User talk:Daniel575/Archive1

Welcome

Hey there, Daniel575/Archive1. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and decide to stay! Here are a few good links for newcomers (or "oldcomers" for reference):

By the way, you should sign and date your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Three tildes (~~~) produces just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Great, just what we need around this place... more people with almost-bible-verse names. :) Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again!

Welcome!

Hello, Daniel575/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! and I guess it's never too late to add my words of welcome as well, Shalom Aleichem and feel free to call on me if you need help. IZAK 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Yehudah Lefkovits

Do you have any information on Rav Michel Yehudah Lefkovits that you could contribute to his article?

Bobov

I left you a comment on the Bobov talk page. Issac 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Teitelbaum

I am disappointed. Since you're in Eretz Yisroel, instead of wasting time online in the wee hours of the morning, go say tehillim at the Kosel before shacharis for the Rebbe's refuah. Wasting my time, too... - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 02:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I totally forgot that the Satmar Rebbe assured the kosel. Why again? I am just a misnaged, what do I know. Would you at the very least remove the call to jews to daven, and the bolded name-ben-mother sentences? The mother's name is already included in the bio, and the call is wrong, just wrong? I sympathize with you, but I cannot condone what you're doing to WP. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 03:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me, why did the Satmar rebbes assur the kosel? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of davening shacharis at the kosel is kefirah? What they objected to was the secular medinah, not to living in EY. Where else can't you visit? Kever Rochel? Machpela? Mishugas... - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I still don't understand what the connection is between the kosel and kefirah. Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu, reb daniel, have we got ourselves an update on the Rebbe? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write tomorrow / later today. --Daniel575 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passover Greeting

Wishing you and your family a Happy Passover.
!חג כשר ושמח

-Reuvenk_[T][C]

Egged lines

Hi, I noticed that you added some Egged lines to the article, but why are they all to and from Jerusalem? I mean, considering it's the main article, it's supposed to only include the most important lines (or ones with special significance). Either that, or we should make a List of Egged bus lines article. But that would take ages to compile, Egged has hundreds of routes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the article on Superbus, I got the idea and the template from there. And yes, Egged has hundreds of lines, but I live in Jerusalem and I don't know all of the lines - and finding out through their website is VERY difficult. You have to know both the line number, the destination and the departure point. It's very annoying that only a line number isn't enough. Israeli bus schedules are rotten anyway, in the rest of the world they give the times for all underway stops as well - here you just have to guess. I really hate that. My idea here is to create that missing list of lines which cannot be found elsewhere. I started with the lines I know. Others are invited to add all of the lines they know! --Daniel575 23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is now at List of Egged bus lines. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Corrections'

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (especially Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) before making any farther changes to Hebrew spelling. Also if wikilinks are involved, check first the spelling of the article itself before making a spelling change. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want to include major interim stops for routes, we'll need to agree on a format to use, and stops must be major (i.e. should at least be written in Egged's own station signs). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) (and in fact, the whole WP:MOS). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week

Hi Daniel575, I've created an Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. I'd love to see your comments, improvements, amendations and nominations, preferably all on the discussion or the actual page there. Many thanks, Nesher 13:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Israel articles

I just noticed your new Miron article. Please add all new Israel-related articles to Portal:Israel/New. One reason is that duplicate articles might be noticed by other editors. Please don't be discouraged, there's so much work to be done. --Shuki 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake ?

Hi there Daniel. I couldn't help but notice that a user box on your user page identifies you as pro-choice. If indeed you are Chassidish, then I am sure you don't realize that that term is used in the US to mean that you support the right to an abortion. Anyway, just thought I would drop a line. Shykee 06:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)shykee[reply]

Yes, I support the right of people to decide such things for themselves. I'm not going to force anyone to accept my opinion on anything. If a woman decides to have an abortion, who am I to forbid it? Why should that be my business? It's a fully conscious thing. I'm from Holland by the way, which was one of the first countries to legalize abortion. I support the right for homosexuals to get married as well (though I would prefer that they should not be allowed to adopt children, because a child should grow up in a normal home with a father and a mother.) --Daniel575 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I support the proposition that the U.S. government should get the heck out of marriage, and that people shall be free to marry whomever they want in a religious ceremony that bestows no tax advantages whatsoever. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed you view a fetus as a non-entity then it is not our business to stop an abortion and you are correct. If, however, you view a fetus as an entity, then it would seem that it is our business to protect it. How coincidental though, that those who are generally liberal usually view a fetus as a non-entity, and those who are generally conservative usually view a fetus as an entity. Shykee 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)shykee[reply]

