User talk:Warshy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP unpleasant business issues

Did you know that our least favourite person is back? Yesterday, he altered his webpage in response to comments by another editor on my talk page, before I had read the comments in question. I am glad that you are still active.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Toddy1. I have been watching this guy's edits. Is is true that he is now editing from Tel Aviv? I was glad to see that a serious WP editor (Dbachmann) was also involved. Tomorrow I will try to catch up on the developments. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You know as much as I know. When people edit without logging in, we can see where the IP is. That does not necessarily mean that they have moved there. They might be on a business trip, or on holiday, or be using a proxy-server. I was glad to see that Dbachmann was involved.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1. Yes, but this guy is logging in. Can we be sure this is the same IP user that started editing apparently from Tel Aviv? His behavior certainly could make one suspicious, since that other scoundrel did engage in sock-puppetry, etc., and that is why he was banned. But how can we be sure this new user is him doing his usual mischief again? I am following up the developments as much as I can, and I also do hope that Dbachmann is still tuned in. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Because, if you are correct, we will need all the help we can get... warshy ^(¥¥) 21:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Toddy1, this guy talks like him and he also quacks like him. To my mind there can be no doubt any more that he is back, as you say. It is only a matter of time, I believe, until he does it all over again and is banned for it. He just cannot restrain himself from doing it in this telling manner, clearly. I hope this happens sooner rather than later... warshy ^(¥¥) 15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please can you start collecting diffs. We need diffs showing that this guy talks like him and he also quacks like him (i.e. diffs from both accounts). I will start collecting diffs showing that they behave in the same way.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

His edits at Crimean Karaites hatnote currently are looking realy ridicilious.He changed it several times ,every time with totally differnet POV.He do not know what to write but he needs to change there something .Another recall that our old friend wrote about himself that he is authist.It is really a mess.He is from rich family, While he beleives that his polish grandfather was Karaite he has enoughmoney to buy the existing site and vandalize it(Karaite institute of V. Kefeli). He also rich enouht to pay money clean the web from the news about accussion and to run to Cardiff muni. So he can allow himself to go to Israel and to dedicate whole day to his diatriputive edits. My disputs with him are really unproductive. He distorts my answers totally Hope that you wlll stop this vandalism.It strange that it is obviously illegal EW of consensus versions is ignored by admins. Неполканов (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Toddy1. He is trying to learn from his past mistakes, and he is trying to be smarter in concealing his true disruptive/POV goals this time. He drew a large circle on which to beat around the bush for some time, to conceal his real target, with all these Mongolian/Caucasian obscure hordes or ancient polities (such as Khereid, etc.). But his real target and goal is still just to represent East European Karaites as not connected in any shape or form to Jewish/Karaite history, which is obviously an historic falsification perpetraded by Firkovich, Babovich, and Shapshal for political reasons. It will suffice for you to look at his recent edits and comments under Karaite Judaism (all the sources he is requesting there about the true record of this historical falsifications for political gains within the Russian Empire and the USSR) to see that his long term 'modus operandum' is still precisely the same as the MO of his earlier/more deranged meatpuppets, for example in the Abraham Firkovich article, which still has all those request for sources introduced by him back in 2012. He also has a new decoy to confuse, mislead, and conceal his path (and pathos, or rather pathology) this time, with all his repeated and misleading references to this other banned WP sockpuppet (Ancientsteppe), which I have not been able to track down and completely decipher yet. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 I have been watching your movements very carefully ever since I asked you and User:Неполканов so many times you to stop Harassing me by trying to associate me with the blocked user. warshy I have no such agenda. Besides Harassment, Canvassing is also against wikipedia policy by the way. YuHuw (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yuval, if you know something about the sources I am requesting on Talk:Karaite Judaism how about just posting some there for discussion? I hope we can be friends. YuHuw (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: since you have been named here three times without being pinged. I think your comment would be appreciated at this point. YuHuw (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You are most unwelcome here in my own space. Please refrain from posting here again. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I am very sorry for posting against your wishes, but I understand I am required to post this here to invite you to join in a dispute resolution discussion Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Karait I want to observe your wishes and will not post here again unless required or after your concerns have been dispelled. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuHuw (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

quacking

Hello Toddy1. I hope you are still on track on lining up the ducks on this meatpuppet. That is because he is behaving exactly as I predicted. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 14:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuHuw (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Some shit you see in WP...

What do you call a troll that comes back with a different handle? The same troll exactly, but 4 years later, and now using a handle bought from some provider somewhere for hard cash, just so he can try to evade WP 'justice' at his own leisure? This is because, apparently this is exactly what he wants to do with his money until his time runs out... Oh, well. Just let the trolls dance and play. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Where, oh where, have all the Seb az86556 's of WP gone? warshy ^(¥¥) 19:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The irony of it is that it all really starts with religious fanaticism. And then, on top of that, of course, a very serious psychotic condition too. All together it is just a prescription for a disaster looming. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly as predicted above. This plague can still run but it cannot hide anymore now. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaraimits

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaraimits-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Неполканов was right, obviously, and the Count's full name is "Kazimir Joseph Andren Emanuel Hubert Von Staufer." He lives in Cardiff, Wales, UK, apparemtly. From now on he should be mentioned as Kazimir Hubert Von Staufer. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP here [1] says he is an MP from the Cardiff Central borough constituency as an independent with 34 votes, if I understand it correctly. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed some WP:OR about Keraites from the article on Molokans today. Nobody objected when I raised it on the talk pages on Friday. I tried Wikiblame to find out who put it there, but it did not find it. The old-fashioned way revealed who put it there.[2] Please add the page to your watch list.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have done a quick merge to the article on Subbotniks. Please could you make improvements. I suggest that you avoid YuHuw's made-up word.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Toddy1. I will look into it. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Warshy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you Doug Weller. Best season wishes to you too. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

navbox

Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talk • contribs)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Warshy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--John (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Adriane Galisteu

