on Wikipedia, the word "Yeshiva" is not capitalized (with an upper case "Y") by the way, so the correct way to write it is "yeshiva" unless it comes as the first word of a sentence. Stay in touch please. IZAK 06:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'm glad you weren't attributing it to me, but I was still the editor responsible. I just made a small change to one of your edits with a comment on the talk page. Your edit triggered it, but as with your edits of me, it isn't directed at you. The comment deals with the language we use to describe reliable sources. There seem to be a number of places where editors have used the phrase "reliable Torah sources". In some cases, it seems simply to be an attempt to define "what's Jewish" and no one would object to a more neutral definition using secular terminology. In other cases, I wonder if the author really wants Wikipedia to focus on "the Truth" and wants to protect the reader from being mislead. Your two cents (on the Manual of Style talk page) would be appreciated. Egfrank 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi gain Egfrank: I saw your edit [7] and my concern is that in the supposed desire to be more "neutral" by removing certain loaded words like "Torah" you may be exposing yourself to criticism as being "anti-Torah" because how can one judge "neutrality"? After all, the desire of that project is to project the views of Judaism, and for the bulk of Jewish history that has been done through Torah sources and its rabbinical expositors. If one is now going to quote the gazzillions of modern books and writers who write about "the Bible" from a non traditional Torah perspective then what will one be left with? Just the writings of theology professors and secular writers who really have no clue about the essence of Judaism and how it is indeed only rooted in its Torah linked to a three thousand year plus tradition. I just wish to alert you to this hornets nest you may be opening. Thanks, IZAK 09:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some words that I hope will be more inclusive. Your comments welcome again, Egfrank 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hasty

You are supposed to write up the case before adding the template to the page. I didn't do anything wrong. Just questioning the AFD because it had no case info. --Ghostexorcist 12:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It was written up and I was adding it when you jumped in with your edit. You should have contacted me directly rather than sabotaging the vote page. Now the edit is gone and I am re-writing it. Kindly be patient. Thank you, IZAK 12:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sabotage? I'll say it again. I didn't do anything wrong. You are supposed to have everything posted on the AFD page before adding the template to the article. It was your mistake, not mine.
Anyway, I have notified the martial arts project (like you should have done) of the deletion nomination. Please see here. --Ghostexorcist 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This is indeed a hasty decision one minute search in Google gives me allot of respected media results of this subject, if we have a problem with a subject the answer is not delete, we can deal with it and fix it to make it more perfect.--יודל 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
And the solution should be to move 95% of the material in the article to Jewish military history and not let it be twisted by WP:NOR as it was in the "Abir®" article. Oh, and do you think that people in Satmar would like either topic? IZAK 08:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the solution.--יודל 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It was not my solution. The suggestion came from User Nate1481 (talk · contribs) but I undertook to do all the editing and connecting it with other articles that deal with this topic. The way it was originally set up, the "Abir®" article was hijacking the whole of Jewish military history for itself, a very arrogant and dumb thing to do. IZAK 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for caring.--יודל 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You are too kind. I hope you had a good breakfast today. IZAK 14:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ghostexorcist: I appreciate your help with the notification on the martial arts project page. If I ever run across this kind of situation again I will keep it in mind.IZAK 08:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Abir (martial art)

Thank you for asking the delation, I weel keep a look on it. If en:wikipedia decide to keep this kind of ... well not really good for credibility. It's amazing that nodoby asked for delation before, the article is on wikipedia since november 2006... Regards--Kimdime69 13:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This subject has articles in more then 4 wikipedia languages. it is indeed not only here. Deletion is not the way to correct articles.--יודל 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A violation of WP:NOR and quite possibly WP:HOAX, regardless of how many languages it has been done in, is a serious matter. IZAK 08:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
But if the allegation of a possibility of a violation is raised, an AFD nomination isn't the way to handle it.--יודל 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There are two main points in the AfD. The first was that it was a clear violation of WP:NOR (with added violations of a few WP:NOTs) this is definite. Second issue, that was submitted by another editor which I included in the AFD, was that this was also a possible WP:HOAX the way it was set up. IZAK 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
on both points it was wrong to open the nomination, as some user who fills the talk pages of everybody keeps on declaring: first you have to bring those articles to the attention of the experts on this issue this is not my opinion, but here i agree it is in point--יודל 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to Jewish history I am an official expert. I have three university degrees and a few more from yeshiva. This was an article that tried to hijack the topic of Jewish military history for the sake of one individual's private money-making business. A no brainer as someone else would say.IZAK 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you say, and i would urge everybody reading this to not believe any credentials this user represents, his contribution list is clearly not showing this. Just a few weeks ago another user who votes with him always on the same pattern of issues has declared he is a Rabbi, we have to respect every user and claims to credentials should be disregarded unless he provides links to prove it.--יודל 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I was speaking to you and not to the world. For their benefit I never say anything, and as usual I never know what will make you happy, so it's always lose/lose with you. Too bad, but as you requested in your Yiddish message to me, and thanks for the compliments that you have high esteem for me, I will focus on some other matters. I would like to repost your words here because it is really a very deep message of your high personal esteem for me:
אייזיק הער אויף זיך צו קריגן מיט מיר, איך זאג דיר אז יא אז דו ווילסט דוקא קען איך דיר שיקן די אימעילס וואס די גוים זאגן וועגן דיר, זיי געזונט און שטארק און מאך געלט דורך שרייבן וואס דו קענסט יעדע מינוט וואס דו טענסט דיך מיט מיר איז שאדן פאר אונז ביידע. איך האלט מער פאר דיר, ווי דו פון מיר. .--יודל 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, IZAK 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I think you should add the delation page in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel cause maybe Israelis have more information about this martial art witch is taught in this country --Kimdime69 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

About my deletion.

