User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 16

Asbestos and the law

Hello again JDW, I just made some minor changes on Asbestos and the law. As we've discussed this subject in the past, I'd be most grateful if you'd take a look and see what you think. Thanks, Wikityke 23:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)~.[reply]

Some of your prior edits on the reference sections seem to have changed the numbering of these items. Wikityke 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva Eger

[Eger] [Eiger] see this from google book search (note, it doesn't come up with any results with Eiger) Yellowmellow45 18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowmellow45 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email enquiring about the correct spelling to the Leo Baek Institute and received the following reply.

Dear Mr. Koehne,

thank you for your email.

The spelling found in the authority headings of the Library of Congress, which are used by US libraries in their catalogs, is as follows:

Eger, Akiva ben Moses Guens, 1761-1837

This is also the spelling we use in our catalog.

Sincerely,

Viola Voss

Yellowmellow45 15:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissism

I don't see any problem there but two rookie editors that seem to have got into it. Anyhow, I did respond at the article's talk page. I think people that delete stuff like that should get a vandalism warning, because they should know better. BUt I don't see any policy problems, just a little ego bruising on the 6-anon guy. I left him a note on his page, so maybe he'll cool down. --DanielCD 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errata: I meant the 8-anon guy. User talk:82.195.137.125. --DanielCD 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article talk page:

Why is Samvak using a sock puppet account? If he's editing and not signed in, it's still a sock puppet.
What is the deal with you asking for a Civility alert? Tedious? The two comments you've made in this entire discussion doesn't seem like something I'd call tedious.

--DanielCD 21:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"it wasn't unsigned, the anon interspersed his comment!"

Well, it was nice of you to inform me of that. What else could one assume from "those were my words". I think the lack of communication, followed by odd and somewhat cryptic comments, is in itself somewhat uncivil. Whatever is going on here, I'm finished with this. --DanielCD 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RK's request for Mediation

What happens now with the request for mediation, since RK hasn't made any edits since December 6, and most of the issues on chabad are resolved? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the paragraph "relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers"as per discussion. What happens now with the request for mediation? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy [1] for ANOTHER vote to rename the following. Thank you, IZAK 12:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh --> Category:Tanakh

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh events --> Category:Tanakh events

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people --> Category:Tanakh people

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh places --> Category:Tanakh places

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh prophets --> Category:Tanakh prophets

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs --> Category:Tanakh stubs

Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim --> Category:Ketuvim

Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im --> Category:Nevi'im

Mormonism and Judaism

Just as a heads up, I moved Talk:Mormonism and Judaism. to Talk:Mormonism and Judaism to match your move of the main article.

I also speedied the resulting Mormonism and Judaism. → Mormonism and Judaism redirect as per WP:CSD, R3 (recently created implausible typos), and speedied the talk page redirect as well.

Felt you'd wish to know. If you feel any of these actions were in error, please let me know.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, hadn't noticed that the talk page hadn't moved. JFW | T@lk 15:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of Orthodox Judaism

An editor has raised what I think is a valid point about the Introduction of the Orthodox Judaism article; would you mind taking a look? Talk:Orthodox_Judaism#Introduction Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Thank you for nominating me, I have accepted and answered the questions. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 08:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Your comments would be welcome at Treatment Advocacy Center

The Treatment Advocacy Center page is now protected. Your comments would be welcome.--24.55.228.56 14:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, dear 24.55.228.56. JFW | T@lk 14:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

hello dr. wolff. i am also a doctor and have been looking wide and far for hiv images. (there are few). the link i posted is commercial yes, but they offer all the images on their site license free. (http://3dscience.com/biomedical_animation_free_medical_image_clip_art.asp). if you're really a collegue, you might want to take a closer look before you "pull the deletion trigger". 83.224.64.9 (talk · contribs)

These images links have recently been added to numerous articles without discussion of their merit. I'm not sure why you think there's a point in appealing to my collegiality. I treat similar requests similarly, independent of the credentials of the poster. What Wikipedia needs is a licence to put these in articles, not a convoluted way of discovering that some images are not free at all[2]. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the owners of 3DScience.com. Here is their response: "Wikipedia is a valuable internet community resource. We would be happy to provide any low-res image (what you can see on the site) from 3DScience.com for use in Wikipedia articles. If you have any further questions, please contact bryan@zygote.com. Thanks for your interest and sharing our vision."

