User talk:Haroldsultan

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Haroldsultan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! IZAK (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Harold Sultan

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Harold Sultan, by 172.164.148.179 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Harold Sultan seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Harold Sultan, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tzniut

Hi Haroldsultan: Your contributions to the Tzniut article are causing a stir. You seem to be butting heads with a number of well-established and reliable long-standing Wikipedia Judaic editors who have tried to engage you in discussions and to reason with you. To continue fighting obstinately would appear to be a violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:WAR as well as violating WP:POINT. The best solution at this time is to take up the matter at WP:TALKJUDAISM where there are always a number of well-versed Judaic editors willing and able to discuss subjects and articles related to Judaism. Otherwise you may wish to consider WP:MEDCABAL of some sort, but only after you make a number of good faith efforts to engage those you disagree with in WP:AGF discussions. By the way, it is a good idea to fill in something on your still empty User page, it helps to create a sense of "bonding" with other Wikipedians. Thank you so much, IZAK (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply, you need to discuss the matter on the talk page, and respond to the arguments of the other editors cogently. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to discussion. In fact, I will take the liberty to lay out my point.

The primary source for the issue in contention is the talmud which states that covering hair is "dat" yisrael. The translation of dat is nothing other than practice or custom, and under no circumstances jewish law or halacha. This is plain and simple. In fact juxtaposed to the above referenced segment of misha where the practice is called a tradition is a whole list of various other traditions including that a women shouldnt yell loudly. If my objectors are to believed then it would follow that this is a matter of jewish law as well, which seems rather absurd.

This is your only warning

Do not vandalize the Tzniut page again. I put a semiprotection icon on it, and you removed it. Not only that, but you're edit-warring over the same thing that got the page semi'd. Enigma^msg 05:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow someone seems to be slightly perturbed. I was only correcting obvious poor translations and misunderstandings due to preexisting biases.

Really? I have a hard time assuming good faith after that edit. Enigma^msg 01:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Welcome to Wikipedia, and welcome to WikiProject Judaism. It's nice to see people who care about this subject involved with Wikipedia. I've looked at some of your "Tzniut" contributions, and I really don't think your warning was deserved. I would hardly call what you did vandalism. What you did seems, at least to me, far from a deliberate attempt to destroy content on the page. It's perfectly acceptable to add other mainstream POVs, such as yours, to Wikipedia articles. You may want to read the policy about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This policy says that if multiple points of view are mainstream, an article should describe and explain all the points of view. For example, the Tzniut article might discuss how some people believe 16th century Rabbis can create new Halakhot about tzniut, and others believe that they can't, and which groups believe in which view for what reasons. If you're interested in adding verifiable sources to back up the assertions you make in an article, that type of contribution is also very useful because not everyone does this and it gives the readers of the encyclopedia confidence in Wikipedia's accuracy. I can help you if you have any questions about how to do that, or about anything else.

By the way, instead of repeated sequences of reverts--where you revert one edit, and someone else reverts yours, and then you revert back to your own edit, which is called "edit warring"--it tends to be more constructive to discuss any changes you want to make on the article's Talk page. Then all parties can explain their rationales to one another, and you'll be more likely to work with rather than against other editors. It seems to me that you were trying to do this, but the other editors didn't see that you were writing this on your own Talk page (especially since you didn't sign your posts with four tildes (~) at the end, which automatically displays that you wrote them). In addition, Enigma may not have seen the message you left on Yehoishaphat Oliver's talk page. I've just left Enigma a message in your defense.

Also, I notice that you've contributed to mathematics related articles as well. That's very cool, and gives me an idea about who you might be in real life...I think I might know you personally. --AFriedman (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this user (as well as a host of random IPs) is adding information that is flat-out false. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Talmud says going out with completely bare hair is forbidden by the Torah. The source is given in the article. Attempts to delete this or to present it as subject to dispute amount to vandalism. So are attempts to mistranslate dat. It is apparent to me that Haroldsultan has never looked at the original source, and may not even be able to read it in the original language; if that is so, then he should defer to those who can and have read it and know what it says. -- Zsero (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. He also did vandalize the page. If he was just falsifying the information, I would've merely warned him for edit-warring. He vandalized the page, as well as continuing an edit-war that had gotten the page protected in the first place. Enigma^msg 01:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma: Regarding the diff you showed me, in which he removed the page protection template, this is a little used account and I'm not sure he knew what he was doing. I'm not even sure he understands what page protection is and what power he has over it. I'm still unconvinced that he is a vandal.

Zsero: Elsewhere in the article-- "the Maharam Alkashar (a 15th century rabbinic exile from Spain), who says:

"Response:...‘a woman’s hair is a sexual enticement’ is only referring to hair that it is usual to be covered, but a person is accustomed to that which is usually uncovered [and therefore is not aroused] and it is permitted." It seems to me, from the article, as if there's a wide range of opinion and interpretation on this issue, depending on what religious community you're in. If this User is who I think he is, my guess is that he's indeed knowledgeable in Halakha and possibly well versed in liberal Orthodox responsa that more right-wing Orthodox Jews may not know. Does this User know of a written source that translates the passages from Hebrew into English the way he does? Perhaps it is more appropriate to ask him for one than to condemn him, especially since the majority of new users don't understand how referencing works. --AFriedman (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: You may want to look at the articles in this link, some of which seem to advocate a view closer to this User's. --AFriedman (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged quote from Maharam Alashkar (which I'd like to see cited so I can check it) does not change the fact that the Talmud explicitly says that going out with uncovered hair is a Torah prohibition, and Haroldsultan has repeatedly removed that information and substituted falsehoods. There are no two ways to read it; the language used is not capable of two interpretations. Any argument for leniency must deal with that, but can't simply deny it and pretend it doesn't exist. If Haroldsultan has an argument to make, let him make it where it belongs, at the article's talk page. But from the comments he's left here and in the edit summaries it appears that he has never even looked at the Talmud and is relying on tertiary sources of dubious honesty. -- Zsero (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm reading R Broyde's Techumin article, and if I see anything there that belongs in the WP article I'll add it; the other articles referenced at the link above aren't online, or at least aren't linked to. But see the reference a bit down to another article by R Broyde. -- Zsero (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zsero, thanks for helping with the page and looking at these references. I think we've reached WP:Consensus that if he wants to change the page in this way, he needs to come up with sources that meet WP:Verifiability. --AFriedman (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't received an official warning for edit-warring yet...

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tzniut. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Enigma^msg 03:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why finding sources that verify your edits is a mitzvah: An argument

I think that editing a page such as Tzniut is more serious than many people give it credit for, because Wikipedia editors can make real contributions to Jewish outreach. They usually don't get to see the contributions they make, but people they might not expect are reading the pages :). Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jewish people are likely to see the Tzniut page in the near future. In practice if not in Halakha, English Wikipedia's pages are some of the most authoritative Judaism related pages on the Web, because Wikipedia is so many people's first stop for research. For example, I was directed to this page as part of the independent Judaism related study I am doing, connected to an organized program I participated in. The perceived stringency of Orthodox Judaism alienates many Jews from the religion as a whole, and if a more lenient view than what is described in the articles exists, presenting it on Wikipedia will help to combat that perception. I, for one, was happy to see the lenient view. The last thing we want is for Jews to become angry with Judaism because of what they believe is over-restrictiveness--and people really do use Wikipedia as a source for their Jewish knowledge. --AFriedman (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]