It was not a prod. It was a valid CSDA7 speedy deletion: The article ASSERTED no notability, and furthermore still has no sources. Secondly, I do not need to clear any deletions about Judaism related articles with any wikiproject. To think I need to do so is absurd. And to assume that I don't know much about judaism (I am jewish), is rather ignorant. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Swatjester: Thank you for your response. Let me make it very clear that no-one is questioning your "Jewishness" (it's spelled with a "J" by the way.) The deletion was reverted by Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) [8] and supported by others, so the point is moot now. You know, you should be cautious about WP:LAWYER which advises against: "(1) Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy; (2) Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; (3) Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and (4) Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." All because Wikipedia is an academic encyclopedia in action and motion and not a court of law! Furthermore I still wish to highly recommend to you the help that anybody can find at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for discussions, and the usefulness of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism that are wonderful resources of bringing nominations and proposals to a wider spectrum of editors who deal with topics relating to Jews and Judaism on a frequest basis on Wikipedia. You will always be welcome. Sincerely, IZAK 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not lecture me incorrectly about policy. I find it offensive. I have left a more detailed response about your incorrect allegations on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Look who is lecturing now? IZAK 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Folke_Bernadotte.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Folke_Bernadotte.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Calliopejen1 13:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

request 3O on jewsagainstzionism.com vs hebron.com

please see the discussion here: [9]. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Jaakobou: I looked at your link, but it is such a looooong discussion that I cannot figure out what you are debating and I do not have the time to read all the arguments. So could you please put into three of four sentences what the argument is about. Especially, what are you and User Nishidani (talk · contribs) arguing about? If you can fill me in, I may then understand how to respond. Thanks again. IZAK 05:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Noahide Campaign less part of outreach than Aliya?