Did you discuss the kind of licence this would come under? We have the GNU Free Documentation Licence, PD and others. Under the GFDL the source will be aknowledged, which would include an URL to the originating site, regardless of the type of licence. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks Izehar, I'm honoured. In what sense is this "late recognition"? JFW | T@lk 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism

Understood! I figured that I should add the tag BEFORE any changes were made, that way other members could share their point of view on the change, but I will just change it in the future. Thanks! Kntrabssi 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks again for your help! Kntrabssi 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrown nail

I'm curious why you reverted an anonymous editor's removal of a double period on the Ingrown nail article. --Lucent 01:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Pardon my nose-poking...) Assuming you're speaking about this edit, JFW rightly reverted the double period that had been added by the anon. Perhaps you mistinterpreted the diff? --David Iberri (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did, thank you. --Lucent 10:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer referencing

I see peer review suggested some reference/citation changes in Cancer. There are some raw URL links and some using templates. Want my citations bot to scan it and convert both to Wikipedia:Footnotes numbered links? (SEWilco 07:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

How does it look now? See the diff in History to see where the URL was. (SEWilco 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

you what

How does Locked up mean anything besides.. you know.. locked up ?--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical reaction which I was expecting. But I think "locked up" is crude. As if poor Marwan was not responsible for the Al-Aqsa Brigades, for example. Or on the other side: "He's finally been locked up. Good." JFW | T@lk 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my RFA

Thank you for your support. I'm now an administrator (final vote 64-2). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:47, Dec. 17, 2005

Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/1), so I'm now an administrator! Shanel 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

germ layers

I'm not sure where to ask this one: My bio textbook says that all animals more complex than sponges produce two or three germ layers. The current germ layer entry suggests that only Eumetazoa produce germ layers. From the info on Wikispecies (one level up at Animilia), I'm leaning towards the bio book answer but I'd rather not delete possibly correct, possibly useful information without knowing for sure. I'm compiling the germ layer, mesoderm, ectoderm, and endoderm stubs into one article and need to know which fact is correct for my final revisions. Please feel free to respond on my Talk page. TheLimbicOne 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Hebrew

Hi, do you know how to write Hebrew on Wikipedia? I'm trying to write Lekhah Dodi, but there's a terrible bug I can't get around - I used to be able to, that's how I wrote Ein Keloheinu and Aleinu. Something's changed and I can't get around it anymore: I can't place breaks and punctuation in the right place. Do you know a way around this? Izehar (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, regarding written Hebrew. I managed to set the breaks; I couldn't however insert punctuation marks into the correct spots. I've tried everything, but still can't. Could you please check it and tell me if, in your opinion, the Hebrew text is OK. I haven't finished the article yet, I still need to find the translation. Izehar (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RK's recent edits to chabad

RK has come back from his break and reinserted his version of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers", I removed it upon agreemnt with you, and you were mediating the differences between my version and RK's. Please take a look. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please also take a look at his removal of "held Schneerson in the highest regard and did not take a stance vis a vis the Messianic stirrings.", to his version despite what was worked out on the talk page, and his removal of what Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik held, also I don't understand why his sources recive full elaboration when the others don't. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RK's additions and current version

