User talk:Mzk1
|
Peter Cohen
[edit]Hi, I noticed your recent post on WP:Israel. Welcome to Wikipedia. You're obviously discovered both the existence of WP:Wikiprojects and how article talk pages are intended to be used to resolve issues. Could I draw your attention to WP:IPCOLL? This project is intended as a means to reduce some of the tensions that arise in editing articles covering the whole Arab-Israeli dispute and members are encouraged to agree to try to avoid getting carried away during editings disagreements. You're welcome to join up.
I doubt you would be surprised if I told you that there is quite a high casualty rate of Wikipedians who are blocked from editing for periods, or are banned from contributing in any way to any articles covered by the dispute. I notice that you have commented on one article that doesn't lie in the area of dispute. It is a good idea to make sure that you also contribute in such less controversial areas. This is both because it can give you a better experience of Wikipedia than if you are always concentrating on the most disputed areas of content, and because when administrators have to intervene to calm things down they tend to be more sympathetic towards editors who are obviously trying to improve Wikipedia over a broad range of articles than towards those who seem to be purely around to push their own political views.
Below I'm going to insert a standard welcome message. Given how people often quote policy at each other when arguing over the I/P dispute, I suggest you follow up some of the links in it so that you know what they are talking about. Some of the most relevant material includes WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Verify, WP:NOR, WP:NPA and WP:3RR--Peter cohen (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yes you did do things correctly. For your information there are some people who prefer to keep conversations together in the place they started. They normally have something at the top of their talk page that says so. Just check for that before you reply to anyone. I on the other hand, prefer what you did as Wikipedia lets me know as soon as someone particularly wants to talk to me.
Flagging something as uncited and then removing it if the issue is not addressed after two weeks strikes me as perfectly reasonable behaviour. Obviously if there is an ongoing talk page discussion it is likely to be regarded as provocative. But in the absence of someone saying that they're going to the library at the end of the month to find the source, or otherwise indicating that they intend to do something about things, then you're not going to get into trouble.
You obviously live under difficult circumstances, but I'm not convinced that Wikipedia has as powerful an effect as you fear. The WP:Neutral point of view policy means that our biases ought to reflect those of the broader media.
I think I should also warn you not to expect to find me agreeing with you all the time. When I was added to the Jewish Internet Defense Force's list of Wikipedians they don't like they said they thought I was not a Jew, but if I am one I must be self-hating. I am very critical of a lot of what Israel does and on such content discussions as whether Ariel should be described first as a "city" or as an Israeli settlement, I favour "settlement".
I happenned to notice the post you made to WT:Israel because I'd recently posted a query both there and at WT:WikiProject Palestine about a map which had Mount Scopus wrongly labelled as the Old City. In the past I would delete both projects from my watchlist once I got round to doing a bit of pruning but now that I've said at WP:IPCOLL that I'm going to welcome new users on either side of this dispute, I'm going to be keeping both on my watchlist so I can spot people to greet. I'm sure I'm going to end up disagreeing with a lot, but I'm trying to behave in an even-handed way.
Wikipedia has a policy of no WP:Votestacking. Even though I expected to get the same answer in both places (and did in fact do so) I felt it appropriate to ask both projects rather than just one. On a lot of matters I simply post to WP:IPCOLL as it has representation from both sides as well as neutrals and hopefully a lower proportion of fanatics. I chose to miss out IPCOLL when asking about the map because it was a matter of fact I was raising not a content dispute. Normally, however, I tend to go to WT:IPCOLL first over the type of issue you raised. My advice is to have IPCOLL as your first point of call on contentious issues around the Arab-Israeli dispute. Just say something along the lines of "We're having a discussion at such-and-such a page. I think a few more opinions might help." If you do that, you'll get a reputation as someone who tries to act fairly and that means that even if you do at some point trip up against one of Wikipedia's policies, people are going to want to treat you leniently. People can disagree with your views on what should be in articles but still consider you the sort of person they want around the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk back
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have replied again. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Your request for information on sources
[edit]Your suggestion is a fairly accurate rule of thumb. Hebrew sources prior to the 20th century are essentially category 2 (wikified footnotes). Its not entirely true to say I haven't read them, although I haven't read them for purposes relating to editing wikipedia articles.