Daniel575

Hi, thanks for voting in the Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Why don't you also come and help edit the current collboboration, which this week is Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg? Also, you can vote for and nominate other candidates as well. Many thanks, Nesher 11:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article targeted for deletion- liozna

Shalom, I'd appreciate if you could take a look over at Liozna and vote for or against deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liozna

Shkoyach!

JJ211219 17:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism

Welcome to WikiProject Judaism! Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Daniel575 06:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlands

Daniel575, I just saw your Nederlands Gebruiker page. Why don't you put some of the info from there - and especially the picture of your seforim I presume - onto your English page? I'm sure it would be interesting! Many thanks, Nesher 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, yes. I'll do that some time. The photo of my seforim was because some non-Jewish editors there started fighting with me about things that I wrote about Judaism (ie, they claimed to know 'Judaism' better than me). Pretty annoying, really. Anyway, yes, I'll get to work on it some time. --Daniel575 20:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Neturei Karta

Hello Daniel, I should inform you that you are in violation of the 3RR rule on Neturei Karta. If you do not revert yourself you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Big deal. I am not going to let you include Daniel Pipes but not Islamonline. Deal with it. You either leave both, or neither. I prefer both. If you prefer none, your choice. --Daniel575 00:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I do not just have to "deal with it". It is clear that policy is on my side. You may have problems with Daniel Pipes but it is clear he passes every criteria for an acceptable source. The Islamonline site that you keep bringing up is a bias propagandic borderline hate site.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes is not an acceptable source for this subject. He is a Zionist, which automatically discredits him as a neutral source regarding an extremely anti-Zionist movement. Furthermore, the topic of that weblog post which was linked to is also written about earlier in the article, with a link to an Ynetnews.com article. The link to Daniel Pipes added nothing new, it had no additional value. And regarding Neturei Karta, Islamonline is most definitely more neutral than Daniel Pipes. As it says in the RS guidelines, "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" This most definitely is the case with Daniel Pipes regarding Neturei Karta. It is not the case with Islamonline, which may have a tendency to lie about other parts of the Zionist-Palestinian conflict, but has to reason to lie about Neturei Karta. Furthermore, the article was read and edited and approved by an NK representative. So what's your problem about it being a RS? --Daniel575 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Daniel575! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abukasis article

Oh man... nice job and all - but prepare to be challenged on notability... I can almost guarantee a challenge is coming. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet it's coming. Got my M16 ready. --Daniel575 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stil didn't come yet, B"H. --Daniel575 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli news websites

I think you were too quick on the new category and then to slap it onto all those articles. Most are articles about newspapers not websites. The convention also seems off. Usually country-related lists go along the lines of 'news websites of/in Israel'. Please check how it's been done already elsewhere. --Shuki 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the second point. About the first point: would you propose that we create separate articles Jpost.com, Haaretz.com and Israelnn.com? I don't see any need for that. These papers (the English editions) and Arutz Sheva by definition are mainly online. The Jpost and Haaretz have a MUCH larger online readership than the paper edition. --Daniel575 23:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should get their own sites. Certainly the ynetnews is different than the newspaper, cnn.com is different than cnn. Ynet and nrg are perhaps two israeli sites that might be even better than their print editions. the a7 site is also distinct. Before the government outlawed the radio braodcast, the website was pathetic. --Shuki 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, A7 is primarily a website now, so the title 'radio' is seriously outdated. Aside from that, that article looks like a commercial also, a little bit. Not so very badly, but a little. --Daniel575 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletions/Renamings

Hi Daniel575: Please see:

Many thanks, Nesher 13:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kartchin

This is a dummy page put up by some people who are obviously followers of rabbi moredchai dovid unger, disputed rebbe of bobov with rabbi ben zion halberstam of bobov-

There is no such chassidus. it is like some people deciding that you are the grand rebbe of of Zupnick- Giva't Shaul and putting up a page to that effect.- he is a rebbe but of bobov. (disputed.)