Dear Rabbi, i do respect very much every action u do, so please explain to me why you took out this campaign from Jewish Outreach? aren't Jews obligated to see that the world should abide by this seven laws? I know that some poskim only see this as halacha while we are on our own land, but if Jewish aliyah is Jewish Outreach this is then again valid because of the land, and Tikun oilem is not an orthodox thing so why include this in the orthodox outreach? with respect and honor your student.--יודל 21:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not Jewish outreach. Yossiea (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If the Jews do it as their duty from their faith which tells them to do this why than isn't it Jewish?--יודל 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Because it's not Jewish outreach. It's outreach to Non-Jews. Jewish outreach is something that Jews do for other Jews. NJOP, NCSY, etc. is for Jews, not non-Jews. Yossiea (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Jewish outreach means that Jews reach out as a Jew to other people.--יודל 05:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yidisheryid: I did not take Noahide Campaign out of "Jewish outreach" (and I fully agree with you that it is part of Jewish outreach too keep the Seven Laws of Noah, just extending it to gentiles.) You seem to have been confused by my re-organization of the {{JewishOutreach}} template in which I created a new disambiguation page Orthodox Judaism outreach (disambiguation) because a number of the articles you put into it were part of Orthodox Judaism outreach, and if you will click on "Orthodox Jewish outreach" on the template you will see that it now clicks to Orthodox Judaism outreach (disambiguation) and it is on that page that Noahide Campaign is listed as a sub-article of Haredi Jewish outreach (actually it's essentially a sub-article of Chabad outreach article which you created), since it is the Haredim, especially Lubavitch and a few non-Lubavitch Haredi rabbis who are still involed with publicising this in the hope of reaching out to gentiles. For some reason the late Lubavitcher Rebbe did make this outreach mivtsa very well-known but then he backed away from fully implementing it, and I am not sure why (maybe it's because there are still too many Jews to reach out to), but it is still definitely "officially on" --there are quite a number of good books, articles and websites about it -- and gets mentioned but not pushed as much as it deserves. It is also a real happening because Noahides are real group today, especially in America, and they are inspired and take their guidance only from Orthodox rabbis. Finally, it is much different to Aliyah, which is an entirely different notion and acticitivty involving the motivation and transportation of Jews from all over the world to their Biblical homeland in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisroel) and that place happens to now be the modern State of Israel. Hope this clarification helps. 04:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but i am not convinced this is only an orthodox thing, I did not put it there, a new user put it there[10], I and him may be wrong, I will say on record that it is Jewish not Orthodox at all, I hope u will reconsider your action of putting it into an orthodox cat. meanwhile have a blessed week.--יודל 05:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yidisheryid, who else besides some Orthodox rabbis has been involved with this? One may say that often the gentiles who wish to become and practice as Noahides do so on their own without rabbis, but in almost all cases they connect with Orthodox rabbis to teach them and guide them. It's actually quite complex and the Lubavitcher Rebbe had mentioned creating a kind of "Shulchan Aruch" for them but the Lubavitchers never got around to it. I know of one Haredi rabbis who did (he is a son-in-law of the late Rabbi Nachman Bulman (1925 - 2002)) and he has written and created many tapes for Noahide rituals that were designed for some churches in the US South that dropped being Christian and became official Noahides and he guided them. The story was actually written up in the Wall Street Journal years ago. IZAK 10:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The reform and conservative do believe in Tikun oilem and its rooted in this foundation that jews do not care only about themselves they do deeply care about all human beings. Lubavitch isn't the only people who had this issue, many rabbis and jews alike are doing activist stuff, have u ever heard of rabbi yehuda levin, of rabbi yechiel ekstien of talk show hosts like Mark Levin or denis prager, just google those names and see for yourself that those jews do care deeply about the world and are not strictly ortheodx jews they are Jews who believe in engaging gentiles and influencing the world to the better. This is Halacha long before Reform or Orthodox where even labels. --יודל 10:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure I have heard of some of them. Anyhow, Reform and Conservative "Tikun Olam" notions are not the same as Noahide outreach. The Reform and Conservative are not interested in getting the gentiles to keep "seven" mitzvas" because most of the Reform and Conservatives don't even keep "one" mitzva themselves. They do what they want, when they want, and how they want. They sleep with and marry shiksas and gentiles without any guilt. They basically have no rules beyond American Liberalism and the "Tikun Olam" they talk about is part of Humanism and has nothing to do with Halachik Judaism or the Halachik way for a gentile to be a Noahide. The Reform and Conservatives reject Halacha as understood by the Orthodox in any case. Then, about being an "activist" what does that mean? There is no Halachik or Orthdodox definition of that. Can you cite sources that show that anyone besides the Orthodox even care about the gentiles becoming Noahides? This is not just about caring deeply about the world. Everyone with half a brain in their heads and a PR man claims to "care deeply about the world" even as they screw it up big time. So that is just too broad of an idea and one cannot compare it to the very specific criteria of what is required of a Noahide in terms of the 7 Noahide laws. IZAK 10:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you would argue with me that your translation of those laws is the right one you will win the debate, but this isn't about me and u, there is other users who disagree with our translation, many orthodox rabbis do indeed beliave like them that those are the basics of humanity and nothing more, 1. stealing 2. murdering, 3. animal rights and so fourth, we cannot judge who is right, and who screws up, the Reform will say that Orthodox screw up, and the Orthodox will say the Reform screw up, Please don't take sides in this and kindly revert your edit.--יודל 10:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, no need to revert any edits right now. You need to prove that the Reform and Conservative call reaching out to gentiles a "Noahide Campaign" 'cause as far as anyone knows they don't! In fact, I can prove to you that Reform's definition of "Jewish outreach" means reaching out to the gentile wives and husbands of their mostly interfaith members and/or to any non-Jew who would wish to become a Reform Jew. But so far, you have not proven that anyone besides the Orthodox uses the term "Noahide Outreach" when it comes to convince gentiles to become better gentiles and not to convert to anything. I wasn't saying that the Reform screw up, don't mix up my words. What I did say is that there are many people in the world, talking about anyone out there, and they all believe that they are "improving" the world in their own way, but it has nothing to with Noahide Laws or even Humanism. The Japanese believe they are "improving" the world by hunting whales to eat for breakfast, lunch and supper, and the Chinese believe they are "improving" the world by getting rich selling toothpaste and other crap with toxic chemicals and more crap in it, and even the Nazis thought they were "improving" the world by killing the Jews but that does not mean that any of them are actually improving the world and it surely has nothing to do with Tikun Olam nor with Humanism. Try to read what I state carefully because I think carefully before I write my words. I am not just doing it for "tricks" or for any personal agenda. Did I invent the Noahide Campaign or "Noahide outreach"? Nope! I am just trying my best to be NPOV about it, so please withdraw your accusation which violates WP:AGF. Thanks, IZAK 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
