User talk:IZAK - Wikipedia


Article Images

Archives: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 23:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Dear Ram-Man: Thank you for all this information. I will need to give your communication some thought. Best wishes. IZAK 06:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As do many others. Take as much time as you need and get back to me whenever you'd like. Update: I've updated the original comment, which contains more useful links. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 23:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reasonable adjustment to the template I created.

I made a comment here: Template_talk:Biblegateway#Change_in_format. I am not associated with that website, nor am I a great fan of their origins. However, they do an outstanding and well-made range of Christian translations.

I would like to continue with sensitive NPOV contributions on some of the pages where both Jews and Christians have an interest. I declare myself a Christian, but interested in that NPOV!

I hope to see you around. I have found the contributions of yours that I have glanced at to be very valuable. I hope you will come to think the same. — Dizzley (Peter H) 12:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Book of Amos#External links - I hope you like the effect. Dizzley (Peter H)
File:3X4 and class.jpg
Soloveitchik

I noticed that the orphaned Image:3X4 R.Soloveitchik and class.jpg, uploaded by you, is on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. In the article on Joseph Soloveitchik another copy is used, but the orphaned one actually seems to be of better quality. / Tupsharru 13:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is really sick. Simonides and Zero instigated four out of nine Admins to ban me from editing all Judaism articles for a full year. Worse, they did so on the very articles on which I and others have the most success cooperating!

Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles.

It is a gross violation of Sysop and Admin power to create rules that apply to only one person, and to no one else. By definition, when Wikipedia Admins engage in such behaviour, they are violating their own mandate, and thei "rulings" have no authority and are not binding.

1. I am not involved in any flame wars. So why the year long ban? Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when they were NOT in a flame war.
2. I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars. So why the ban? Not a single Wikipedia was ever given a ban when they were not in revert for edit wars.
3. The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago! So why the ban?
Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to an issue. It seems that some Admins are enraged that our system actually worked, and parties peacefully worked out their differences. What kind of hateful people think that such a positive result is grounds for a year long ban?
4. I repeatedly take week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks to let things cool down and allow other people to have their say without any problem. So why the ban?
5. I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. So why the ban?
6. I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary. So why the ban? The action to ban me was taken behind my back, without informing me, and proceeded based on false assumptions - and potentially deliberate lies.

I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this very issue previously; they were all unable to come up with even a single instance of this ever happening. Ever. The entire ban is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should not allow four people with a vendetta to wreck our whole system.

We are unfortunately dealing with a small number of people abusing their Admin power out of some sort of personal vendetta. If it happens to one person, it will happen to others. What steps should we take next to initiate disciplinary action against them for these serious violations?

RK 20:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) (Robert)

Hi Izak, just a note to let you know this page has been suggested for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism. Best, SlimVirgin 09:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the image Image:George and Barbara Bush family.gif is on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because you have not tagged it with information about its source. Simon 03:17, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article: Israeli Art Students. It would seem to me like the work of some Neo-Nazi.--AAAAA 11:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, just wanted to let you know that i am aware of my wrong adjustments, i spent some time reverting back all what i did (making all those lists into categories). it was ignorance on my behalf and i tried to the best of my knowledge, to revert it back to it's previous order. User:Davidcannon was the first to divert my attention to my misinformed editing. i will further my reading before taking measures like that again. any why, i have personally changed the category 'Category' Prominent Jews into a list and redirected the category page for deletion.

Nevertheless, i had spent a great deal of research and effort into the List of Prominent Jews article after finding that List of Jews article could not provide with the same amount of refference and detail. the only reason i opened that list was because List of Jews could not provide me the depthness i needed. ture, i did not finish it yet, but i keep on furthering it. i do not understand why you chose to remove it even from being just a list and not a category as i mistakenly listed it at first.

True, i am new to Kikipedia, therefore, i respect veteren descissions, but it would be a true waste to let my research go in waste.