If you look at the reference section you'll note the big this article incorporates text from the ....encyclopedia article.... cites - if you click on the article name in these (should be highlighted in blue) it will take you to an online copy of those secondary sources so you can see for yourself where the wikified footnotes come from if you want (though the citation style of the JE can be extremely cryptic at times, here's a guide to the common abbreviations - [1]).
There are one or two exceptions - where someone else has written in wikipedia a direct cite to the shulchan aruch, the tur, chochmas adam (= Abraham Danzig's wisdom of man), etc. and I've kept that in, or duplicated it in one article from another. But if you look through the edit history, edit by edit, you'll be able to trace those.
Newman Luke (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Its often down in the JE as l.c. 150 or something equally cryptic. That means the same reference as the previous cite, except page 150 instead of whatever the previous one was. It does that with Maimonides especially for some reason. Or sometimes its down as obscure references like Rab. or Reb. (or Rav. or Rev.) without clarifying who that is - in my wikification I've converted cryptic things like that into the corresponding proper names (for example, Rab. = Abba Arika). Some of the worst ones are where the JE says according to such and such..... and then has several paragraphs based on the source, with section dividers splitting them up, without repeating the cite, so its easy to miss the fact that they are. (Its use of section dividers is a bit ideosyncratic and inexplicably random anyway) Newman Luke (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Re. How do you bring articles that are in another wikipedia language, into the english version
[edit]See reply, in WP:HELPDESK#How do you bring articles that are in another wikipedia language, into the english version. Smappy (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem
[edit]I have no problem with your revert. When I said these do not apply, I was talking about actual practise, which is a little more specific than the text in the books. Debresser (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is? Do you have knowledge of this? (Obviously, a source would be even better.)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for reverting my mistake in removing the link to the park site. As you probably noticed, the entries in the list are limited to two lines each as there are/have been dozens of Luna Parks over the past century (and any longer would give the entry undue weight in the list). Have you considered writing a short/stub article on the park itself as it seems you have access to reliable sources covering it? B.Wind (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
update
[edit]I didn't feel I adequately answered your question at the help desk here, so I went looking for someone with more expertise in the area. A couple editors with more experience in this area have now weighed in. --SPhilbrickT 02:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I did get an answer addressing the issue from moonriddengirl, so I thank you for your efforts "above and beyond".Mzk1 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Haredi Jews:
[edit]"Based on what? Name one clear universal international distinction, besides the color of the Kippah."
Can I just clarify that you argued that there the only distinction between Haredi Jews and other Jews is the color of the Kippa? I suggest you some books about Haredi Jews, like the ones I referenced.
Some basic differeces: Haredi Jews do not belive that living a non-Haredi lifestyle (including Modern Orthodox) is consistent with being a religious Jew. Haredi Jews shun secular education, whilst other Jews value it. Birth rate is very high and encouraged. Generally, they are opposed to the State of Israel
You can read a book called "One Above and Seven Below: A Consumer's Guide to Orthodox Judaism from the Perspective of the Chareidim by Yechezkel Hirshman, published 2007" This was written by a Haredi Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.254.108 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I AM a Haredi Jew. I have also been "Modern Orthodox". I have attended both sorts of institutions. The classes are NO DIFFERENT. Statement number 1 is simplistic. Statement number 2 is a false generalization. (Countless counter-examples on request.) Statement #3 applies to many Modern Orthodox. Statement number #4 is false, except in theory. Generally, they strongly support the state of Israel, although they disagree as to whether it would have been better if it had not existed. Read a Chareidi magazine or newspaper, without cherry-picking.Mzk1 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Moved to talk tage of article. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I have responded to your comments on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Haredi_Judaism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.253.138 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Grammar Userbox Response
[edit]You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Discussion at WP:Judaism
[edit]I moved the discussion "Should every BIO of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism", which you recently participated in, to the talk page of WP Judaism's MOS. This is an important subject and needs to be incorporated into the MOS once we reach a consensus. -shirulashem(talk) 18:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Temple discussion at ANI
[edit]Hi Mzk1: A discussion and related vote you participated in is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves. You may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Shalom
[edit]Here this is my current account. As I said, my old account I lost the password.