OK Reb Izak, i will start working to gather sources that indeed the 7 laws is basically the laws of humanism; like not to hurt other people, 1. by having laws, 2. not killing, 3. not stealing, 4. not to allow Blasphemy, and not sexually deviate, which that is twofold 5. adultery and 6. morality, and not 7 not to hurt animals. and then i would show you how many Jewish groups do indeed endorse and back those efforts by all Jews not only Orthodox. I hope you will than consider to revert your edit.--יודל 11:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yidisheryid: Just one word of advice, it sounds to me that you are about to waste your time because the end result will be a violation of WP:NOR which is a toughy. Remember, the point is not to prove that every form of "niceness" in the human race is part of the 7 Noahide Laws, because that would be ridiculous. You have to be more focused here, and see what the Seven Noahide laws really are Torah laws which makes them Godly laws according to Orthodox Judaism, and not just a PR campaign by a talk show host to show off to the world that he's a "nice guy" since he says don't hunt dolphins or polar bears. Don't mix up the subjects. There is an expression, "chalk and cheese" meaning that there are huge differences between the way Orthodox Torah Jews would define what a true Noahide needs to do and the difference with what a Liberal Humanist would say is "nice" to do or not do. OK, then, enjoy. IZAK 11:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging my work on Wikipeida i will leave up to others, i have to go forward to spread the positive info out there in the world and share it in this great free and open encyclopedia, time is short and i will not say that Chabad's P.R. campaigns about Judaism and the 7 Noahdite Laws, is more or less than Reform or conservative Outreach, I see their actions as a move to do what their rebbe said and what he said is clear, that he is the Messiah. What i am interested and now intend of doing is to share how some people you say that they screw up in your eyes are real active JEWS who are publicly following the duty of what they believe is every JEW's duty to reach out to the world they should live according to the basic humanistic laws. and i as a Wikipedia editor will prove you this with sources and citations, until than i thank you for the all good advice and constructive critic.--יודל 11:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, for the record, I did not say that only Jews screw up, I said that all sorts of people, not just Jews, screw with the best intentions -- that is part of being a human being, to make mistakes, just some people or groups make bigger mistakes than others and screw up big time! As the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" (not my expression, just a famous English one.) And I was not speaking about Chabad PR campaigns, and they have plenty of them for sure, I was talking how many people out there have PR campaign for all sorts of things, with all the best intentions, but it has nothing to do with the 7 Noahide Laws. As far as I know the Lubavitcher Rebbe never said to anyone that he was the "Moshiach" for sure, he made some hints but there was never an outright admission or declaration by him at any time to anyone, but yeah the Lubavitcher Chasidim have gone gaga by now and they believe whatever they want to believe. It's every man for himself. A total hefkerus. I have heard from some sources that in his days, many Satmars believed that the Satmar Ruv was the "Meshiach" but that idea also went down the tubes once he got sick and died. At least they don't jump up and down telling the world what they believed about him, just screaming about "Zalman and Aaron" and mumbling and grumbling about "Tsiyoinim" and doing a witch-hunt for "Tsiyoinim" like they have nothing better to do in between making lots of money any way they can. It seems that not only Chabad has this sickness about "Moshiach" fever (see List of Messiah claimants) but they do have it more than anyone else. At any rate, when it comes to the subject of the Noahide Campaign (note it was a "Campaign" meaning it was one of their "mivtsoim") the Lubavitcher Rebbe definitely launched this subject more than anyone else. Although as I have said, he then pulled back, but it's still out there and some people, Jews and gentiles are into it. The kind of stuff you are talking about is too far-fetched and would just be part of the Reform Judaism outreach for example because Reform does not like to make differences between Jews and non-Jews they believe that everyone is the same person, no-one has to do mitzvas (the gentiles don't have to do 7 and the Jews for sure don't have to do 613 according to them, because they regard the Torah as bubba meises) so to try to connect their general humanistic do-goodism with Torah concepts is like trying to connect Christianity with Judaism, which is impossible since they are two different thought and belief systems. One has nothing to do with the other. Not a judgment of who is better or worse here, just a statement that don't mix up opposites to create a Frankenstein. Gotta go, IZAK 12:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I am Satamr Williamsburg guy and i agree with you that we all bumble and preach what we believe is right. But what really bewilders me is that your claim that only Chabad had this effort going, I used to visit Flatbush on Ocean Parkway by the wold famous Rabbi Avigdor Miller's shull and all the time he had petitions on the Bimah for Jews to get involved in every government in the world they should make laws in accordance to the 7 laws, almost every single issue that was before the legislative branch in Washington or locally was clearly put fourth the members they should lobby their representatives and influence the world through their voting power, Rabbi Miller even once begged the audience for money when i was there to give bread and food to Rabbi Yehuda_Levin's family, and levin's service has nothing to do with Chabad, he is a Litvak with all his heart, this is a dis-service to the truth that the campaign for the heart of the gentiles they should live according to the 7 basic laws is a chabad thing, we have already discussed that rabbi miller was not main stream Judaism but who are we to say that a Jewish cause which a Jew is pushing isn't Jewish enough?--יודל 12:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yidisheryid: Now you surprise me. First you were arguing the case that Reform Judaism is preaching to mekarev gentiles to become Noahides, which is just not true because the Reform has long-ago redefined the word "outreach" to reach out to the gentile shiksas and gentiles that their members have married (and they claim that they would like to bring any gentiles to become Reform Jews to "make up" for the numbers being lost through assimilation and for those Jews that died in the Holocaust.) That is what they are saying, not me. That is why they need to be, and they are, in a different article Reform Judaism outreach, about what they call "Jewish outreach" which for the Orthodox is not acceptable. Now, as for Rav Miller and Rabbi Levin, I agree with what you say about them 101% -- but why are you bringing this in now because it only supports my point, that the campaign to educate the gentiles about the importance of the 7 Noahide laws basically comes only from Orthodox rabbis and you are just proving my argument. Rav Miller was one of the greatest men of Haredi Judaism in America, no question about it. I respect him too much and I enjoy his jokes a lot too! I am indirectly one of his students but that is another long story and I will not go into it as it has nothing to do with anything. About Rabbi Levin I know that he has tried to do a lot of good, but he is not on the same level of Rav Miller. But how can you compare Rav Miller with the Lubavitcher Rebbe? (And by the way, Rav Miller never criticised Lubavitch in his days, if you know.) You know, there is an expression in business that "When Wall Street sneezes, the world catches a cold" and that was the Lubavicher Rebbe in Judiams, he was so powerful as a world leader of Orthodox Jewry that when he launched a campaign it was heard around the world and nobody could ignore it or forget it, until today. No rabbi in modern times has had his influence or name-recognition around the world. People thought that he was the "only" rabbi of the Jews. So even though Rabbi Miller was truly great, but he does not compare to the Lubavitcher Rebbe's power around the world. Rav Miller was a humble Litvak who minded his own business. He loved to learn "Teira" and encourged other Jews to do the same, but he was not an international mover-and-shaker like the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Yes, Rav Miller tried to get people to make demonstrations against Mayor Koch and Gov. Koo-omo as he called him, but this was like pin-pricks compared to when the Rebbe got going in 770 and started to huff-and-puff. So when he started announcing and pushing the mivtsa of "sheevo mitzvois benei noi-ach" a lot of people started listening and even though he did not follow-through with it, in fact he started an opposite mivtza to fight the opinion of the rabbanut and he held that the Falashas from Ethiopia were outright goyim who would need total conversions and not micky-mouse heterim to say that they are somehow Jews from shevet Dan or some cockamamy idea like that and the Lubavitchers are still not interested in the Falashas and the Falashas hate the Lubavitchers because the Rebbe just wrote them off. Anyhow, maybe because the Rebbe saw that it was too complicated that he backed away, but the first PR remained and the fire was lit and the door remained open for genuine Bnai Noach, especially in the USA to get recognition. Personally, I am acquanted with some Bnai Noach and let me tell you they are amazing people, they study Torah and some of them are geniuses and truly "frum" gentiles. It's actuially amazing, but most frum people don't know about this stuff, just like they don't know about real kiruv, just the fairy stories they read in the Jewish Observer or some such propaganda articles. IZAK 13:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Izak what i tried to say about Rav Miller was first of all to persuade you that this mission is not at all a chabad thing, and just like most Jews may think that Outreach is a Chabad thing and it isn't, the same is true with this campaign, fact is Rabbi Levin reaches out to millions of good and decent benei nocah i do not kno0w what u r talking about, every gentile who does not kill is a benei noch, most people in the southern states are benei noach, we are now clear that this is a mistake of saying its a cahbad thing, its not even a rav miller thing many satamr people protested Koch governer Coumo and even Giuliany, i don't know if you know dr, Bernard Frishman he was the leading activist in all those 3 protests when they passed laws in new york directly against the 7 nohadite laws, and he is a not a satmar and not a litvak he is a Washington heights modern orthodox Jew, from German decent, a real yeke following in the footsteps of rav shamshon refuel hirsh, and i tell you it is not only Orthodox or modern orthodox, this is a fundamental Jewish obligation to spread the 7 laws just like putting Tefilin daily, only that some poskim hold that today we aren't taht powerful so there is no duty to influence others becaouse tectonically we cannot achieve it. Anyways it is news to me that lubavitcher rebbe once retracted his desire that his hasidim should spread the 7 laws, i don't believe it, i know many lubavitchers who care deeply for gentiles and they always say the rebbe told them to do it.