I have cleaned up some of RK's additions, all my edits are explained by my edit summaries. I have left in the RCA resolution and the comments by Rabbi Lamm. However I would like to point out, that the sources that RK brought for the paragraph about the relationship between G-d the rebbe and his followers had nothing to do with the way chabad views the subject and were actually critizing those that believe that the Rebbe is G-d, which not just those source condemm these beliefs but every Orthodox Rabbi including chabad condemms this. Also with his quotes from Feldman and others, the same thing, that not just those sources condemm those beliefs but chabad along with every Orthodox Rabbi does so as well. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is time to do an RFC here. Double standards in editing are never a good thing. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you certify the dispute? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depend a lot on how it's phrased. But it should be an article RFC, not a contributor RFC. I don't believe an editor RFC would be useful given that this concerns article content. I would support an RFC that calls on RK to detail his sources when addressing the issue of atzmus. Was it Berger who brought this up? Was the issue covered before Berger? The section may have merits but needs to be NPOV and CITE. JFW | T@lk 00:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a RFC, as I have provided multiple sources. They are shown in the Discussion page as of this writing. I have rewritten this section and provided sources, with three Chabad points of view and three non-Chabad points of view, and am sure that it now matches your (valid and necessary) concerns about WIkipedia citation and verifiability policy. RK (talk · contribs)

So why not insert those sources into the article to avoid further chaos? JFW | T@lk 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because you locked the article, and prevented anyone from doing so. You did this two days ago, remember? You said that you wanted to see the proposed text before unlocking it. So did you read the new text I added? It answered every one of your requests. It even added a new Chabad source (a Chabad rabbi who does not like David Berger, but admits that this atzmus theology has led to the deification of the rebbe among some in Chabad.)

Regrettably, Eliezer has started making some dishonest claims yet again. He again denies that I brought these sources, which you admit exist. So either you and I are lying, or Eliezer is trying to pull a fast one. Or Eliezer is very confused.

Please see Eliezer's new comments and his boldly POV proposed edit, which removes every single citation! He only wants Chabad Jews to be quoted, and actually writes as a fact that anyone who disagrees must be ignorant of Kabbalah! That kind of statement is not only a violation of NPOV policy, but a gross attack on the scholarship of the rabbis being cited. We can't go around deleting criticisms of major controversies by attacking contributors or scholars as ignorant (as Eliezer subtly does of non-Chabad Orthodox Jews) and we can't argue that "I feel that these criticisms are wrong, therefore I will delete them." Yet this is literally what Eliezer write about every Orthodox Jew I tried to cite. Please help fight against this violation of Wikipedia policy. RK

I would like to point out that everything I wrote is sourced, and the sources that RK brought are not relevant to what he is trying to prove. see my comments on the talk page of chabad. About this latest claim by RK that I am writing that anybody who disagrees must be ignorant of Kabbalah, I don't see where he gets that from, but I'm sure RK is not saying that Keller and Berger learned Kabbalah. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you stop by the chabad article and help finish mediating. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger

I see you're working on Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger. Good luck! I only have the introduction to his Shorshei Minhagei Ashkenaz, with which I strongly sympathise, but lack the pecunia to get the three (?or four) volumes that he has written on the subject. What are you planning to use as your source material? JFW | T@lk 23:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not entirely sure what I'll be using as soure material. I was originally hoping to find some info online (why use anything else when google is so simple), but have found it a lot harder than I thought. I actually don't have shorshei, although I've been contemplating getting the first 3 vols as a little hanukah present to myself. My brother has the second and third vols, and he practically swears by them at this point. It looks like working on his entry is going to be seriously delayed (especially since other things seem to keep coming up), mostly due to the problems with finding good source material. --אריאל יהודה 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Click

I just don't get it. They seem hell-bent on attacking without even taking the elementary precaution of checking whether someone is likely to be sympathetic to their aims or not! No wonder they have such apparent trouble getting their voice heard. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satmar

Hi JFW. I've been doing my best to keep Satmar, Aaron Teitelbaum, and Zalman Teitelbaum pages under control, but some contributors keep deleting large sections of content relating to the brothers' feud. Please advise as to appropriate actions. Do I just keep reverting the changes? At what point should I request the pages be locked? Thanks for your help. ShalomShlomo 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the edits look malevolent you may revert without discussion. If you think it's out of control list them on requests for page protection. JFW | T@lk 08:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you could, I'd appreciate you taking a look at the Talk:Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) page and advising how I should proceed. Can I propose a contributor vote? Should I ask for page protection? Thanks. ShalomShlomo 07:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the Satmar page on requests for page protection. Perhaps I should also list Aaron-Zalman conflict, too, in order to keep the redirect in place. ShalomShlomo 14:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