But now you can look at my fine work on Ayoob Kara and other things.
:)
--Metallurgist (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did. Youre quite vague, but I think I understand. :P It probably will. Yes I did see it :P--Metallurgist (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- also I cant stand people who put two spaces after a period.
Yep Thats why I pointed out that we both cant stand that. :) And I was wondering why you consider yourself "near native"?
Hate of haredi
[edit]Saw this and thought of you. Israel must realize that it must be united or it will die. How are you? You seem to have vanished again. :P --Metallurgist (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I kind of felt I burned my bridges, and at any rate I had to stay off the site because I could not keep from commenting and had no time for it. The press instigates (NOT inn) this sort of thing - as if our schools wern't underfunded as it is - so they shouldn't be surprised. Meir Porush is eight generations in Jerusalem; one of my cousins recently married into his family. If you want to talk personally, my email on hotmail is the same as my name here.Mzk1 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- ok i will do that. :)
Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel
[edit]You contributed to the recent discussion at WP:Cfd. The closing editor recommended that a discussion be started on a new name and we should seek consensus there before proceeding to Cfd again. I've opened such a discussion on Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel and invite you to participate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Orchot Zaddikim
[edit]Hi, putting the tagging discussion aside for the moment, I noticed that you wrote earlier that you got involved in the discussion through study of the book itself. That being the case, I would like to invite you to use the edited Hebrew text of OZ, as it appears at Hebrew Wikisource in two parallel versions. The text there has been carefully corrected based on manuscripts, plus formatted and linked to its sources. Any further improvements would be welcome. The two parallel versions can be found at:
Be-virkat ha-Torah, Dovi (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, as the main creator of the Wikisource edition, thanks for the compliments... Reading your comments again on the Judaism discussion page now I see that you mentioned the "Wikimedia" version, but before I didn't catch that you meant Hebrew Wikisource.
- In terms of improving the Hebrew Wikisource version, of course you are invited to do so! Please read the guidelines to the edition, which describe the methods for editing. Like any Wikimedia project all of this is meant to be a joint effort, which means you can of course suggest or make improvements both to the guidelines and to the text of the book itself.
- In practical terms, I have carefully edited only small portions of the book based on the manuscripts. I went over the entire book correcting dozens or hundreds of passages where the difficulties in the text were blatant, and documented those corrections based on the manuscripts; but only for those passages, while going over the entire text methodically is something that still remains to be done. If you'd like to help, welcome!
- Shabbat Shalom, Dovi (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- PS: "Also, should the links point to the next chapter, and not the current one?" -- Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by this. Dovi (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
|
Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. – Lionel (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
Wikimania
[edit]Could you please send me an email (see may email address on my userpage) with the location and time of Wikimania, and what I have to do to gain entrance? I have to be in Haifa Friday, and might be able to attend. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Were you looking for this?
[edit]Template:User Israeli Debresser (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Two replies
[edit]I have replied to your post on my talkpage. And to your post in Talk:Erusin#Can_we_remove_the_.22In_the_Hebrew_Bible.22_section.3F. And I am waiting for you to tell me what happened with the Nissuin article. Please note that I am not monitoring this talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikimania
[edit]I am happy I was in Haifa, as I met many people which gave me both ideas and motive to think about some things, and possible solutions. I talked briefly with Dovi (actually 4 or 5 of us were together at the table eating), but short story he told was remarkable. I read Bible, but I did that with respect, and you talked about some things with such ease that I think I'll read some parts again, but this time with a bit different attitude. You can send me your email address, thank you! SpeedyGonsales (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School
[edit]Just so you know, the issue was that the "general" Category:Yeshivas in Canada didn't exist at all, and even Category:Yeshivas and Category:Yeshivas by country, for some reason I'm not too clear on, existed only as category redirects to the "Orthodox yeshivas" categories. Which means that at the moment there was no "yeshivas" category it could be added to if it isn't Orthodox — and given how category redirects work, if I'd left it in one of the plain "yeshivas" redirects, a bot would have come along and transferred it into the Orthodox category anyway.