--יודל 13:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm you changed your English style here a bit, so maybe someone else got on-board with you now, who knows, but I am ok. Listen, I did not say that the Lubavitcher Rebbe "retracted" anything officially, I just said that he pulled back from it, and that he did not push it the same way all the way through. He first announced it but then left a lot of it hanging. You then go on to say a lot of sweeping things that don't make sense, about "millions" of people here and "millions" of people there being Bnai Noach. It's a false statement. Period. The people in the American South are pure Christians, mostly Southern Baptists and they believe in Jesus with all their hearts (and they want to convert all the Jews to Jesus and that Jews are sinners etc etc), so that it is a huge strike against them as far as being Bnei Noach, who must TOTALLY give up such beliefs. I never said that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was the only one involved with this, I have repeated myself many times that there are many Orthodox rabbis who get involved with this and in fact when gentiles come to convert, they try to convince them to become Bnai Noach first, and some of them succeed. But the Lubavitcher Rebbe was the one who made this famous in our times way above and beyond anyone or any group. Why argue a truth? There also is in fact a famous story with Rav Kook that a gentile from Paris wanted to become a convert but that Rav Kook convinced him to become a Ben Noach instead and he therefore would visit Rav Kook with a cigar on Shabbos to show that he was not keeping Shabbos like an Orthodox Jew but that he accepted Rav Kook's advice to become a Ben Noach instead. So stop repeating to me the same lines, I never said that Lubavicth are the only ones, there are other Orthdodox rabbis, and also note that I said that this is the effort of the Orthodox world and it has nothing to do with Reform, OR Conservative, OR "every gentile who does not kill is a benei noch, most people in the southern states are benei noach" (oy, soon you will make it sound that every gentile who listens to his mother and dentist and brushes his teeth every day is also a Ben Noach, making it "billions" and "gazillions" and "trillions" of people but those kind of statements are just not true, so stop exaggerating please.) And don't say that Rabbi Levin reaches "millions" because that takes away from believing you, which millions is he reaching? (1,000,000 x 0 = 0) I never hear about him and I read all the Jewish papers and I read lots of Jewish news on the web. And don't argue from two or three different sides at one time ('cause anyhow, you don't bamboozle me but it makes you look like the flip-flopper again), I did not say that Lubavitchers don't welcome Bnai Noach or gentiles (although they kicked out Shmuley Boteach for welcoming gentiles to his club in Oxford and now they gave Matisyahu the boot because he has the gentiles dancing all together with everyone else), and I know that they are welcoming in a general way, but it is not a strong campaign like when the Rebbe started it. We are going around in circles. So let's stop repeating ourselves like two old ladies stuck in a nursing home and move on. Ok?! IZAK 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
OK i wont repeat myself since our opinion is very clear you have said this is only an orthedox thing i said it is a Jewish tyhing.
Rabbi Levin indeed reaches millions you only read the Orthodox Jewish papers if you would have time to Google and see what the worlds media says how many gentiles march in Washington yearly against baby killing and listen to the words of the Jewish Torah delivered by this man Levin, and if you would read the Jewish liberal gay and lesbian media and see that he is their target and enemy number 1, you would understand that your so called Jewish newspaper is opposed to his cause because they don't believe it is a a Jewish cause at all. one more point shmuly and matiisyahu where never kicked out from chabad you sound more and more like a Yoily alleging thinks now. also most gentiles who live by the 7 basic laws, are not Christians they may believe in Jesus as a partner or son as long as they do not really pray for him but for the general concept of the Jewish g-d from the bible they are excepted as Bnei Noach, anyways we are indeed repetitive but i cannot let your negative tirades against Christions, Botiach and Matisyahu and Reform Jews just fly by. without refutation, i am not at all insulted when u go personal, my English is better than yours like it or not, and i will not let you smear living people just like that Levin Miller Botyach and Reform Rabbis are believing what they do is Jewish, and don't you think i will let you get away with your indifference to them--יודל 14:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly please do not threaten me. It is criminal. That is not nice. I did not threaten you. You know, you are truly amazing. On the one hand you agree to have open discussions and you sound friendly and make lots of kind apologies and then on the other hand you mix up what I am saying and you make false accusations against me when I am discussing topics with you. Where did I smear Shmuley Boteach? I said that the Lubavitchers kicked him out of Lubavitch because he invited gentiles to his Lechaim Club in Oxford University, and I said that they have also now disowned Matisyahu the singer because he was not being strict enough about his audiences. This is all on record, these are not my creations. I happen to respect both Shmuley Boteach and Matisyahu for all their efforts. Then you state things like "most gentiles who live by the 7 basic laws, are not Christians they may believe in Jesus as a partner or son as long as they do not really pray for him but for the general concept of the Jewish g-d from the bible they are excepted as Bnei Noach" which is totally mixed up because if a gentile prays to or believes in Jesus "as a partner or son...of the Jewish g-d" then he is 300% a Christian and therefore there is absolutely no way to psychoanalyse such gentiles as to what is going on inside their brains since if they go into a Church where there is Christain Cross to Jesus and they bow down to it then no matter what you say and scream, they are pure Christians and they are definitely NOT Bnei Noach by a long-long way. Your tirade about Rabbi Yehuda Levin is just marvelous, and I will not reply to it, but why don't you give the same mercy to Lesbians that you give to Christians who believe in Jesus? After all, lesbians are also humans. Many millions if not billions of women in history have at one time or another been lesbians, so does that mean that they deserve to be cursed the way you do now? Jewish law does not punish lesbians the same way it would punish male homosexuals. You are expressing yourself too harshly. Why don't you use your own logic here, that maybe even though they are lesbians they are also Bnai Noach and they don't worship other gods, only kiss and hug another lady, and that maybe you should respect their humanity as well as part of the "humanism" that you are now preaching? Listen, Judaism does not condone Lesbians, in the same way Judaism does not condone people who believe in Jesus. Just get over it and accept it. Every time the topic of Jesus comes up you make excuses of how a Jew can believe in him and still be a Jew, that sounds like the Jewish Christians plain and simple, and personally I have no problem with people having the right to believe whatever they want, it's a free country, but do NOT call it a part of "Judaism" in any way and DO NOT say that it can fit with being a Ben Noach because it is just NOT true. As for Rabbi Levin I wish you would not make it sound that I have anything against him. I wish him well and I hope he succeeds with his missions. I just do not hear about him, in fact I never hear about him and I read more than just Jewish newspapers. Oh, and thanks for the compliment, if I sound like a "Yoily" does that mean that I am officially now a Chusid of HaRav Yoel Teitelbaum? You speak in so many different directions that it's hard to know who is speaking at any time. But as we have both agreed, let's stop this discussion for now and get on with the business of improving Wikipedia. IZAK 15:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Levin sees no conflict in being born a lesbian and being a bnei noach, also he does not see that if a gentile mom made 20 abortions she cannot be a bnei noach and therefore he can also believe that believing in Jesus as a g-d can be a bnei noach, and this is the reason that the he and Botiach and Matisyahu and Frishman and the reform and all the jews reach out to the gentiles to tell them there is 7 laws except it and you a Bnei Noach in one split second, i ask u to make one google search on his name and tell me if i am right about him, in English and in Hebrew you will be amazed how indifferent you are to facts to sate that u never ever heard from him, and no u cannot come up with one single source that Matisyahu or Botiach were kicked out of anywhere please stop making stories up here these are living people i beseech you don't act like a Yioly in wikipedia when u state facts and i say its slander u must bring a source.--יודל 15:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