I understand your point in the edit summary, but while you are free to argue this out in the talk page, at policy pages, find better sources and add the material they source to the article, pr whatever, you are not free to revert material sourced to tabloids back into articles. Once it's been removed under BLP it's got to be discussed at article talk. --John (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A request

Please could you delete the words "is a Moslem Crimean Karaite himself, with" and replace with "has" from this post. (a) He is not. (b) It is harassment. Please delete this post once read.-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have followed your request, as I assumed you must have seen. Thank you for your guidance in WP protocol. I usually do not delete the few messages I get here, but I guess that even if I did I would still be able to look at an older version of the page and see it right? Does this mean that something, if published on WP can always be found again somehow, unless it is really purged by an Admin? Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Discussion_(Support_or_Oppose) Can you take a look at this suggestion if is good? Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Warshy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Matres lectionis vs. Plene scriptum

In answer to your question, no, I do not agree with your definition. The opposite is true. Matres lectionis always involves a plene scriptum, but plene scriptum does not always involve a matres lectionis. The reason for this has been explained to me by Professor emeritus, Yosef Tobi, of the University of Haifa (Department of Hebrew and Comparative Literature), who said that matres lectionis is needed to assist in a word's vowel pronunciation. However, plene scriptum is not necessarily needed for the word's correct vowel assignment.Davidbena (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Scythians

Thanks, but it's no use just thanking me - you need to comment at the page. He has started his changes. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, one does what one can do, I guess, given the time available... I'd like to study the issue a little more in depth than I currently know it, but alas, time is limited. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 13:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Salom Italia

I wrote this up real quick, borrowed from the German wiki. I think there's a bit more on the Italian. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Maybe you can transfer that note about the Menasseh Ben Israel into this article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• What would be hilarious is if we expand this and put it up at DYK, which will increase visibility also and make vandalism less likely. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmies,

Nice job of putting together a whole new page in just a few hours. Yes, there is quite a bit more on Italia in English sources I have, and I will work on it, as time allows. I am not as fast as you adding material to Wikipedia. I am also waiting for WP Library access to the Encyclopedia Judaica, which I am assuming will have some material on him. If I expand the content on the Menasseh ben Israel portrait that he did, I may also add a note about the other supposed portrait by Rembrandt, and observations that have been made by scholars when comparing the two portraits. This is all material from 17th century history, and the degree of historical certainty regarding issues in this period is much less as compared to the 18th or 19th centuries. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, that's excellent. Thank you so much. It wasn't a lot of work: a quick translation, and a note based on a page at the Joods Historisch Museum. You may have seen that malformed link in the EL section: there are eight hits there, including an article in a Hebrew journal which fortunately has an English summary that has some useful information. OK, I might get back to this today or tomorrow (it's the Arkansas game anyway, and I'm sure Tide rolls is also not nervous about it) and try to get a DYK nom going at least as a placeholder. BTW--I found this a fascinating matter, this business of the Esther-rolls. In the end, you prompted me to investigate, and I thank you for it. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I wrote up a bunch of stubs because someone wanted to delete a category I created for the Italia article--but they're real stubby. If you can add to them, that'd be great. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I did not know there were that many!... I had not heard about any of them before looking at your category page. I wish I had a small fraction of your wiki skills, but unfortunately I don't. I struggle along here. Still haven't gotten the time to add a bit to your Salom Italia page, but it is in my "to do" list. Keep up the good work! Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ethics_(Spinoza)

Dear Warshy,

I was (and am) very glad you approved of my edit, the only reaction i have had i think. I would like to have all of the Ethica checked using formal logic, should have been done since 1678, right? Probably (?) this in fact has already been done in some form, there are PhD theses, but i think they study only parts of the Ethica. I once overheard a Dutch professor of philosophy talking about Spinoza at a railway station and asked him bluntly whether the Ethica was logically ok? He couldn't answer but was astonished, said i shouldn't read Spinoza in that way. Apparently he didn't take Spinoza seriously.

• Perhaps you (as a member of the Epistemology taskforce?) know more about this topic and can help me with references etcetera? Or add them yourself to the Ethica article?

I am working on a wikibook in Dutch to provide a summary of the Ethica to be translated in English later on, by me or who knows by someone else (Google Translate got much better!).

• Any suggestions and criticisms are most welcome!

Thank you! ("do good and be happy" according to Spinoza), cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC) (former astrophysicist and now and then Dutch wikipedian in residence)

Dear User:Hansmuller,

Unfortunately I am no specialist in the Ethica myself. I've studied Spinoza's time in the Netherlands a bit, and I've studied a bit of Spinoza's biography, and I have studied the Theologico-Political Treatise. I have also read the Political Treatise and On the Improvement of the Understanding, and some of Spinoza's correspondence.

But, in my view, the Ethica is a completely different ball of wax. If I had the time, one of the things I would like to do is to study the Ethica in detail, but in Latin, not in English. In my view, one cannot properly understand and analyze the Ethica, unless such a study and analysis is undertaken directly in the Language Spinoza wrote it, i.e. in Latin. But unfortunately, I haven't had the time to do that yet. So, in terms of the Ethica, I defer to other philosophers and specialists. I have not read any analyses of the Ethica using formal logic, and formal logic is also not one of my specialties. Good luck in your philosophical endeavors! Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear User:Warshy

Thanks!