I'll move it to the more general Category:Jews and Judaism in Canada for now, and look into whether there's an actual reason why we don't have categories for non-Orthodox yeshivas, but just wanted to explain why I did what I did. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- As near as I can tell, there's no actual reason why we don't have non-Orthodox yeshivas categories — they were just arbitrarily redirected to the Orthodox categories in 2007 with no real explanation provided, and there's a discussion at Category talk:Orthodox yeshivas suggesting that the plain titles should exist as independent categories rather than redirects. Accordingly, I've created Category:Yeshivas and Category:Yeshivas in Canada and recatted the Orthodox categories as subcats of those instead — and I've posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism to ask if there was an actual reason that I'm not seeing. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
On a personal note
[edit]Ktiva vehatima tova for 5772! A gut gebensht yor! Debresser (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: September 2011
[edit]
By Lionelt
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
By Lionelt
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.
By Lionelt
On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
I heartily apologise if I misread the intention of your Talk and edits, that was not at all my intention and I have tried to correct by adding sources. You were correct to note that the original text "the term does not appear in the Tanakh" owtte was wrong and opened my eyes to the interrelation of Talmudic and Tanakh references. Can you tell me if it is the case that the original Leviticus phrase ger v-toshav with the waw never occurs in Talmud quotes of Leviticus? I know that the waw can be dropped in waw-conjunctive phrases, both in Hebrew and Aramaic, but is the case in 100% of Talmud references? Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: October 2011
[edit]By Lionelt
The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
By Lionelt
The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.
Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.
By Lionelt
Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.
WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.
We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism/Incubator/Star_Parker's talk page.– Lionel (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
[edit]
|
Thanks, very nice comments on my own Talk page and other pages. I'll read and follow up on some of those points. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC) |
We're in a bit of a pickle in the Wagner discussion page. The issues concerns Social class (sociology) and the phrase supposedly common Germanic past and has now been dismissed by some editors as inconsequential. Furthermore, the name Other interpretations in the article dismisses the general review and broader Wagner analysis to a subcategory under Controversies (mainly the topic of anti-Semitism). Please help. Just take fast look and maybe help in the balancing act. Thank you
- In his own era he furthermore provided the newly emerged middle class with a medium to transfer its familial and political conflicts into a myth of supposedly common Germanic past.
- (In the introduction, removed as non consequential)
- User:Major Torp (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mzk1, can I pick your brain on the grammatical question of hendiadys between ger v toshav in Leviticus, and ger toshav in Talmud and Rashi. Is it the case that Talmud consistently drops the waw in referring to Leviticus ger v toshav or does in the whole scheme of Chazal do ger v toshav and ger toshav with and without the waw conjunctive interplay? And is dropping of the waw more or less common in Aramaic texts than Hebrew texts? Any source on this. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I did not complete the entire Talmud, but my 21-year-old nephew did, and he thinks it unlikely that ger v'Toshav is ever used. I would note that in Pesachim 21B, second half of the page, interpreting Deut.14:21 and using Lev.25:35 (brought in Rashi) the term Ger, which usually means convert, is there interpeted as a Ger Toshav (see Rashi), and the Talmud and Rashi sticks to the "Ger" used by the text and never actually states Ger Toshav. (Rashi in 14:21 actually says Ger Toshav, and the verse is clearly not referring either to a Jew or a pagan.)