YY: Let's leave Christians and Lesbians out of the discussions. I also have no problems with Rabbi Levin, so let's leave him out of it too. I have made my point and you have made yours. Now as far as the citations you want for Shmuley Boteach and Matisyahu the following news-reports were published very recently, here they are:

  • Shmuley Boteach begs Chabad to take him back in his own words. (See: "But then the Rebbe died and I had a major falling-out with the Chabad leadership because of my outreach to non-Jews")
  • Matisyahu says that he is out of Lubavitch in his own words. (See: "I am no longer identified with Chabad," he announced. "Today, it's more important to me to connect to a universal message. While they were playing on stage and I closed my eyes, I was thinking that what we do is not at all about Judaism and not about Chabad. It's much bigger than one religion or another. It relies on something real that can speak to anybody. It's about truth and memory.")

There are more citations and reports like this, but this shows that I am not making things up and that they are in the media for the whole world to read and understand what is going on. And now you have called me a "Yoily" twice, that must must be a record on Wikipedia. What happens if you call me that a third time, I grow rabbit's ears and dance the hora backwards? Cheers.IZAK 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again u r proving what a yoily is, i asked you to bring me sources where it says that he was kicked out, and none came, only again insulting me and lawyering links to where they say that they are bigger and different then Chabad, u have claimed a fact which is not true and don't try to argue in order to further complicate the issue, I and u use internet to spread facts of our Jewish faith, almost all of the Orthodox Rabbis have banned this medium, (except Chabad and modern orthodox) we believe that we are allowed, is this being called kicked out from skver or satamar? i don't think so i am very open that i do not follow every dictate of my rabbi this is far away from a claim that i was kicked out. good luck--יודל 15:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it do you. It is you now that is trying to "Wikilawyer" his way out of facts, but you are not succeeding. In Halachah there is a principal of hoda'as ba'al din ke'mei'ah eidim dami ("the admission of the guilty party is like the testimony of a hundred witnesses") which is what self-incrimination means, especially if it's true. So just read and re-read the links I gave you, they tell a lot. How can you claim that Shmuley Boteach and Matisyau say that they are "bigger and different then Chabad" when that is not what the articles are saying? You are making it sound that they are saying what sounds like the argument of Ann Coulter who believes that Christians are "perfected Jews" (have you read what she said a few days ago, see this [11].) By the way, real rabbis don't "dictate" -- a very bad word -- so that if you feel your rabbis are dictators, it's time to switch and get better ones. Farewell. IZAK 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Me and Shmuly and Matisyahu do not forsake our rabbis because one small detail, we beleave that our rabbis are the best man awailble and thats why we chose them as rabbis in the first place, when we decide to do difrently as they want we are not kicked out we are just not folowing their will.--יודל 16:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can respect that very much. And I did not accuse anyone of forsaking their rabbis, just that they fell out with the movement for whatever reasons. These kinds of things are usually very complicated and do not happen for one or two simple reasons. So again, I very much respect what you say. IZAK 16:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree totally with Izak that the Noahide Campaign is different from the interfaith forays of reform; in fact, there's no comparison at all. Izak is thus probably right in removing the Noahide Campaign from the template to which it had been added by me.
  • I maintain that it does qualify as Jewish Outreach (albeit distinctly Orthodox).
  • Yes, non-chabad rabbis have been involved, but none to the extent as Chabad overall, AFAIK. But I do know non-Chabad rabbis involved in it, so it should also be included in some sort of general Orthodox Jewish Outreach cat (although it's already in the Chabad Outreach cat), if there is such a thing yet (and not just a disambig page).
  • At the same time, it's not accurate IMHO to say that the Lubavitcher Rebbe "backed off" from it, as is clear from the numerous direct quotes on the Noahide Campaign page. Rather, his disciples have yet to heed his words on the scale that he demanded. 05:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netzach (talk • contribs) [12]