• Latin: You are of course right that we should go to the source. For my wikibook (to be translated i hope later on in English) i consult the original Latin by Spinoza (printed in the book by Krop, see below, and also available online), which is not difficult (almost like French). Spinoza's Latin seems to be the standard international version used by learned people in the Renaissance, with fixed stereotyped expressions used many times over, which is excellent for clarity. (No smart literary and grammatical tricks as in Tacitus etcetera!) Probably Spinoza mimicks the Latin used by Descartes (?). It is nice Spinoza sometimes cites the Latin playwright Terentius (not in Descartes?), which he probably came across while studying Latin at school.
• Translations: Sometimes i find omissions and other errors in the translations from Latin into Dutch by Krop (Krop, Henri, Spinoza Ethica, Bert Bakker, Amsterdam 2002, 2004) and Van Suchtelen (Suchtelen, Nico van, Ethica (uit het Latijn vertaald, ingeleid en van verklarende aantekeningen voorzien), Wereldbibliotheek, 1979). The translation of some Latin key words in context (affectus for instance) immediately means a decisive and i think questionable interpretation of Spinoza, which is not the same in Van Suchtelen and Krop. (English translations will encounter the same problems. I should check Spinoza's correspondence, which i still have not done.) I also used the online English translation R.H.M. Elwes (1883), Ethics Demonstrated in Geometric Order, but did not (yet) check it systematically for mistakes. It is nearly impossible that Elwes would not contain errors, because (Ethica V after Prop 42) "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare." (translation by Elwes). Carpe diem, (Spinoza signed his letters off with "t.t." = totus tuus = all yours) Hansmuller (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

O! PS. One last question: how should we call Spinoza? In school I think was taught that his name was Benedictus de Spinoza. However, on wikipedias etcetera he nowadays is called Baruch Spinoza, or sometimes similar. After his banishment from the Jewish community in Amsterdam he signed as "B." which is ambiguous, but also definitely as Benedictus. How should we call Spinoza by a first name? Thanks again, Hansmuller (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Hansmuller,

Thanks a lot for your observations on the Latin text and translations. I will keep those in mind as I start looking into the Ethica in Latin online in the future.

As for Spinoza's name, I believe we should call him Benedictus in Latin, Benedict in English/Ducth, or Benedito in Portuguese. So the correct name, in my view, should be Benedictus de Spinoza. Baruch was his Hebrew name, but he completely disavowed his Jewish ancestry and heritage after he was apparently excommunicated in 1656. There was a discussion about this here on this talk page a few years ago, and you can find this discussion in the archives. At the time I did not participate much in that discussion, as I preferred to look and see wheat type of arguments were raised. I did not have a firm opinion either way at the time. Today, after reading carefully Steven Nadler's very thorough and detailed biography of Spinoza (1999), and then also Richard H. Popkin's last word on Spinoza in his concise Spinoza summary of a lifetime of research into the philosopher thinking and his life (Spinoza, 2004), I belive Wikipedia has it wrong currently. The philosopher's correct name on Wikipedia should be, in my view, Benedictus de Spinoza, or Benedict de Spinoza. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Van der Wall scans

Dear Warshy,

Hello, Warshy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tot horens, Hansmuller (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello user:Hansmuller,

I've got your 2 email messages, and I replied. I hope you can see my email address in the email I sent you in reply. Thank you so much for all your help with this book! I sent you more questions in the email. Warm regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Amsterdam Notaries' archives

Dear Warshy,

you are aware of these archives (looking for Serrurier, Pieter)? Cheerio, Hansmuller (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Hansmuller. Thank you very much! No, I was not aware of these archives, thank you so much for finding them. I was able to find 2 documents regarding Pieter Serrurier from 1662, but they are in Dutch notarial script, and so I was not able to really read them. Are you able to read these documents? Thanks a lot for your help again. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Warshy, that's excellent! That project "Amsterdamse akten" is ongoing, so further surprises might crop up. There were of course many Serruriers (lockmakers?), so confusion may abound. Can you therefore give me exact dates etc. what you want?, then i'll do a transcription exercise. That bridegroom ("bruidegom") Pieter Serrarius is quite another guy? Perhaps family of Serrarius - that brother and his grave? - might also be of interest? I'll put a note on the talkpage of Serrarius for consistency and ask you another question there... Enjoy our star, lots of it today over Europe, i hope over the States as well! Hansmuller (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Millennialism

Hello, Warshy -- I edited the "Millennialism" page, adding to it what the beliefs are of the Bible Student Movement. I thought that adding the defined beliefs of an established Christian group on this subject would be agreeable. I cited a reliable source -- a foundational source -- and all that I said about the subject does correctly define the view of the Bible Student Movement, which has been an ongoing movement for all the lifetime of myself, my father, and my grandfather. I have served as an elected elder in this fellowship since 1973. We have regular conventions, and every two years an International Convention in Poland, with about a thousand attending that particular conference. Some years ago I served as organizing Chairman for that convention. But I am older now, and defer to younger ones. I say this only to explain that I am deeply familiar with the view of this fellowship -- that I have not overstated them, or misrepresented them -- that it is a long enduring fellowship. The source cited, as you can see, is from 1886. It is a well known book in the history of Protestant thought. Some of the original Bible Student Movement diverted to become the Jehovah's Witness organization of today -- but we represent the original movement, and the book cited as a reference is the foundational book for the fellowship. It surely qualifies as a "reliable source" for explaining the the views of the Bible Student Movement.

I think I have answered your concern. Is it agreeable for me to resume the entry? It seemed appropriate, for it was an area of the page that seemed to itemize the views of various fellowships respecting Millennialism. Kindly let me know. Thank you -- Sincerely -- DavRiceDavRice (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have checket it now. You had provided only one Wikipedia internal link and that was to a disambiguation page, whereas it should be pointed directly to the Dawn society page (the first link in the disambiguation page). But since this sect is part of the Jehovah Witnesses movement, and this movement already has its own subsection on the page, I don't think there is a need to add them separately. If anyone still insists they should be added separately, then the subsection would also need at least one reliable secondary source (not a primary source from within the sect itself) that mentions it separately and as worthy of mention, as per WP notability WP:DUE guidelines. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Warshy, Thank you for your reply. I think there is some misunderstanding. The Bible Student Movement fractured more than a century ago, into various parts, none of which are in fellowship with the organization known from the 1930s forward as "Jehovah's Witnesses." The listing I submitted for the Bible Students fellowship is consistent with the beliefs of all of the various branches of the Bible Student Movement -- and none of the statements summarizing the Millennial views of the Bible Student Movement, represent the views of "Jehovah's Witnesses." They are very distinct. It would be something like grouping Lutherans and Presbyterians together because both came from the Reformation.

