User talk:HKT/archive3

Please have a look

Please have a look at Category:Superstition, its CFD, the editing of Baphomet. (talk · contribs) and a sweet little exchange on Talk:Prayer. JFW | T@lk 11:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baphomet redux

Perhaps you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Myth. HKT ^talk 17:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi! I didn't express my view on that subject. However, I do support your words and your good effort, my friend. --GalaazV 00:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bug problem

Hi HKT. You invited me to contact you if I had any problems with Wikipedia. I have, so I am. (Sorry!) My problem is described on my user page. If you had any thoughts, or knew where I should go to find advice, I'd be grateful. Usually Professor Google can fix these sort of things, but I can't find a single page either on or off Wikipedia that sheds light on the problem.

Categ:Jewish diasp, vfd

Hi HKT, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Jerusalem Temple

Hello HKT: See Location of Jerusalem Temple? It can and should -- after some good editing for removal of "fluff" -- be easily merged into the main article at Temple in Jerusalem. I have indicated that on the former's page. IZAK 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad

Sorry, I didn't notice your comment in amongst a flurry of other comments. I'm sorry to hear you are on a break. Is there still an issue at that article? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of High Priests of Israel

Hi HKT: What do you make of the characters on List of High Priests of Israel, especially the latter-names, they don't sound Jewish to me at all. IZAK 09:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plagues of Egypt

Hi HKT: Could you review the Plagues of Egypt article and perhaps imrove upon it? Wishing you and yours a Chag Kasher VeSameach. Thanks. IZAK 08:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seudah

Thank you for all your helpful comments! I'll work on implementing the changes you suggested. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added some references and made changes according to your suggestions. Would you take a look again and change or give feedback on anything else you see is needed? Thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK is proposing to merge it into Seudat mitzvah. I don't know, I'll go along with consensus, I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hello

No offense taken, if I can't take the debate, i should leave Wiki. However, the phenomena, I am aware, is NOT widespread, but to suggest it's a scant few on the fringe isn't right either. there are SERIOUS consequences to the conflicted perspectives here, as evidences by the Chassidic influence on Knesset actions toward, for example, the Lemba, and the right of return, and so on. Remember, under the current laws, I'm not jew enough for Israel. Imagine that. To be the grandchild of a holocaust refugee, and the descendant of Pogrom Refugees, and STILL not be able to claim a right to return to Israel because I'm a member of the Reform movement? It's that aspect of non-parity judaic recognition that this cultish behavior supports. We can continue this back at the talk page for the article, but thanks for dropping me a note, and I'm returnign the favor. Cheers. ThuranX 04:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halakha

Looks like someone is trying to add some anti-Semitic Original Research to the Halakha article;[1] you might want to keep an eye on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make excellent points; you should add them to the Talk: page as well. Note, he has started inserting this stuff into Talmud and Anti-Judaism as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; fortunately, other people appear to have noticed his agenda as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seudah/Seudat mitzvah

Ok, as the consensus seemed to be to merge, I went ahead and did so, making quite a few changes along the way. Please comment, or make corrections, additions, improvements. : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kabbalah practitioners

Hi HKT: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 20#Category:Kabbalah practitioners. Thank you. IZAK 09:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over Carlebach "allegations"

Hi HKT:I am not making much headway with User:Ckessler at Talk:Shlomo Carlebach#Allegations, yet again. I have placed this message on her page, and she is going for mediation, but I have yet to see where.

Hi Ckessler: You are on the borderline of breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in the Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach article, see [2] I do not wish to revert you a third time today. Twice is enough for me, I have no choice but to wait another 24 hours to do so. You are treating hearsay and gossip as if they were the legal equivalants of allegations in a duly constituted court of law. A number of admins who know something about this subject will be contacted, to advise how we should proceed. Your refusal to discuss to resolve this matter on the article's talk page is disappointing.

Your input into this matter would be highly appreciated. Thanks. IZAK 09:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach

Also add your comments at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach. Thank you. IZAK 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Just to address some of your questions: Your first underlying assumption that Adam was "a Black Man" is extremely specious. How do you know this? Did you pick this up from an archeologist's speculation that man seems to have orignated from Africa? Same thing with your second assumption that Jews originally from Africa are "not considered equal." Jewish Law doesn't distinguish between the skin color and racial origins of different Jews. If some Jews do, then that is attributable to other factors aside from Judaism. Any hypothetical distinction between groups of Jews in Jewish Law would be due to entirely unrelated factors. In general, if you have questions about these things, Wikipedia isn't the most appropriate forum to raise them. If you have any points to raise about improving an article, then Wikipedia is the perfect forum. Hope you find what you're looking for. Cheers,