Have a quick look here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick. You'll see there's a batch of 50 articles into which one editor has added links to her own site. I am minded to start removing these links, as Dominick has done before. What do you think? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the site is regarded as the final word on the subject, these may be removed without discussion under the header linkspam. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I Apologise

I apologise for he vandalism i commited on the Adin Steinsaltz site.. Thank you for pointing this out --Reb Roovie 10:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lapinmies

I became aware of this user after he left a somewhat aggressive message on Doc glasgow's talk page; I immediately noticed that the user may be engaged in other overly aggressive behavior, anti-Semitism, and vandalism. I'm not asking for any action, but I might suggest this user be watched a bit. Thanks...KHM03 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitism?!? Lapinmies 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see direct evidence of anti-semitism, and my comment on your talkpage only reflected the aggressive message on the talkpage of a departed/Wikivacationing user with an offensive edit summary. JFW | T@lk 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said "may be engaged in...anti-Semitism"; primarily the Star Wars / "Jew" line and the stuff about Hitler, etc. on the user page (which are often red flags). If I was incorrect, I certainly apologize. KHM03 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wessely

For keeping your head when others about you are losing theirs, I hereby award you the Working Man's Barnstar, Gunga Din Class. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy. I'm copying it to my userpage! JFW | T@lk 14:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite

This FAC is being opposed by a POV pusher who has consistantly tried to downplay Jewish contributions to history (while simultaneously shrugging off or sweeping under the rug Muslim atrocities against Jews and others, see, e.g., al-Andalus and Banu Qurayza). Please review the article when you are able and weigh in on the FAC page as you feel appropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. JFW | T@lk 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturmgrenadier (2nd nomination)

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voted Delete. Nn. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrewterm

Hi JFW. Please reconsider your decision to delete it without any discussion. See my comments at TFD and Template_talk:Hebrewterm. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it is now rewritten (and could be rewritten again) to be in-text with optional params. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Template talk:Hebrewterm and Moshav as an example. Do you still think "This causes a colossal mess"? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serzone move to Nefazodone

Hi JFW, I tried to move Serzone to Nefazodone (generic name). Unfortunately, Wikipedia told me to check with an admin for this move. Could you help out with this? Thanks for your time! Uthbrian (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JFW | T@lk 08:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey Jfdwolff! Thanks for nominating me and your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Use the mop well and don't forget to change the water in the bucket sometimes. JFW | T@lk 08:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

I need to get the following from the deleted edit history of the article please:

12:14, 14 November 2005 by 84.9.60.246
12:43, 15 November 2005 by Just zis Guy, you know?

Email would be good but you could post them as user subpages in my user space. I am starting to doubt my owm memory of the origins of this whole fiasco. Thanks, Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you need from the articles? I can only get the Wikitext by undeleting it, something I'd rather not do. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pain. I need the full text. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The future of: Kabalistic Laws

Hi, you sent me a message about the article 'Kabalistic Laws' that I started. I argee with you about the problems that you mentioned, but I don't think that they are insurmountable. I am planning on adding sources for the laws when I have time (which I hope will be soon). I would have delayed putting it up until I sourced it, but I thought it was better to have an unsourced article than no article at all. After it is sourced, I think it would make sense to change around the structure to reflect the difference between a kablistic interpretation of an earilier law and a law bassed purely on kabbalah. Jon513 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Alphabet

I have rewritten the articles on all the Hebrew letters here and before I replace the pages, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Larvatus

This Rfc is a serious one. It involves child rape allegations, a US civil legal case, CEOs of international corporations, and a famous German band. It needs input from a broad range of Wikipedians. Before I removed the crime categories and POV content several weeks ago, I looked at Larvtus's blogs, the cited CA court cases on line, and Larvatus's entries on other websites. It was reverted and I was scolded (my perception). I've asked him to step back and let the community decide. I'm willing to step aside and let other Wikipedians make the decision, in fact I would prefer it.--FloNight 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays

I pray you have a very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Requests Page