The "Dawn Bible Student Association" is merely a publishing house. There is no fellowship called "Dawn Bible Students." I myself am one of the editors of the long standing publication, "The Herald of Christ's Kingdom," that commenced in 1918, more than a century ago. But there is no "Herald" fellowship. We are all part of the "Bible Student" fellowship. Whereas Jehovah's Witnesses distinctly are not. All of the various parts of the "Bible Student Movement" concur on the summary I proposed concerning Millennialism. None of the Jehovah's Witnesses would agree with it. So there is no duplication here. Is it agreeable to proceed? With Thanks, DavRiceDavRice (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The details are going to be judged by the community of editors. As long as you have reliable sources that your text will refer to for verifiability, and as long as your added text is deemed noteworthy in the page it is added, you are always welcome to try your hand. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Warshy -- I will review the intended addition, and seek another referenced source respecting the Bible Student Movement, and then post the addition. If any further comments come respecting it, I will try my best to respond thoughtfully to them. Thank you for your time and attention -- Sincerely -- DavRiceDavRice (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that any future discussions of the matter should occur directly in the article's talk page, not here. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Warshy -- I am adding another source for the Bible Student Movement, available on the Herald Magazine website, "Special Issue, Bible Student History." I mentioned last time that I would do this, so I will proceed. Just letting you know here -- but I will, as you suggest, say this on the talk area for that page, "Millennialism." -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Warshy -- So, after all the discussion, consultation, thoughtful interchange -- another editor swoops in to revise the whole thing. I am surprised. Is this just normal? -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That is precisely how Wikipedia works. If you have problems with that you can discuss the edits on the article's talk page. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Release?

Heresy in Judaism

He Warshy, I just reverted attempts to add the heresy template to Jewish secularism [3] and [4]. I think we need to keep an eye on this category, it has a lot of potential for abuse. IZAK was just banned from The Exodus for a month because of his disruptions over there. Wish I'd seen these earlier so I could've included them on the ANI report. I'm considering proposing a TBAN but I can't think of the parameters. Banning a 17-year veteran from Jewish topics when that's all they seem to be interested in strikes me as cruel.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ermenrich,

I had not even been aware of the Jewish Secularism page before... I've now put it on my watchlist too, and I'll keep an eye on it. This guy, as far as I was aware, had not been very active in Jewish issues for the past 2 years or so. He had been before. But now he seem to be back with a vengeance. He's part of a group of Jewish Orthodox editors which try to make all articles about any Jewish issues or Judaism in Wikipedia conform to Orthodox views and dogma. I guess these are the Jewish religious counterparts of the Evangelicals and other Christian fundamentalists. In private I believe they really don't admire very much each other's religions, but in the secular digital world of encyclopedic knowledge that is Wikipedia they are allies in their religious orthodoxy and fundamentalism against academic, secular, and non-religiously affiliated scholarship. But this latest campaign of going around and tagging pages as "Jewish Heresy" is nothing else but an organized campaign of religious censorship and intimidation on Wikipedia. I saw his attempts at forcing religious views on the Exodus page and that to your quick action he got a temporary ban there. But I am pretty sure this organized campaign is just starting. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

it gets worse: he added Reform Judaism to the category too! I’ve started a TBan proposal for heresy and Judaism at ANI, but so far it’s just him pretending he doesn’t know what it is he’s doing.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I just found this amusing [5]: Modern-day scholars violate what we know on WP as WP:NOR and come up with far-fetched theories that border on what we here on WP call a WP:HOAX and WP:NOTMADEUP. No wonder he doesn't get our sourcing policies! If he keeps on messing with article content we'll need to go for a total topic ban on Judaism probably.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that thanks to your good work we have now found out that this guy is here, on Wikipedia, actually on a religious mission. I had no doubt about that before, but I never bothered to go dig up and exposed the evidence. Nice work. The ban that is shaping up on ANI should be a good initial slap in the hand, a first warning. I will also try to be more careful about these trends in future. Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 19:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A third opinion

Hello Warshy, I considered it necessary to request a third opinion due to our active talk. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Names and titles of God in the New Testament. Thank you.

personal blog-like propaganda on the TP's ...

Please try to rein in such statements as "the great Napoleon" and so forth - the article will take a NPOV, and to many, he was nothing more than just another megalomaniac who caused the deaths of many thousands of people with untold misery. Personal views are not going to influence the editing of any Wiki article. 50.111.0.9 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I can definitely express my opinion on a Talk Page discussion without being accused of "blog-like propaganda." This uncalled for message here reminds one of the hazards of any opinion that is expressed on WP. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Table of prophet of Abrahamic Religions

why do you hate the table so much it shows what religion has in common, and p.s you could create another poll if you feel its time to remove it. The religion should be discussed like Noahide, Mormonism, Rastafarian, and other religions that fall into that camp of debate. Ask the question, does it follow the God of Abraham? Does it have the same names as the characters in other religions? And how large does religion have to be to get acknowledged as a religion? Even if religion are dead we should still be able to discuss them. Like the Jesus in comparative mythology page, and the religious text page.