- As I said, I don't see the issue. The same verse (Lev.25:47) has both "Ger v'Toshav" and "Ger Toshav". The Talmud picked the phrase that makes the issue clearer (See Rashi Lev 25:47 who says that Ger Toshav is clearer.)
- Also, Lev. 25:35, Ger v'Toshav, according to Rashi only the Toshav refers to Ger Toshav; he follows the verse here and uses "Toshav" instead of "Ger v'Toshav", but the classic description he uses is the same as the one he uses in Deut 14:21:Interestingly I cannot tell you from Rashi that the "Ger Toshav" in Lev.25:47 IS a legal Ger Tashav, although he appears to be - which is why I tend to shy away from using Biblical verses for Halachic issues. Best to start from the Talmud.Mzk1 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the answer. Could you ask your nephew if he knows a WP:RS source to indicate that the hendiadys (ommission of waw-conjunctive) is caused by linguistic reasons (Aramaic style) or theological/exegetical reasons?
- You say The same verse (Lev.25:47) has both "Ger v'Toshav" and "Ger Toshav". וְכִי תַשִּׂיג יַד גֵּר וְתֹושָׁב עִמָּךְ וּמָךְ אָחִיךָ עִמֹּו וְנִמְכַּר לְגֵר תֹּושָׁב עִמָּךְ אֹו לְעֵקֶר מִשְׁפַּחַת גֵּֽר
- You are evidently correct. But where is Lisa's evidence that these are 2 different things in Lev 25:47 and that reference to 25:47a must be deleted - in fact she has deleted 25:47b as well.
- Re the exegetical approach, to start with Talmud, this is of course the same as Christians who start from the NT and work backwards to Tanakh, but all the same Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and articles generally treat content in historical, chronological order so the article should start from Ancient Israel and work forward, even if Talmudic section is longer. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just showed you that Rashi in Lev.25:47 has Ger and Toshav as two different things. It depends on context.
- When Catholics do this, they are trying to prove something about the Bible. We are not dealing with the Bible, we are dealing with Jewish Law. To claim that the Talmudic law of Ger Toshav is in the bible is POV. (It happens to be my POV (and Lisa's), but this is not relevant.)
- You also cannot just pull a bunch of stuff out of Google and throw it together. RS does not say "majority of on-line sources" or "majority of English sources". It also does not say to throw sources in without looking at them. Not to mention that your results are somewhat random; seveal attempts on my part at finding your reference from Aryeh Kaplan were not successful. If you can't give me a page number, that says something. And I might add that many of your sources are not academic, which makes them no better than tons of stuff you did not find, most of it in Hebrew.Mzk1 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]Hi Mzk1, I know you have an interest in sources for articles and I thought this might be of interest to you. – Lionel (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: November 2011
[edit]By Lionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.
I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Mzk1, welcome to comment, but for better or worse, like other editors I decide what goes on my Talk page, so with all respect I have moved it back to Lisa's. Cheers 03:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy Chanukah Mzk1!
[edit] |  |
I have replied at my talk page; my reply includes thanks, questions, and requests. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
help
[edit]I'd love if you help me improve this article I wrote: User:Yosichen/Jewish views on marital relations Yosichen (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Local meetings
[edit]I commented at User_talk:Yosichen#Thank_you_for_your_request. What was that about local meetings? Debresser (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: January 2012
[edit]
By Lionelt
On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.
Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.
By Lionelt
Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.
Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.
Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.
The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
[edit]
|
Keep doing a good job! A+ Wikidumbo in the haus. (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
The Right Stuff June 2018
[edit]By Lionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
- There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
- Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Biblical criticism
[edit]I have recently finished redoing the page Biblical criticism. I saw that you made a comment--years ago--that seemed like an intelligent comment to me, and I wanted you to know I included your idea in my re-do. I thought you might be interested in taking a look. I am Jenhawk777--nice to meet you! :-) So to speak... Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: July 2018
[edit]By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
- 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
- "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
- "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)