So I will add that later tonight. I'm leaving (from work where I am now) in 2 minutes and will be back online in about 5 hours. I will write it in a more balanced way then, including the criticism, and I will try to ask a few external people for their view, since I am not personally familiar with the details of the Bobov situation. In any case: blanking a page is not a solution. --Daniel575 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are wrong; because he is already mentioned in bobov. would you like the article about you as rebbe of givat shaul written NOPV? im having a hard time explaining; its a candiate for a speedy. tagging. JJ211219 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take opinions straight to AfD. Not sure what sort of help you seek. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I just saw you added it there. --Daniel575 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please email me --Shuki 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for yeshivas

Hi Daniel: An important discussion is taking place at Talk:Telshe yeshiva that concerns issues relating to naming conventions for yeshivas. Your comments and observations at Talk:Telshe yeshiva would be very helpful. Perhaps it should become part of a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Naming conventions for yeshivas. Best wishes, IZAK 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas

Clearly, I understood... Redirected to IDT. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the information contained in the article should be worked into the article. Or the article should be expanded. I'll take a look at it later tonight, b'n. --Daniel575 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosh yeshivas

Hi Daniel575, please see American/Israeli/European Rosh yeshivas for merging

Many thanks, Nesher 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Event in 1929

Your edit to the 1929 Palestine riots is correct and fact based. I believe it is relevant and do not see any problem with the addition. Cheers! JungleCat talk/contrib 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm already awaiting an NPOV challenge. By the way, see the recent edit by an anonymous user which I reverted on Israel. link to that and the revert. Very clever. Nobody ever said they are dumb. It was written in a very clever way - it portrayed the Arabs as equal victims. --Daniel575 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am against anonymous editing. Notice the edits are fast and without references. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'm going to redo my userpage soon and I'm definitely going to add the pro-registration button. --Daniel575 20:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get the Israel page edit blocked by an Admin to stop the vandals? Way too many edits of no merit and or vandal activity. JungleCat talk/contrib 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along those lines also. On the Dutch wikipedia, where I am mainly active, such a page would long since have been put under semi-protection, so that only registered users would be able to edit it. I will ask around some. --Daniel575 21:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"wink"

Bad boy!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, well, you need a sense of humor here, now and then. ;) --Daniel575 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio

The article must be renamed. There cannot be any opposition. The reaosn is that Arutz Sheva Radio lost its broadcasting permit years ago because of its extreme-right Zionist position (defending Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstein, for example). The only way their radio programs are broadcast is online. Arutz Sheva has three websites: www.israelnn.com (Arutz Sheva Israel National News) and www.israelnationalradio.com (Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio) and www.israelnationaltv.com (Arutz Sheva Israel National TV). Bottom line is: the Radio department is only one of three departments. Both the video and radio are only broadcast online. The name of the overall organization behind all three websites is Arutz Sheva, which is now a redirect to Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio. *That* is incorrect. Arutz Sheva started as a radio station. When they were forbidden and the internet existed, they switched to internet-only. Therefore, the article Arutz Sheva should contain the content currently on Arutz Sheva Israel International Radio. I hope you understand now. I do not see how one doubtful comment from an Australian can prevent this move from being carried out. If need be, I will carry it out myself with the consequences this carries regarding the article history etc (ie, simple copy-paste). The current situation is incorrect and should not continue to exist. It is not factual, false, misleading, incorrect. I apologize for any confusion and hope you will immediately move the page to Arutz Sheva. --Daniel575 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There cannot be any opposition"? That's a peculiar way to state your case. First off, there was opposition and I don't see why that should be discounted. "Because s/he is Australian" is not a great argument in my mind. Second, by your logic, it sounds more like the article should be split, not renamed. Maybe you need an Arutz Sheva article for the parent entity and an Israel National Radio article for the internet radio portion, etc. Bottom line is one person's opinion does not make consensus especially when one other disagrees. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was obviously only someone who had found the discussion by accident and isn't involved in the issue (if you check his userpage), with no connection to Israel, Zionism or Judaism. And he didn't oppose it, he merely doubted it. I find that a very weak reason not to move this article, when the facts obviously do indicate a move. Your idea is entirely correct. The article Arutz Sheva should be about the entire institution. If anybody wants to write articles specifically about the internet, internet-radio and internet-tv divisions of A7, then they are free to do so. However, the current radio article is about the general history of all of Arutz Sheva, which started out as radio-only, as you can read there. The article totally ignores the fact that the radio-division is no longer the main thing of A7; the website is. --Daniel575 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion wasn't set up according to the steps listed at WP:RM so I can't determine if the comment was a straight oppose or a doubt - its wording sounds more like opposition to me. Since there was no support at all for the move, even though several editors have been involved in the article, I can't justify overruling the opposition. At this revision, someone even wanted to move the article to a different title altogether. This is not a new article. It has been in the system for over 10 months and you yourself edited it 3 months ago - so I'm not understanding your sudden urgency to have it moved. Feel free to split the article as you see fit or re-list at WP:RM. You could also contact the one doubting editor - he is an administrator as well so, if he wants to change his mind and go ahead with the move, you all have my blessing. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to move the article myself, but wanted to understand the reasoning better. If there is not discussion about the move, I have to use my own judgement, and the move didn't, and still doesn't though I am willing to listen, make sense. If they still call themselves the National Radio Network, who are we to say they aren't. It is just a name, it doesn't have to be accurate as to what they are, it just has to be accurate as to what they are called. --liquidGhoul 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are called 'Arutz Sheva'. Which has three subdivisions: Israelnn.com, Israelnationalradio.com, Israelnationaltv.com. All are 'Arutz Sheva'. Therefore Arutz Sheva should be the main article. --Daniel575 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved. I suggest that someone expands it though, because at the moment, it is still mostly talking about the radio station. --liquidGhoul 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will start working on it soon. Can you add this discussion to the box containing the (very short) discussion about the move? --Daniel575 10:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bostoner moves

For the future, you do not need to be an admin to move something over a redirect - you only need to be an admin for a true history merge. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I am as interested as you in presenting the facts, but an encyclopedia is no place for personal opinion.

The organization which calls itself Sanhedrin is not recognized by any wing of Haredi Judaism. The greatest rabbis of the Haredi world repeatedly voiced their strong opposition to those who wanted to establish a Sanhedrin before Moshiach, the Jewish messiah, would come. -- need source

I have already provided you a reference to the Chazon Ish. --Daniel575 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this opposition from the Haredi world, the disputed Sanhedrin is likely to remain a primarily religious Zionist organ which does not have any ties to Haredi Orthodox Judaism. -- opinion, need source

Correct, opinion based on facts. It has to ties to the Chareidi world and never will have. --Daniel575 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could fulfill a role similar to that of the Edah HaChareidis in Jerusalem's extreme Orthodox world. -- opinion, need source

What other role do you think it could fulfill? --Daniel575 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbis of the organization which calls itself Sanhedrin ascended on the Temple Mount, which is forbidden according to all Haredi poskim (halachic decisors). -- not true, need source

See link below? --Daniel575 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to these poskim, the prohibition against ascending to the Temple Mount involves the punishment of koreis (karet), meaning spiritual death and excision from the Jewish people as well as a young physical death through natural means. -- not all areas on what we call today "Temple Mount" have the same halacha.

^[1]

The Haredi Yated Neeman newspaper, which is controlled by the leaders of the Lithuanian ('Litvish') faction of Haredi Judaism and portrays their opinions, in July 2006 published an article strongly attacking Rabbi Yisrael Ariel of the Temple Institute (Machon HaMikdash). While the article does not explicitly forbid buying the books he wrote on behalf of the Machon HaMikdash, it refers to them as 'unworthy of being purchased' and refers to the content of the books as 'poisonous.' ^[2] -- this should be on his page, not sanhedrin page

No, it is relevant here. --Daniel575 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The books of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, a senior figure in the 'Sanhedrin', were declared to be unfit for the Haredi public to read because of doubtful material contained in them. Rabbi Elazar Shach, the primary leader of the Litvish Jewish world until his passing in 2001, referred to Steinsaltz as "one who has been inspired by the evil inclination (yetzer hora)". ^[3] -- same (also there was an official apology and the who issue was rescinded)

No, it is relevant here. -Daniel575 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Rav Wosner, Rav Goldberg, the office of Rav Eliashiv and Rav Ovadia, and members of the Badatz Yerushalayim and have verified that the information presented is indeed correct.