Judaism does not counts Black Hebrew Israelites and Messianic Judaism as Judaism, so obviously it likely they don't count Sabbertian as Jewish, and since they don't believe in Islam, they should be recognized as their own religion. Just typing on your talk page to discuss this, what do you think. Apha9 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a WP:DEADHORSE in my view, and I don't want to waste another precious moment of research on this crap. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Warshy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nishidani. I did get your message and I replied also. I hope you got my reply. Be well, regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Antonius Hulsius

Dear Warshy,

How are you and Antonius Hulsius doing? Can i help? Si vales, valeo, Hansmuller (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hansmuller,

Thanks for checking with me. Someone mentioned in a different page that the German WP should have a button on the page for translating the page to other languages. But I couldn't see this button. So I opened the page with Google Chrome instead, and then Google asked me if I wanted to translate the page, and I said "Yes." The I copied the Google translated page and pasted it [1 here], so I can start working on the English page. So, as I hope you can see, the first step of the translation of the page from German is done, and I can start working on the new page. I will let you know once I have the first draft of the new page ready. Thanks! warshy ^(¥¥) 17:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Inferior edit

This was an inferior edit, in which you removed the date parameter and used an incomprehensible shortcut instead of the full name. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately my browser somehow did not warn me that I was not editing the latest version of the page, and so I was unaware you had already corrected the problem of the editor not using the correct template for "citation needed." The reason I did not undo/revert my own edit when I saw my mistake, was that I did use the correct template shortcut [{cn}], and so the result of my unnecessary edit was the same as the one for your correct original edit. As you can see from the history of the page, the WP platform did recognize my template shortcut and did add the date to the citation needed request, and everything is now correct on the page, regarding that edit, as it was when you first made your edit. So, you are correct that my edit was unnecessary, but you are incorrect that I used a wrong or "incomprehensible shortcut instead of the full name." No, my edit was unnecessary, since your edit had already corrected the problem, but the final result of my unnecessary edit was the same as that of your original correct edit, and that was the reason I did not undo my unnecessary edit. I'd expect you to acknowledge my apology, and also acknowledge that my unnecesary edit did cause no harm in the end. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Both acknowledged. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yiddish

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yiddish, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 72.223.59.105 (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I still had your talkpage watched. I take it the IP editor means the addition of the JAO as a place where Yiddish is the official language. I just wanted to say that in the article it is mentioned that this used to be the case, but that nowadays Yiddish is no more than a language with a special status. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

So I guess the IP was right in this case? It appears so. The article should probably still mention the JAO in my view, but not in the manner it was mentioned. Since I also read in the JAO article that obviously one of the most active Jewish organizations there is Chabad, I assume some of their people would be more interested in updating the article regarding this matter? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

So it would appear. There is hardly any Chabad presence on Wikipedia. Certainly not to the extent that one could be invited to update this article. There used to be a few, not many, but none remained active, to the best of my knowledge. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinkinf of using this source for purposes of mentioning the JAO somewhere in the article. If no one gets to it before me, I may still do it sometime in the near future. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hy Warshy. Thank you for the many thanks. I'm not sure I've had the pleasure beyond coming across your name, but I'm quite forgetful, sorry. Have a great day - or night :)) , considering that you're in the US. Arminden (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arminden. No, I don't think we've actually directly interacted on WP. I thanked you because I enjoyed your writing. It has a very frank, open, and direct, straighforward quality to it that I really appreciate, and that somehow touched me. I enjoyed reading your essays and I wanted to let you know that. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You've made my day, honestly, so - thank you back! PS: This is the nicest game of tennis I could imagine :) Arminden (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I just saw the new caption you added to the picture at Kvutzat Kinneret. I watch it because it is where my parents were married. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm doing something I like, and I'm getting nice messages for that–hey, life can be great, Covid or not! Happy I could surprise you in a nice way. The Kvutzat folks have quite an image of being tough and headstrong (in the good way): those who went up the hill & stayed there. Chapeau. Arminden (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You probably know more about them than I do, since my parents weren't members of the Kvutzah. They were training for settling in their own kibbutz in the south in neighboring Afikim, just 2 or 3 miles to the south of the Kvutzah. But the wedding ceremony for their garin was organized by the more settled members of the Kvutzah. That was November of 1950. I've learned quite a bit of the history of that amazing area from your edits over the past year or so, and I am still catching up. You've done a lot of important work on the area. Kudos! warshy ^(¥¥) 22:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Shabbat

There is no link to the area that says Shabbat starts a few minutes before sunset. Wikipedia does not include the verse that says this statement. Grnphythn53 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean Tosefet Shabbat? Debresser (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The current ref points to Orach Chayim 293.2. Is that not enough? Wrong? You can suggest a better pointer. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for responding. I am a jew who observes the sabbath and have read Orach Chayim myself. The Orach Chayim is correct, however that was not my edit. The Verse is correct when it says the Sabbath ends after 3 stars come out. However, it does not say when the sabbath starts(which is 18 minutes before sunset). I can 100% confirm that my edit is correct, but please feel free to make any changes.(kinda new to wiki so it probably was missing some things). Grnphythn53 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

One thing I am certain of: Any traditional halakha, such as the Shulchan Aruch, that stipulates when Shabbat observance must start for an observant Jew, does not stipulate that it starts "18 minutes before sunset." The original language, which I would be looking for, would say something related to sunset, or a few moments before sunset. "18 minutes" would be a more modern and strict interpretation, one that is obviously followed by Chabad, if not originating directly there to begin with. Maybe Debresser would have the language used in the Tosefet Shabbat he mentions? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"Tosefet Shabbat" is not a book. It is the name in halakha for the law that one should start the Shabbat a few minutes before the sunset and not end the Shabbat till a few minutes after the appearance of 3 stars. When I wrote those words, I suspected that Grnphythn53 confused Shabbat proper with Tosefet Shabbat, and his second post confirms this. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Whose rule is it (Tosefet Shabbat)? When and where was it issued? Thank you for the information. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, chapter 261, paragraph 2. You can raad more about it on the Tosefet Shabbat article on the Hebrew Wikipedia. The origin is from the Talmud, based on a scriptural verse. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. So this is the precise information that should be on the Shabbat page regarding halakha. I will update it. Thanks. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Cherami or Cheramie?