As for the Category additions that i changed on List of XXX pages (the ones you wrote Juko's editing was good enough) all i added was the name of the List after the | sign so it will fall under it's proper letter in the alphabetic order in the Lists of Jews category. i was wondering why List of Carribean Jews falls under the letter 'C' as it should, while List of Czek Jews falls under 'L'. i would appreciate if you could explain me the logic. Carbonbase 08:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IZAK I have been wondering why you have changed my articles on the Rashba and the Ritva into Rashba (rabbi) and Ritva (Rabbi). Could you please explain to me why you did this. Thank you ChanochGruenman 22:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chanoch: I did not "change your article". I switched the titles and did some "re-directs", but everything you wrote in the articles was preserved. What I am trying to do is to provide as headings the names they are known by "Rashba" and "Ritva", (as in Rashi) and to clarify that they were "rabbis", hence "(rabbi)". The naming convention/s for rabbis on Wikipedia is not "set in stone" as you can see from looking at all the rabbonim in Category:Middle Ages rabbis and Category:Orthodox rabbis. So we can still discuss this further, and also get input from others, and I am open. Best wishes. IZAK 06:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think Chanoch is right. You do not need "(rabbi)" behind the names unless there are other articles called like that. The parenthesis are for disambiguation. Honestly, I would prefer Rashba to be at Shlomo ben Adret and the Ritva at Yomtov ben Avraham, as these are their proper names. But there is a precedent to use their appellation (e.g. Vilna Gaon).
Please contact me if you want me to move the pages back. As an admin, I can delete the redirect. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with JFW. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a vote on this topic going on at Talk:Bible. I thought you might be interested in taking part. Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you claim Image:Declaration of State of Israel 1948.jpg is licensed under GFDL. May I ask your reasoning behind this? Thuresson 03:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why should Rosh Hashanah be in Category:Tabernacle and Jerusalem Temples? JFW | T@lk 08:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi: The answer is because it was a major holiday observed in the Temple in Jerusalem as per Rosh Hashanah#In the Hebrew Bible: "...It is likely that the new year was celebrated from ancient times in some special way. The earliest reference to such a custom is, probably, in the account of the vision of Ezekiel (Ezek. xl. 1). This took place at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month (Tishri). On the same day the beginning of the year of jubilee was to be proclaimed by the blowing of trumpets (Lev. xxv. 9). According to the Septuagint rendering of Ezek. xlv. 20, special sacrifices were to be offered on the first day of the seventh month as well as on the first day of the first month. This first day of the seventh month was appointed by the Law to be "a day of blowing of trumpets". There was to be a holy convocation; no servile work was to be done; and special sacrifices were to be offered (Lev. xxiii. 23-25; Num. xxix. 1-6). This day was not expressly called New-Year's Day, but it was evidently so regarded by the Jews at a very early period." Rosh_Hashanah#In_the_Hebrew_Bible Where else were the shofros and the special chatzotzros ("trumpets") blown, not to mentioned the offerings of the special korbanot for that day, if not in the Temple in Jerusalem? And what about all the information in Masechta Rosh HaShanah in the Talmud? IZAK 08:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a very broad definition of subjects, and potentially confusing. It suggests that these holidays were only celebrated in the Mishkan/Beis haMikdosh (quod non). Perhaps you should tighten up a bit. JFW | T@lk 12:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I really disagree with you, because when when several "categories" are placed at the bottom of pages it does NOT mean or "suggest(s) that these holidays were only celebrated in the Mishkan/Beis haMikdosh", it DOES mean that there is a direct strong relationship and connection between the subject of the article and the category. This is very common when multiple categories are placed on pages. The shalosh regalim and the moadim were intrinsic parts of Temple worship and all the major korbanot that were offered up ONLY in the Temple/ are mentioned explicitly in every siddur and machzor (particularly of Orthodoxy) today. After all, what was the main purpose of the Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem if not do do the avoda (service) the high-points of which were culminated on the High Holy Days and the Three pilgrim festivals? The intelligent reader will actually gain and learn and not be "confused". Have you really taken a comprehensive look at the fairly liberal usage of categories on all sorts pages lately? You make it seem like I am some sort of exception here which is absolutely not valid or correct because I have given this new category much thought. It would not be enough to include merely the "physical contstructs" of the Tabernacle and Temple. The sources, functions, usages, purposes, goals, events and meanings of the Tabernacles and the Temples can and must be brought "under the one roof" of this category otherwise the category will become like an empty house without life, meaning, or a soul to it. Thanks for your input and understanding. IZAK 03:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a question at Talk:Ablution in Judaism; I wonder if you wouldn't mind weighing in? Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've done what I can, but the editors there are clearly applying a double standard. Perhaps you can get involved again, I'm done for now. Jayjg (talk) 05:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've never edited Hebrews, as far as I can recall - is there some piece of pro-Israeli POV there I need to fix? If so, thanks for alerting me. ;) - Mustafaa 11:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yea, you're right, not much action at Hebrews, all your fire was directed at Hebrew languages. How silly of me to confuse the Hebrew people with their language. IZAK 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)