I am going to do the same and I very much doubt your claim. By the way, the 'Badatz Yerushalayim' could also mean the Rabbanut. Could you please verify that you are talking about the Badatz of the Edah HaChareidis? --Daniel575 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Badatz of the Edah HaChareidis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian2 (talk • contribs)

And who exactly did you speak to? --Daniel575 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My contact doesn't want to get in the middle of controversy. You can ask yourself as easily as I can. For all the details call Rabbi Stein of Har Nof 02 5661962.

I encourage you to check up on all this information, see for yourself. It is neither specifically supported - nor opposed - by the Gedolei HaDor. And it has many connections with the Hareidi world and important Rabbonim who support the idea in general, depending on which direction it takes.--Historian2 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now please provide sources and facts (not opinion) thats what an encyclopdia is all about - best wishes --Historian2 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Historian2 07:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanhedrin webpage (Criticism) section. We are discussing this point. However, the goal of an Encyclopedia must be to provide sourced facts, not personal opinion. There is no problem with criticizing, I have added my own criticisms of this subject. I would have no problem if Daniel575 could indeed provide sources for his strong comments and present them objectively, then it would be more fitting the goals of wikipedia.

3RR Rules: Reverting potentially libellous material. All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including the associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection. The three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not. -- Historian2 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rm stupid argument

I've taken out most of what you recommended, although I left in part of one of your responses that was actually relevant. The pertinent diff is here. You've shamed me by taking the initiative to be the first to make an overt effort to bury the hatchet. I still have some issues I want to address with you, but as I said in my last post in that discussion, the talkpage of the wikiproject is not the appropriate forum. Kol tov, Tom e r ^talk 09:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's work on a better future. --Daniel575 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

אמן חבר. Tom e r ^talk 09:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please take a look at Sanhedrin. --Daniel575 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at Sanhedrin tomorrow... Meanwhile, I don't know that a point-by-point refutation of all the [from my perspective] attacks you levied against me is particularly worthwhile...but, for what it's worth, I regard the whole "reform/conservative/orthodox/more_orthodox/more_orthodoxer_than_orthodox" crap as an insane and utterly futile and destructive repetition of the sinath chinam that sent us into galuth to begin with. If you really must know, I'm not orthodox, but I'm also certainly not "conservative". I'm very much Sfaradhi, and my biggest gripe wrt the whole "orthodox vs. non-orthodox" argument is that ashkenazim in the US seem completely incapable of understanding that all Jews in the world aren't taken up in their internal argument about "what is/n't Judaism". For me, the issue is a simple matter of levels of observance...and I can tell you I know a lot of completely unobservant "orthodox" Jews as well as a large number of completely observant _non_"orthodox" Jews...the defining factor for me is something you alluded to very obliquely...i.e., my abhorrence for those "who would call evil 'good'". That's all for now. לילה טוב. Tom e r ^talk 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I do admire the Sefardi way of only having 1 movement, and that it doesn't matter whether you aren't 100% observant - you're a Jew and even if you do only half of the mitzvos, you still go to an Orthodox beit knesset etc. (Well, that's what led me off track regarding you.) Anyway, laila tov! --Daniel575 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For 24hrs for violating WP:3RR. This is not a punishment - my intention is to shock you into ending the edit war. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject Proposal...

I noticed that you were a part of the now inactive WikiProject covering orthodox Judaism. I'm wondering if you'd be interested in a new project I'm thinking over that would specifically expand wikipedia's information on mitzvot in detail. What I'm thinking over is that each mitzvah holds enough depth to be an article on its own, and as I just finished writing an article on viddui I noticed that the amount of information on fundamental concepts of Judaism is sorely lacking (as a test I tried to find information on topics such as shacharit and was very dissapointed). If you'd be interested please feel free to leave me a message! תזכו למצוות!--RShnike 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism is fully alive. We recently revitalized it. Check that page. --Daniel575 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A chussen??