The AMA Requests pages is, as it states, not a place to continue a debate. It's for people to ask for help, obviously they will ask using their own POV, any advocate will then investigate the matter further. Please refrain from commenting on anyone's request there. --Wgfinley 00:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could have stated which case you are referring to. If you mean the case of FDuffy (talk · contribs), this is actually months ago, and I wonder why it has taken you so long to respond. I do think that one should be able to give additional information to requests for assistance if this request appears to be a misrepresentation. JFW | T@lk 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't allowed, as it clearly states on the page, the requests page is not a place for the debate to continue. The request being a "misrepresentation" is your POV, the AMA motto is "Audi alteram partem" meaning it's for someone asking for help presenting their side, not engage in further debate about whether that side is right or wrong or a "misrepresentation", the advocate that handles it will work to determine that and evaluate that for himself. As far as how long it took to respond we're all volunteers and I just cleaned up 6 months of work on the page so you'll have to forgive me if I wasn't specific enough for you, seems you figured it out pretty quickly. --Wgfinley 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MD opinion on Condom

Hi JFW, I was wondering if you could give your opinions on the recent edits at Condom. Thanks, Uthbrian (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs --> Category:Tanakh stubs

Hello Dr. Wolff: Shavua Tov and a Freilichen Chanukah to you and yours! In the wake of the recent decisions, would you please be so kind as to move all the contents of Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs to the new Category:Tanakh stubs. Thank you so much for your help. Best wishes. IZAK 06:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience

Wolff: I'm trying to revive the temporarily defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience. Because of your past assistance on neuroscience related articles, I'd thought I'd let you know. Cheers! Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar's RfA

Hi JFD,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience

Wolff: I totally agree, EEG is a mess right now. I'll do what I can when I can. Could you do a favor when you have the time, and take a look at the article hag and the talk page for that article? I'm trying to clean up the neuroscience category and stub category, and I was surprised to see that article on both. Another user and I disagree on this matter and it won't resolve itself. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on Talk:Hag. At present, the neurological term is being mentioned in passing in the form of a disambig. Normally, disambiguated terms are not put in their category unless they get their own page. JFW | T@lk 18:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hate to be a pain, but the same argument is occuring over on nightmare with the same user. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to be fair and rational, but the user and I just came to a disagreement that wasn't going anywhere. Thanks for adding your input. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Tanakh Category?

At the suggestion of IZAK, I am writing to ask your opinion on this. Someone named Fischersc is going around adding a new [Category:Old Testament people] to all the Avos and Imahos pages (maybe more). IZAK says that the way it is being done, it looks almost like vandalism, but then again, Wikiproject:Judaism is trying to establish new categories to distinguish between Christian and Jewish interpretations of the Bible. Should we go ahead and include all these pages in a new [Category:Tanakh personalities]? Thank you for your comment, Yoninah 21:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the addition of Old Testament people akin to trolling as well. I'm not actually opposed to merging the categories, as the Old Testament and Tanakh effictively overlap apart from some minor works that concern the Tanakh period and people from those works could still be included in "Tanakh people" with a slight stretch. JFW | T@lk 22:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting duck

Thanks for the recognition! I wonder who else has gotten the award! Andrew73 02:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listed on Image:Sitting_duck.jpg. JFW | T@lk 02:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Very new (2 days) and still trying to find my way around. Can I get your advice on ABC FirstAid? Thanks JamieJones 03:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.

Do me a favor and take a look at Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories., and see what you think. I posted a very strong delete in the afd vote, but I seem to be entirely alone in that view.

Also, I realized I never thanked you for the Rb. Hamburger link, so let me do so now. I don't know French, but thankfully Google does, so it's actually a very useful resource. --אריאל יהודה 15:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look. This phrase cannot and should not be detached from the personality of Fackenheim, and I've voted merge. JFW | T@lk 16:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted links

Hi Jfdwolff,

My name is Charles put in the link to my documentary "Me vs. My Breast", under gynecomastia and breast section of Wikipedia. You actually deleted both of my links. Is there any problem with my site? I actually made the documentary to help out others with this condition, whom I used to be one of them.

I do respect Wikipedia, and regular user myself, I think my documentary will help out a lot fellow users. For now, I am going to add back the link... please let me know before you delete next time, so I will know why.