I have sent you an e-mail

Please respond in email thanks.--יודל 16:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I've replied to you at the Yaakov Neuburger AfD. If you have a problem with my edits, please don't bury your complaint in an AfD page, but bring it to my talk page, where I'm guaranteed to see it, and, if appropriate, correct myself and apologise, things I have a good track record of doing. --Dweller 13:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yitzchok Adlerstein

Please. Start taking other editors seriously and stop making pointless and baseless accusations. Your repeated attempts at steering the debate over the notability of an individual rabbi into a religious debate and imply that other editors are somehow biased against him because he is a Jewish Orthodox are, at best, misguided.

I, and other editors, dispute the inclusion of the article because not a single reliable source has been put forth to establish his notability, not because of his ethnic or religious background. Period.

I think you're starting to take this personally, which is always a mistake, and you need to step back and take a deep breath. If you can provide a reliable source to meet the guidelines, I will look at it and reconsider my position, and we can safely presume the other editors also will.

No amount of posturing, repeating how "obviously notable" rabbi Adlerstein is, increasing aggressiveness or more-or-less veiled accusations of bias/antisemitism will.

Shalom. — Coren (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: As an aside, demanding that people clear AfD or edits with a Wikiproject is extremely inappropriate and will not make you friends. — Coren (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism vs. The Jewish Bolshevism

Shalom. I'd like you please to consider switching your deletion notice from the former to the latter.