Hi - I just read that her name was only spelled Cheramie "in conspiracy literature" here: https://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100cher.html. Also many other sources state no "e", such as https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Rose_Cherami.html. But if you know for sure that's incorrect, fair enough. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Your second link above explains:

"...Rose Cherami (often spelled "Cheramie"), whose real name was Melba Christine Marcades."

So, I guess, it can be spelled both ways. I think this is really a minor episode in the whole affair, since Anthony Summers doesn't even mention her at all, one way or the other. But since you mention "conspiracy literature," maybe you can check how Gerald Posner and/or Vincent Bugliosi spell her name, since these are the two main "non-conspiracy" sources. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Posner - Cheramie

Bugliosi - Cherami

Cherami here too https://www.amazon.com/Rose-Many-Other-Names-Assassination/dp/B00H705N80

Could both be used in article (one in parenthesis)? I agree, it's minor. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion. At the first mention only: "Rose Cheramie (also spelled sometimes as Cherami),..." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Could also mention full real name "Melba Christine Marcades" like what you pasted above in first mention if you like? Thanks too. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. Corrected suggestion then: "Rose Cheramie (also spelled sometimes as Cherami), whose real name was Melba Christine Mercades, ... Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Spinoza

Warshy, just caught your revert. I mistakenly thought the Spinoza reference I tried to fix up has a citation. The problem is that I saw the reference to Stewart in Further Reading. My mistake in the fix not checking close enough to realize that the Stewart reference in citation format was in further reading. I think the typos could have been corrected without a revert. However, if there are other stakes in the revert, as I prefer not to counter-revert. My goal was just to clean up something that seemed to need it. If you agree the cleanup has merit, I'd like to counter the reversion and just fix the problems- typos and citation. If I mess up, maybe others can clean it up behind me. If you like prefer the way it was, I'll just leave it. Let me know. ThanksWtfiv (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wtfiv OK. Go ahead and redo the edit with the correct link to the Stewart citation. I'll be checking once you get it done, and I will let you know if there are any issues. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I will jump in then. Thank you for the quick response! Wtfiv (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

warshy BTW, Since it seems you may be a watcher on the Spinoza site, I thought I'd pass this on. I forgot to mention that what initiated my first edit was that the citation for Stewart circa 2007, was Lucas 1960. It was anomalous that a point about a book published in 2007 was supported by a book from 1960. That led to a closer inspection of the text. I didn't mess with the extant style of the Lucas citation, but it isn't linked either, it was just Lucas, 1960 in refs. (though there is a reference to it in Further Reading, as well). But it looks like the Spinoza article is a sensitive one, even for "clean up" edits, so I'll tread lightly. I only hope my changes pass muster. Again, thanks for your consideration and openness! Wtfiv (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There are quite a few refs in the article that would need checking and updating. One does one's best, I guess. Your intentions are good, so don't worry about mistakes. They happen when one tries to edit Wikipedia, but the good thing is also that there are always many eyes checking and fixing if it needs it. Goog luck, and mostly enjoy your editing and learning. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

JNF support for Israeli settlements in West Bank

Why I changed 'Israeli settlements' to 'Jewish settlements' is, as I understand it, if you are an Israeli Christian or an Israeli Muslim or an Israeli Druze you would have difficulty buying a property in most (all?) of these 'settlements' (or possibly colonies?). It has been reverted. No surprise. But it is not accurate. In my humble ... Padres Hana (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Padres, I am not quibbling with your assertions above. But there are Jews in Israel and all over the world, such as myself, for one, who oppose Israeli settlement in the conquered territories. Your edit summary claimed that "Israeli settlement" was not precise enough. In this context, this is precisely what it is: Israeli settlement. Who the settlers are in this specific context is beyond the political definition. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Opportunity for collaboration

Dear Warshy,

I really appreciate your passion and desire to ensure an accurate page of Messiah in Judaism! Some of the questions you raised reveal that you have a more than elementary understanding of the topic. I believe that writing is not the best communication to answer some of your questions. Please reach out to me as soon as possible at (Redacted) (please delete after reading) so that we can address your questions!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

p.s. What is your fluency of hebrew/ and or Yiddish? Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Writing is not the best communication..." What does this mean? You think that if we write to each other via direct email the communication is going to be better than writing to each other on the talk page. I doubt that. Through my work here you should be able to see my fluency in the languages. My only "passion" in the matter here is for Wikipedia not to turning into a religious/orthodox encyclopedia that only knows to refer to Chabad and to the deceased rebbe. Thank you, be well. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(What the heck do you mean with "please delete after reading" message in parenthesis. I have no idea what that could be referring to... warshy ^(¥¥) 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

Am referring to using email so that we can later speak by zoom or phone. Appreciate that you have fluency in hebrew language, this will make discussions a lot easier and effective! Meant that you delete my email from your talkpage,

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

in 15 years plus editing here as a hobby I never talked to any other editor, and I don't intend to start now. Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass. This issue is already taking more of my time than any other issue I tried to participate in the edition of, these past 15 years plus, and it is not an issue I'm really interested in. Your whole incursion here is really causing more aggravation than anything else, and I don't appreciate it. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A comment