First I want to thank you for your reply. Although you haven't provided me with any viable source for my research I would have to say I am unhappy about that. Man has been proven from time and time again to have originated from Africa to deny this is to deny the truth which is illogical. Second according to my claims on Adam being a Black man, I base this on several volumes of research by Egyptologists, Scholors and Archeologist. What they say is not based of of speculation but based of years of research. I will start you off with one book for you research into this subject, Dr. Yousef AA. Ben Johahann's Africa Mother of Western Civilization. In response to the statement that Jews are from Africa, Hebrews are the Haribus people who migrated to Egypt, Moses himself was of course Africa which I'm sure you may dispute however scientific evidence proves this as well. Moses presented the Haribus (Hebrew) people with the modern religion Judaism. The evidence is there if you research many other books beside ones written by aingle groups of people. In response to what Jewish law states about distinguishing between skin color, I really can't speak about that. I asked you for information on this but you have yet to provide it to me. I am speaking solely on what is done in society what I have seen, what I have experienced and other have experienced and documented. If it is written in Jewish law then that would mean that not all jews follow Jewish law just as many citizens of the United States don't follow the laws of the United States. That doesn't mean that it is right and the laws are wrong and I am not stating that about Jewish law.

If some Jews do, then that is attributable to other factors aside from Judaism. Any hypothetical distinction between groups of Jews in Jewish Law would be due to entirely unrelated factors.

Those other factors would obviously be racism. Not in regards to the Jewish law but those who are supposed to follow the law and practice this action. Which would mean they are out of line for what they are doing.

In general, if you have questions about these things, Wikipedia isn't the most appropriate forum to raise them. If you have any points to raise about improving an article, then Wikipedia is the perfect forum. Hope you find what you're looking for. Cheers,

In reality Wikipedia is the perfect forum to raise these questions that's what makes Wikipedia, Wikipedia. These questions are asked to challenge articles posted. As you noticed I could have gone in and edited the article however I raised questions to verify things before hand. Apparently you don't have engouh information, to provide me information, on proof where you get your information. With that being said please don't suggest where I raise my questions about articles especially since that is why Wikipedia is not the Britanica. Articles are to be challenged as to their accuracy and telling me I can't do so on Wikipedia is clearly inaccurate. As I said earlier I need book evidence and not websites. I still haven't received that from you which was my original request. But I do thank you for the commentary.--Gnosis 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is much dispute among archaeologists about the supposed origins of man, and it is usually based on extrapolations from the evidence (often distant extrapolations), not the evidence itself. The Israelites indeed resided in Egypt at one point, but it is not largely accepted that they were originally from Africa. Anyway, this is a pretty tangential and irrelevant discussion.

"Those other factors would obviously be racism." Yes, indeed those factors would typically amount to racism. However, racism towards other Jews is not widespread (though, particularly in Israel, one sometimes finds regional cliquishness: e.g. the French, Russian, Ethiopian, Israeli, Anglo Jews often tend to associate with others of shared backgrounds). In any event, Jewish Law doesn't directly speak on racism at all (Jewish Law certainly doesn't distinguish between races) - but it does state that all Jews must treat each other with extraordinary familial love and that all converts to Judaism must be treated with extra sensitivity. (If you would like some specific sources for this, please let me know). Anyway, concerns that have been raised about whether groups from Africa claiming to be Jews can be consider Jews according to Jewish Law are based on legitimate issues concerning establishment of ancestry, etc, not racial discrimination. The same concerns would be raised if similar groups emerged from Denmark.

I already wrote [twice] that the Schottenstein Talmud is a good primary source of information in general. If you want book sources specifically addressing the alleged quotes that you pasted on the talk page, I don't know of any devoted to doing that. Someone mentioned to you a website addressing these claims [3]. This site belongs to Gil Student. I haven't looked into it yet, but I know that he is a good source of accurate information in general, and he usually documents his sources. If you further want to question him or ask him for sources, you can email him.

"These questions are asked to challenge articles posted." Challenges to Wikipedia articles that are not well grounded, are not appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages. Writing something like "It seems like ______ might be true" or "I saw this on website _____ (not known as a reliable source), is this true?" is not appropriate criticism of an article. If the issues are raised in a lengthy manner, it would probably violate Wikipedia's guideline to not disrupt Wikipedia. If you think something might need to be changed, do the research so you can present criticism that is valid according to Wikipedia's guidelines. HKT 12:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your source Schottenstein Talmud. I will purchase the volume and do the research. I appreciate it HKT..--Gnosis 16:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for making me look again; it's difficult to see how he could have accidentally deleted two messages, but he's clueles in other respects too, so your're probably right. I've retrieved his comment and added it at the bottom of the page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almond#Cultural aspects

In August 2004, you added: "Today, Jews still carry rods of almond blossom to the synagogues on great festival days." This was recently removed as unsourced and apparently inaccurate. Do you recall the source that prompted you to add this information? HKT 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HKT - I didn't add it; it is there on the page right from the very first edit from June 2001, where the whole thing looks rather like a copy-n-paste from the 1897 Easton's Bible Dictionary or 1911 EB. As to whether it should stay or not - find someone who knows about Jewish topics, and ask if the practice is still carried out, or whether it is no longer done! - MPF 08:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry about the mistake. This info was already removed, and the practice was apparently never done. Cheers, HKT 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherem

Yes, I had already corrected it. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 00:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

Hello! I'm a Persian Wikipedian and I wanna build a robot, but I like to build a one in English Wikipedia. So Can you help to make a bot step by step??? Thanks a lot! --MehranVB 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzadik

Check out the article on Tzadik. The entire article grossly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy by only promoting the Chabad (Lubavitch) point-of-view. It presents quotes from various eras of Jewish history totally out of order, totally out of context, and interspersed with quotes from the Tanya and the Luabvitcher rebbes. This is done in order to convince the reader that the Jewish view of a tzadik is the Chabad view. No other view is acceptable. When I merely separated Chabad quotes from non-Chabad quotes, all my edits were reverted without comment or discussion. When I tried to present other points of view, all of my edites were reverted without comment or discussion. In a rather blatant attack on all Jews not in Chabad, a user refused to even allow sections for non-Chabad Hasidic views of a tzadik, and Modern Orthodox views of a tzadik. Even the mere suggestions that they be mentioned was deleted! Plainly, someone is abusing their Wikipedia priviliges to convince Wikipedia users that no form of Judaism's teachings is Jewish except the Chabad view. This is unacceptable.

Any discussion of a tzadik must include a historical context. No matter what Chabad apologists might claim, the views of rabbis in the Talmud is not identical to the views of Chabad. After all, if they are allowed to push their interpretation as absolutely true, then what is to stop other religious groups from doing the same? Of course, the article can state something like "According to adherents of Chabad Judaism, the Tanya and the Lubavitcher rebbe provide the correct interpretation of Judaism's view on this issue." And the article certainly should discuss the views of Breslover Jews, Satmar Jews, and Modern Orthodox Jews. The views of non-Orthodox Jews should also be mentioned. But the article does no such thing. Its self-styled protectors ruthlessly delete all mention of non-Chabad points of views. You might want to look into this. RK 00:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week

Hi HKT, 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 13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An eye for an eye

I don't see anything wrong with your edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, HKT! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiddush_club_(2nd_nomination)#.5B.5BKiddush_club.5D.5D

Thanks for pointing out your change. I've been trying to find places to merge these various articles, but not if it isn't appropriate. Ted 01:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H-K-T

Sure, I simply use the shortest and most simple way during the works. In fact I planned to change all but a few instances of the HKT/H-K-T to Ostmarkenverein or the Society, just in case. While the abbreviation is handy and is often used in literature, I noticed that it did have a certain negative meaning in 19th century Germany and might be not the most appropriate (die Hakatisten was slightly derogatory it seems).

BTW, I noticed your nick-name is quite... err... unfortunate when it comes to the discussion on H-K-T :) But what the heck, my nick would also be a pun in itself if I took part in discussion on halibuts... :) //Halibu tt 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nyah, don't worry too much about that. Besides, you could always sign your comments there with [[User talk:HKT|Hong-Kong Time]] or something along those lines :) Anyway, thanks for the tips. //Halibu tt 19:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOA page Vandalism

I am not responsible for the ZOA vandalism that suggested a Zionist empire in the Middle East. 68.33.19.47 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency, this anon should have signed with 68.33.19.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). HKT^Talk 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Explain Bill O'Reilly and a recent edit's "lack of neutrality" ?

I fail to see what was not neutral about the edit. (unsigned comments by 69.249.195.232 (talk · contribs)}

I explained the problem here. HKT^Talk 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes revisions

I thought most of them were ok, but one in particular was a POV whitewash, which I fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit and call it vandalism?

The change was not vandalism; it is factually true!! (unsigned comments by 154.20.102.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log))

Please do not revert the change and say it is vandalism; it is true

Although you may think it's odd, it is factually true. (unsigned comments by 154.20.102.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), again)

Blanking content is considered vandalism, as mentioned on your talk page. Please see this policy for more information. If you wish to propose major changes, first discuss them on the article's talk page. In general, whenever you want to replace content, you must wait to remove the old content until you have something with which to replace it. On another note, please sign all your talk page comments with 4 tildes (like these: ~~~~). Thank you, HKT^Talk 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes page edit

HKT,

I made an edit to the Daniel Pipes page quoting Mr. Pipes about one of the quotes already on that page. The quote I added is a clarification that substantially changes the meaning of the old quote. In the interest of truth, I think both or none of the quotes should be on the page.

Why was my edit reverted?

Thanks, Dimitar Nikolov

Don't know what you're referring to. Responded here. HKT^Talk 17:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD

Hi HKTand Shavua Tov! See:

Best wishes, IZAK 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD: Category:Jews and Judaism

VfD: Category:Jews and Judaism Hi HKT: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:Jews and Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 12:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur conflict

I'd like to revisit the commentary piece on Darfur conflict critiquing "US involvement". It seems pretty weird to have that, given how the US has been largely uninvolved. --Bletch 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Union

Please do not recreate this page. It was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Union, and the result of the debate was delete. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]