Re: [1], MAZEL TOV! - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mazel Tov! --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 03:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel revert

Hi Daniel, while I completely agree with you that the claims of the attack taking place in Lebanon are absurd, I put back a brief mention of it until it is discussed. I will join you in getting consensus to remove it ASAP. Please note I didn't actually revert you, I put it back in a much more understated way. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly modified it to look better. Thanks. --Daniel575 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that. Works for me. Keep up the watach against the kind of nonsense that was there before! Schrodingers Mongoose 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive violations of wiki rules

This is my personal opinion. Following 3RR rules i reverted Daniel's text, and Daniel's friend CrazyRussian blocked me. Following AMA advice, I did remove potentially slanderous material to the talk page, and Daniel575 put it back. Then I added the NPOV marker as the AMA suggested and he removed it. Is this how things work at wiki? --Historian2 09:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to post this nonsense here. Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin is just fine. See my response to your accusations there. --Daniel575 09:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV tag should DEFINETLY be there is it is disputed in ANY way. I'll put the tag at the top of the page. I am %100 sure that the tag should appear somewhere on the page to show people that is is disputed. It is completely against WIkipedia policy for Daniel to remove it if even ONE person disputed the info and it is not resolved. K-UNIT 01:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see AMA comments above, and try and follow Wikipedia policy in this matter --Historian2 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel

Sorry dude misplaced and misposted that text, it's a linguistic type of thingy. Should I erase it. How'd you sign this thing anyway. Umm oh yeah, salaam havib. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.144.113 (talk • contribs)

Hi, It's ok. I understand you didn't know yet. So what you do is, after every message, you write this: --~~~~ and you will automatically have your username (or IP adress if you're not registered) and the date and time of your message appear, like this: Daniel575 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC) . If you do only three tildes ( ~~~ ) you get only your name, like this: Daniel575 . Welcome to Wikipedia! --Daniel575 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on something

Hey guy! Just wanted your opinion on something. An anonymous user posted some hate speech about Israel here: Talk:Palestine under section No 'israel'. Maybe I shouldn’t have responded to it, but I did in a non-attacking way (at least I tried to show some restraint). Did I over-step my bounds by responding to the obvious propaganda? I feel that such posts are offensive and should be deleted immediately. At least that’s my opinion. I left a message on CR’s talk about it as well. Later… JungleCat talk/contrib 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back... Want to add your two cents?

Jerusalem Light Rail

Thanks for your work on Jerusalem Light Rail. Ar you still working on it? If not, you will wish to remove the {{construction}} notice. Thanks!—msh210℠ 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. --Daniel575 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kindly vote

Please vote your consience on Iggud HaRabbonim.

Thanks.JJ211219 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so. --Daniel575 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your zealoty

Please stop your zealoty against other Wikipedia editors. I had a look at your comments and I am not impressed by your attitude at all. 203.217.54.74 06:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go find something better to do and start making constructive edits instead of throwing this kind of attacks at people. --Daniel575 08:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never attacked you. 203.217.54.74 05:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1929 Palestine riots

Dear Daniel, The incidents in 1929 included massacres at Hebron and Safed, but the events as a whole weren't a massacre, and historians don't usually refer to them as such. --Ian Pitchford 07:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were. If you claim the events in Hebron were not a massacre, fine. Then I assume you will also agree that no massacres took place in Deir Yassin and in the Cave of the Patriarchs (Baruch Goldstein). Just riots. For further discussion, please use the talk page there, to keep things organized. --Daniel575 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli

I'm afraid that I'm going to revert your edit on Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield. While a practicing Christian, Disraeli certainly considered himself racially Jewish, and is on the record saying so. I would be interested in your rationale for removing it. Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism considers only one born to a Jewish mother (or having undergone a conversion) as being a Jew. His mother was not Jewish. Furthermore, he himself identified as a Christian and had also been baptized. Thus, he was not a Jew. --Daniel575 17:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding the qualifications for Judaism, but Maria Basevi was definitely Jewish, if not particularly devout. Mackensen (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of a Jew named 'Maria'. If that is so, it might make him halachically Jewish. But if his parents were Christians and so was he, from his birth onward, I cannot call him a Jew. I do think this issue needs more thought. I'm consulting. --Daniel575 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both his parents were Jews and never stopped being Jews. His father, Isaac, had all four of his children baptised in the Christian faith on the advice of his friend, the Rev. Sharon Turner. On these grounds, I'm reinstating the category. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that at that time the father and the children were no longer considered Jews. This case needs more discussion. --Daniel575 01:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've got secondary sources arguing this point that would qualify as original research. His father drifted into agnosticism, but there's nothing suggesting that his mother ever did so. His father, however, did not withdraw from the local synagogue until around 1810, if memory serves, well after Benjamin had been born. While Benjamin was baptised into the Christian faith he still considered himself–and was considered to be–racially Jewish, a stance endorsed by his biographers (indeed, the question of Disraeli's Judaism remains a source of fruitful discussion). Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers

Shalom Aleichem Daniel575,

I feel for the plight of both people in this conflit, but since the Lebanese government has no army in the traditional sense and that Hezbollah has taken upon themselves with that intent, protecting the interests of the Lebanese people, it seems apparent that their military wing can be considered soldiers.

Furthermore, The word "terrorist" is, in my view, just a mere synonym of that of "soldier".

War has no human value, regardless of political credibility applied to it.

I hope the ceasing of the violence brings peace to all of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosferatu (talk • contribs)

Personally I agree that Hezbollah can be considered the army of Lebanon. But if you want to see it that way, it implies that Lebanon declared war on Israel. We don't want to imply that, do we? So 'terrorist' would be the best way to describe it. "--End Quote

Since most in Lebanon openly support Hezbollah, for its military actions, but moreso for its social contribution to the citizens of that nation; yes, unfortunately, we have to come to the conclusion that Lebanon has indeed declared war on Israel, if only by proxy.

I think we both know Iran and Syria are the real culprits here, so in this aspect, Israel should've gone directly to the source and struck Iran and Syria, not the relatively defenseless nation of Lebanon.

Blindly counter-attacking just serves to give more perceived legitimacy to groups such as Hezbollah.

The day the lebanese people come to refuse hezbollah's actions, both militarily and socially, then and only then will they adequately warrant the label "terrorist".

I personally wish we could stand united and allow all people to live in peace, but for this we must find a concensus as to the type of language we use. In this respect, I have changed the word "soldier" for the more neutral term "militant".

Shalom Daniel,

No I am not arab, nor am I muslim. I am from Canada. I am very passionately interested in world affairs, specially following the events of 9/11, which were a strong wake up call for me to educate myself on other people's views and living conditions.

The media here tended to illustrate muslims as angry terrorists, which I found to be a short coming to thinking. I have set to learn on Islam and go beyond the perception the media tends to give.

I also believe jews to be a wonderful and peaceful people, which I have learned from experiences I had with a jewish family here which helped me a lot in times of need. It may have been Bashert that our paths have met, it helped me a lot to learn about your wonderous culture.

I find your history, the jewish people, and the contemporary history of Israel, to be extremely fascinating, and, at times, extremely sad.

Your people are a prime example of resiliance. Oh, being a musician myself, I am also a fan of klezmer music, which I find singularly exquisite.

I also understand your nation's reaction to the events brought forth by Hezbollah.

I cannot, in good conscience, condone these, just as much as I can't condone or accept Hezbollah's actions as adequate, but I understand them. Everyone wants to live in peace.

My name is Sebastien. I do not belong to any religious denomination, or any political factions. I am indeed someone very critical of violent actions, both political and asymetrical.

I view myself as a pacifist and very much value in-depth discussions on these complex issues. I truly believe through dialogue, man has the ability to conquer hatred.--Nosferatu 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amidah

Daniel575,

No error. The Amidah is publicly recited twice daily because there's no public repetition at Maariv -- it's only done privately/silently. Feel free to clarify the distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs)

I did. Thanks. It looked a little bit confusing. Someone I am teaching privately through MSN Messenger pointed this out to me. Now if you want- please take a look at Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin and talk page. --Daniel575 09:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

I know, i removed the tag you added too cuz i changed it back to the way it was, alas someone rev back my edit... --TheYmode 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2]

[2] [3]

[3] [4]

[1]

[2]

[3]