Sincerely,

Charles

ifireworks (talk · home) 15:54, December 26 2005 (EST)

External links are inserted by the truckload, often linking to advertisements, unnotable or bizarre views, etc. While the film you produced is clearly a laudable effort, its revelance to the reader of those articles is by no means clear. What does it add to the article that is not already mentioned in the text, e.g. embarrassment, pain, annoyance? As it is about gynecomastia I will leave it on that page, but for breast it completely lacks context and relevance. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoactive Drug

Wolff: This is a really complicated issue. I see your point regarding NOR and citations... but most of this info seems pretty accurate as far as classifications goes. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at my comments here: [3]. We seem to both be in agreement on this matter. If I can find good ones, I'll include sources as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External link section of Chaim Yehuda Krinsky

Can you take a look at the external link at Chaim Yehuda Krinsky and give your opinion whether it belongs there or not. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

question

I hate to bother you with this, but I came across what may be a case of a knowledgeable Wikipedia user who has been creating multiple user accounts for the purpose of getting pages deleted. The two accounts that I know of are User:DisposableAccount and User:Paulcardan. Paulcardan was involved in an editing dispute at Democracy & Nature and managed to involve several administrators including User:SarekOfVulcan with the dispute, eventually leading to a vote for deletion. User:DisposableAccount was created as a puppet with the account's first edit being a comment added to the Democracy & Nature article's vote for deletion. After that effort to delete Democracy & Nature failed, DisposableAccount initiated a vote for deletion against a related article. The bickering then progressed to here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. What bothers me about this is that Paulcardan/DisposableAccount seems to be efficiently manipulating the article deletion system in order to settle a content dispute. Most of the administrators who have become involved in this dispute do not seem to notice or care that this is happening. I think these two user names themselves are both violations of Wikipedia policy, one being a statement (see the comments at User:DisposableAccount) and the other being a pen name of a real person. Is there a way to find out what the IP addresses are for Paulcardan and DisposableAccount? I'm worried that if these user accounts may be for a single Wikipedia user who may be in the habit of making many such accounts in order to get Wikipedia articles deleted. --JWSchmidt 19:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned about sockpuppetry, some members of the arbcomm can check IPs. The only one I know for sure is User:David Gerard, and possibly User:Jayjg. JFW | T@lk 22:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atrial fibrillation on WP:MCOTW

You expressed support for Atrial fibrillation, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some expanding, but hopefully I can provide something more substantial over the next few days. JFW | T@lk 08:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanakh / Torah / Old Testament

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please see my discussions with User:Fischersc at User talk:IZAK#Tanakh / Torah / Old Testament, your input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xybertek Systems for Deletion - criteria clarification

I agree this is NOT a directory, but I did a quick a search of similar organisations e.g Microsoft (with similar information posted), but I really needed to find out what criteria such submission should have before it can be considered appropriate, just as Microsoft submission was retained

Image:Colchicum.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Colchicum.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--WonYong 06:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schneerson's letters

Question

If you have a copy of "Letter from the Rebbe" volume one (the english letters). Do you mind reading the following letters and tell me if it seems like the Rebbe was aganist taking sides, as it will cause dissatisfaction by the other side. (e.g. Rebbe is Moshiach vs Rebbe isn't Moshiach, Rebbe is alive vs Rebbe isn't alive) I just want another opinion (non-Sydney), I have asked a few locals and the seem to agree it seems like the Rebbe is aganist taking sides from these letters. 86 and 110 for volume 1.

Tip

I also feel that you should know, I saw in a letter from the Rebbe (volume 1, letter 62), that the Rebbe shows that the Rambam brings clear rulings in Hilechot Teshuvah 3:8 about Conservative and Reform movements. This should help you in some arguments I have seen made aganist you on truthless points.