  • It is well known that the Nazis maintained that Jewishness = Bolshevism.
  • Both articles are in fact essentially about Antisemitism.
  • But the latter's tone is, I have concluded, a disguised attempt at showing that there is some merit to the claim.
  • That Jews were or were not Bolsheviks is irrelevant. Some people believe in Flying saucers.
  • I started the Latter precisely in order to eliminate the former.
Best to you, --Ludvikus 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Żydokomuna

Also, how come this is not explicitly also mention by you for deletion? It should be deleted- it now polutes the English language with Polish hateful nonesense. Best, --Ludvikus 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see now it is (I did it). But of the three, I think the best to keep is The Jewish Bolshevism because it lifts the English obscure pamphlet Title which is effectively a plagiarism of the Nazi's pamphlet, the Grave Diggers of Russia by Hitler's greatest idiologue, Arthur Rosenberg. --Ludvikus 13:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ludvikus: At first I thought I would do the nomination the other way, but then I realized two things, that The Jewish Bolshevism is actually the name of a book, and the second thing was that I was puzzled how you could put material from the original Jewish Bolshevism article, that had nothing to do with the boook per se, into that book's article? So the most logical solution is to combine them into the one article of Jewish Bolshevism because the article about the book doesn't say much that is new that it should get its own article. It could easily fit into the "general topic" article with which it shares the same name. And I agree with you that the Żydokomuna article is pointless, why do we need an article with a Polish name that deals with the same subject matter as in Jewish Bolshevism? Thanks again, IZAK 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

We are probably on the same side - but disagree about what is best.

  • I do not believe that hiding this garbage under the carpet is good (that was tried after WWI.
  • Rather, it's much better to saturate the world with it.
  • Regards, and are you assuming Good Faith?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly assuming good faith, but Wikipedia is not the place to "saturate" the world with duplicate information. 13 articles about the same book is ridiculous. IZAK 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • No insult intended, but you are clearly ignorant about a fundamental fact - which I keep repeating - but you seem not to hear or to listen to. You don't know what you are talking about when you speak of the same book. It is a fact which reflects incredible ignorance about the subject matter in which you npropose deletions.
  • Now I do not know how to say that to you without sounding any less offensive. Please believe me that I do not wish to insult you by the above remark. If you find the word "ignorance" offensive than I'm truly sorry - but to talk about a single book as a discription of the Warrant for Genocide is worse than ignorant - it is being reckless to the interests of the Jewish people who lost 6,000,000 souls in WWII because they did not fight effectively against their sworn enemies.
  • Now what is that all about regarding Jerusalem on your Homepage? I really do not understand its association with you. Can you please explain that to me?
Peace/Shalom. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read AfD procedures

M ass filling of deletion requests is not advised. If you want to delete Zydokomuna article, file a proper AfD/Zydokomuna request.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Żydokomuna

It's not clear to me what your position is on the above Polish version of the Antisemitic garbage known as Jewish Bolshevism. Where do you stand on that? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Warning"

There is the above word which is apparently used to advise someone against transgressions. You've made repeated accusations against me, but you have failed to be sufficiently specific so that I could defend myself. That is extremely unfair of you. I do not find your general references at all helpful. If you wish that someone change their conduct for the better, then you have the obligation to tell that person exactly what it is (s)he did wrong. That is also the decent thing to do. Furthermore, you should bare in mind that I'm writing about something which is also known as the Warrant for Genocide. A billion (rather infinite) 4 - letter words cannot possibly be equivalent to that filth, and the damage and pain, which it has caused the Jewish people. In anticipation of one thing I imagine you might say, my response is "if you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen." Peace/Shalom, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [13] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [14]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War

If you wish to help cleanup Wikipedia of Antisemitic trash, I suggest you look carefully at the above. I've been spending currently a substantial amount of time to have it deleted as OR and Un-notable. In fact, it's an excuse to have an antisemitic poster/image of "monster" "Jewish" Trotsky. I do not know - yet - where you are coming from. But I hope to learn soon. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Improper references used

Here's a sample of the Red Scare (1920) "scholarly" source used in the above article:

This text (above) - from the Red Scare period, is an unreliable and improper source.
It itself is propaganda. Here is another example of its scholarship (an excerpt from it):
    Socialism has made terrible inroads among the Jews.
    To give one example, "The Forward," a Yiddish daily of New York City,
    has a circulation of about 150,000 copies.
    This paper should be watched very carefully by the government,
    for it has been doing some very dangerous work
    in the line of revolutionary propaganda
    without English-speaking people being aware of the doctrines it is advocating.

The real purpose of the article there is an excuse to post the antisemitic image I'm showing you here. The subtext of article connext the murdering "Chinese" under the control of the "Jew" Trotsky. I wonder if you will understand what I mean.

1919 "Notice the Chinese" (subtext: under the thum of the Jew Trotsky)

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Baseless charges by you against me

You're charge is baseless, User IZAK. I expect you to know what "obscenities," "vulgarities," and "four letter words" are. Your reckless accusation that I do that is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please retract you baseless charge that you have made there, on that other Talk page. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [15] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [16]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin help required with vandalism of nomination page

Hi El C: Unfortunately, there is a user Ludvikus (talk · contribs) who is tampering with the formatting of a nomination page [17]. See the wildness of what he is doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). He is inserting and changing the original formatting and even the wording, totally unheard of. Please take a look at it. Thanks a lot. IZAK 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, I am only sporadically active. Will try to look into it, but if it is urgent, it may be better to defer it to someone else. בברכה, El_C 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C: Thanks for responding, enjoy your break. User:BrownHairedGirl was helpful. Thanks again, IZAK 19:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IZAK/Archive_30&oldid=1139064762"