Dear Warshy,

There was a meeting earlier today on zoom. I was very surprised that I did not see you at the meeting today (Perhaps you were not aware or something came up). I hope you can make it to tonight's meeting at 8:20-9 pm EST. check talk page of Messiah in Judaism for link. I look forward to addressing questions that you ask!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not a professional/paid editor here. I edit WP as a hobby, and my enjoyment comes from all the learning and intellectual enrichment I gain from it. I edit as much as I can, and I debate issues only when there is no other alternative, but only on the talk pages is such cases. I am not going to spend any time and/or effort in your religious proselityzing efforts Chabad style. I don't think Chabad has a valid claim to be editing a secular, non-religious encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, and I will continue to oppose your biased edits as much as my precious learning time allows. I hope other good faith editors around here do realize the harm that can be caused to Wikipedia by allowing your efforts to continue unchecked. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

New message from Ibadibam

Hello, Warshy. You have new messages at Ibadibam's talk page.
Message added 20:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ibadibam (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Yaakov Wa. (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi there

Can you check Jacob Safra talk page please i cited from the book that was published by J. Safra Sarasin. That bank is owned by the safra family it self. So in away or another they were engaged in this book and the information is true because it’s published by safra family. I have more sources for my claims but i cannot put them in the talk page. Testtestes (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I made some comments on the talk page for Jacob Safra. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 00:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Help!

Any help you can provide on Ruach (Kabbalah) would be appreciated. Editor2020 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I learned about it today just by chance from your talk page. Yeah, it looks pretty messy. I am not sure at all that Wikipedia needs such a page, but I will look more into it as time allows me. Thank you, and kudos for all your work here! warshy ^(¥¥) 20:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, 8 years. Time goes by... Thank you very much Gerda! warshy ^(¥¥) 18:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Yep, I read the Obituary for her in the Signpost yesterday, after you posted the link on her talk page. Impressive. Thanks again. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow!

Dear Warshy,

In regards to this edit. Wow! Next thing I know, I will be seeing you waving a yellow flag in 770!

Blessings,

Yaakov W.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to with your metaphor. I'd be surprised if we used the same metaphors to try and describe reality. Not that I care that much anyhow. Your popping up here with ad hoc comments looks to me similar to your whole endeavor on Wikipedia: completely out of the blue (to use a different metaphor). Or should I say straight out of the deceased guy's mouth? In any case, the less the better is still my feeling. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 00:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

abimael guzman

Um, excuse me, but why did you revert my edit on Abimael Guzma. Keep it please, it is a fact. It has sources. Thanks Mausebru (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Mausebru, the edit as it was did not have any sources. If you have sources, then re-add the info with the sources. It also added a link to a page that does not exist (red link). If you are starting such a page, you should have it approved before you add the link. I also thought I had explained all that in my edit summary. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

warshy okay, but is it ok to use another Wikipedia page as a source? Mausebru (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Use the colon to indent your new replies, so the thread of the exchange/conversation becomes more readily understandable. The other page you are linking your new sentence to is NOT the source (Wikipedia pages are not sources for other Wikipedia articles/pages), it is just an internal link. The statement/sentence you add should have its own reference/source on the page where you are adding it. If needed, a statement in the other WP page you are linking to, could also use the same source. I hope this helps. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Exodus

Goodmorning. I decided to consult you because I wanted to avoid a pointless bickering and edit conflict. I want you to know that I am no fundamentalist and I don't believe the Exodus happened in the way described by the Bible (although I do believe there is an historical core, as do the majority of scholars). In any case, that is not the point: I think the page kinda contradicts itself by first saying that "a majority of scholars believe that there is some historicity in the story of the Exodus (and quoting professor Faust)" and then saying that "the majority of scholars have abandoned its research". What do you think? Can we reformulate the phrase so that the ambiguity is eliminated?verifu --Karma1998 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"Some historicity" (also rather vague, undefined) is something very different from "there is an historical core," IMO, as the long recent discussions on the "The Exodus" talk page show. You should review these discussions before starting to edit in this area. I think this page should be completely in line with that one. If the statement that the majority of scholars have abandoned its research is verifiably and reliably sourced it should not be changed. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your Opinion

There is a discussion on Talk:Revelry of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai which I think you may be interested in seeing.Davidbena (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Clod

Thanks for your thanks... 3 bib refs should avoid a tag...! Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Eebahgum Yes, I hope so. I thanked you because I've found very few people here interested in Samuel Hartlib or his son-in-law. I had actually missed the relationship until your update made me aware of it. That really the reason I thanked you in the first place. Thank you again, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Warshy, you may also therefore like the connections which appeared when I was trying to tune up John Stoughton (priest), who had various links to Hartlib. Stoughton was evidently a coordinating collector (in England) for the Puritan cause in Massachusetts, but also communicating with John Dury via Hartlib. Stoughton is interesting as the stepfather of an eminent and humane colonist James Cudworth (colonist), and of the great Platonist and Master of Christ's College Camb Ralph Cudworth, and for being in cahoots with Sir Thomas Wroth (died 1672), whose wife Margaret (Rich) was a cousin of Mary (Cudworth's mother and Stoughton's first wife). I expect you already know all this, but in case not, I share the fruits of my scanty knowledge! As to the Clod piece, all I did was improve the references in someone else's article. I arrived at Clod by accident. Kind regards, Eebahgum (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Eebahgum Thank you again. My primary interest is 17th Millenarianism, and in that area my focus is on Hartlib, John Dury, Henry Jessey, and Henry Oldenburg. Dury was a close friend (they studied together at Leiden University before they got settled and started their careers), and had strong connections to Peter Serrarius, and Adam Boreel in Amsterdam. Stoughton, whom I was unaware of, and Ralph Cudworth are of interest too, so thank you for sharing the fruits of your knowledge. Improving the references is an important part of building Wikipedia, so thank you for your work. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case, don't miss the wonderful William Oughtred, who as teacher of Thomas Henshaw (alchemist) led me to Alkahest, and thence to Clod. I think you might also find the article on Zechariah Symmes amusing, for which I claim almost 100% authorship! One of my purple passages... Eebahgum (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Looked at those, and the whole period is extremely interesting. But it looks to me that you are branching off from London to Massachussetts Bay, whereas I am branching off from London to Amsterdam and to the Mediterranean. Nice work on the Symmes article, kudos! warshy ^(¥¥) 18:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... Hello,