Rebbe's views

May I bring some quotes from letter 98 to show you one of the Rebbe's views, where it seems the Rebbe is explaining that there is no dispute in between Torah and science, where some parts of the letter have been releated to past arguments, here on wikipedia. A remark has been attributed to you to the effect that just as Rabbinic problems should be dealt with someone who studied Rabbinics, so should scientific problems be left to those who studied science. I do not know how accurate this report is, but I feel I should not ignore it nevertheless, since I agree with this principle. I studied science on the university level from 1928 to 1932 in Berlin, and from 1934 to 1938 in Paris, and I have tried to follow scientific developments in certain areas ever since.... What does "university level" mean? I can't tell if this means the level the university profercers or classes. Also does it seem from this the Rebbe also learnt evolution in university, with the other known ones?

I quite agree, of course, that for the aim mentioned above, scientific theories must be judged by the standards and criteria set up by the scientific method it self. This is precisely the principle I followed in my letter. Hence, I purposely omitted any references to the Scriptures, or the Talmud, etc. from my discussion. By the Scriptures I asume he means the Tankah, if not I don't see how the Talmud has to be mentioned seperately.

The point was not that science is not now in position to offer ultimate truth, but that mordern science itself sets its own limits, declaring that its predictions are, will always be, and in every case, merely "most probable" but not certain; it speaks only "in term of theories." Herein, as you know probably better than I, lies a basic difference of concept between science today and 19th century science. Whereas in the past, scientific conclusion were considered as natural "laws" in the strict sense of tems, i.e. determined and certain. mordern science no longer holds this views. It seems the Rebbe is saying mordern science stop proving facts, rather proving theories, which by defantions are "most probable" and not factual.

Throught out the next page, the Rebbe makes clear he is not attacking the personal motives of scientist in general, and specifically referred to a certain segment of scientist in a certain area of scientific research, namely, those who produce hypotheses about what actually occorred thousand upon thousand of years ago, such as the evolutionary theory of the world, hypothese significance for present day research (see in my said letter the par. 'immediately', folllowing the par. you cite); hypotheses which are not only highly speculative, but not strickly scientific, and are indeed replete with internal weaknesses. In other words, those who want to upleft a theory (a "probable") to actually be strictly sceintfic/factual, instead of a desire to promote truth - the Rebbe was analyzing. The Rebbe actually explains how this is a common human trait, the quest for accomplishment and distinction? (Do you agree? or not? with what my understanding of what I think the Rebbe is saying.)

I hope you read the letters and gain more of a view of the Rebbe's views/attitudes from the man himself, not just what others say about him (not making any asumation/jugements here, just using an example), you seem like a very truthful and great guy, and as a lot of the topics the Rebbe discuses will help you in a lot of your discussions here.

With kind regards and blessing, 220.233.48.200 17:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

220, I appreciate your personal assessment of me. Sadly I have no access to the volume you're describing. It can be used as a source, but from the perspective of NPOV we cannot hide from what others have said, justly or unjustly, about the Rebbe. I'm aware of the Rebbe's fairly innovative stance in the Torah vs science debate, and the slow uptake of this view in the Haredi community. JFW | T@lk 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where about do you live (like what city), I might be able to find you a copy. Also the Rebbe's whole letter is trying to say the Torah and science are debating. A read of the letter will show this. 220.233.48.200 14:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moses article

Please state your opinions on, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moses#NPOV Also in general the article needs a lot of work. Up until a recent edit, under a Jewish section was a lot of christianity statements. 220.233.48.200 18:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Jfdwolff/Archive 16! I have been on a refreshing wikibreak for the last week, so this is a belated thank-you for supporting my adminship nomination. Much thanks also for all the help you've given me along the way. Happy new year (if that's your kind of thing) and חנוכה שמח! jnothman ^talk 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fix edit summary

I screwed up. I removed a clean up tag (abdomen) and accidentally credited mattaopedia in the edit summary when it should have been Ec5618. The only way I can see to fix it would be to make a meaningless edit (like adding a space somewhere) so that I can have another edit summary. Can you edit my edit summary? (you can reply here, I'll watch for it) TheLimbicOne 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have no access to the edit summary. The only possibility would be to delete the relevant edit and re-do it with a different edit summary, but I'm not sure if that is necessary. An explanation on the talk page should be enough.... JFW | T@lk 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]