I tried the Tea House with help for setting up archiving for this page [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1113], but did not get the help I was expecting. I was going to go next to the Village Pump with the same request for help, but maybe this way is shorter and better? Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 17:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This was the content of my original request on the Tea House, that did not get any real answers there: I'd like to set up numbered archives from the beginning for a period of 5 years for each archive. I mean, activity on my talk page is definitely not something that happens very ofter at all, and I intend to keep it that way. So far, it's been 15 years and the whole page is not unmanageable yet. But it is getting a bit too long, and I've been reading about it, trying to set it up by myself first. But I'm sure the task is much simpler for one the 'wizards' around here. Would someone here be able to set it up like that for me? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello warshy, honestly not sure something like that is possible with the existing bots, but if you are willing to do it manually, it should be pretty easy. Yearly archives or numbered archives are the easiest. Just let me know what you are looking for. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello SamStrongTalks, and Thank you! Yes, this is what I am looking for: numbered archives by year. Except, the traffic on this page is SO sporadic, that if I did it by year, there would be years with no archives, and other years with just one or two threads on them... That's why I thought about dividing it in periods of 5 years, instead. But if that is not possible, I guess I should do it manually, creating 2 manual numbered archives for everything that is here above? How would I do that? Thanks a lot for your help! warshy ^(¥¥) 18:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll create the first one for you, but it really is pretty straight forward. If you can edit pages, you can manually archive. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please. Go ahead and create a first archive that includes everything, from the beginning (2006), and up to the end of 2015. Then we would see if there is need for a second one from 2016 to the present? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I started before reading this message. Let me know if this is what you were thinking, can still tweak it. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a rather small one. Thank you! Can you still tweak it to include forward, up to the end of 2015? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Two ways to do that really. I can move the page so the name includes 2015, or we can just move stuff to it disregarding the name.

Or we could move the page to "Archive 1" and you just maintain the year listing in the archive box at the top. This would also allow you to use the autoarchiving tools/bots as well, if you want to. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! So I guess the second option. After you do it I'll look at it (the part with the year listing would then be clearer to me), and decide how to proceed. Thank you again! warshy ^(¥¥) 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! Drop by my talk page or ping me here if you have any questions. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot for all the help SamStrongTalks. Just so I understand a little better. By the end of this year, when I want to create my second archive (2016-2021), how exactly would I proceed? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing special about archive pages. You just create a subpage of the current one. You could do that by opening the archive we just created and edit the url to be a "2" instead of a "1" and then create the page. Other than that you are just copying and pasting the wiki text from this page on to that page and then deleting the text from this one. There are tools to make that more automated, but they are doing anything special. You might want to copy the template I put at the top of the archive page to the next archive as well. Though you could also create that page now and just move stuff there as you want to clean up. No requirement to do all of it at once, etc.

To create a link to it, you just need to add another line in the template at the top of the page. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

All I see at the top of the archive page is the [{Archive}] template. Is that the one you mean I should put at the top of the new archive page I create manually? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, not much to it, just adds that header telling people it is an archive.SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks a lot! I think I understand the basics of creating the sub-page manually and then cutting and pasting what I want there. I will try to proceed by myself sometime in the near future, and if I get into a mess I may try to ping you back. Otherwise, just thanks a lot again for all your help up to this point! warshy ^(¥¥) 20:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Purity

You wrote "I would defintely [sic] spend some time trying to improve the purified, remanining [sic] article."

Wikipedia doesn't do purity. The article title is not "Shem HaMephorash in Judaism". We have an explanation of the meaning of NPOV as applied to religion. Read it and weep. Skyerise (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skyerise: while I agree that "purified" was a particularly bad choice of words there, citing WP:RNPOV on Warshy is uncalled for, and the "read it and weep" comment borderline harassment. Let's just try and play nice. Also, having an article called Shem HaMephorash in Judaism would be akin to having an article called Trinity in Christianity (with the Trinity article of course being largely devoted to the Trinitarian perspectives in alchemy). You appear not to be aware of the fact that the concept of Shem ha-Mephorash lies at the heart of Jewish theology and much predates (Jewish) Kabbalah, let alone Christian or Hermetic Kabbalah. The latter's use of the concept is what some pessimists would call cultural appropriation, though I prefer to see this in a more positive light. Anyways, let's try to have a constructive and respectful discussion about these issues. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Apaugasma. I agree with you again. But I am a also a pessimist and I think there is indeed a lot of "cultural appropriation," as defined there, going on around (Jewish) Kabbalah in general and and around the specific issues that prompted the current accusations here. I agree that "purified" might have been "a particularly bad choice of words there." What I meant to say is that I hope that applying the WP policies of what is due or undue on a certain subject we can "separate the wheat from the chaff" on that specific article and subject. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Christianity is guilty of cultural appropriation. My personal "Bible" contains neither the wrongly-titled "Old Testament" nor the writings of Paul. Neither is really necessary or useful in understanding the teachings of the Gospels. I understand that I've thrown out 7/8ths of the book, leaving 1/8. I'm technically an eighthiest. Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't even spent the time checking what you do here. I don't have the foggiest what you are and I don't care. I've just seen all the noise you've been making about fringe stuff on this particular page, and I don't like it. So I guess we do not have much to talk about, and you can please keep off of here from now on. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Names of God in Judaism

Hi Warshy, I am confused with your edit summaries because Pipsally was in fact blocked as sock. This article just happens be on my watchlist, probably from reverting vandalism at some point, so admittedly I am not familiar with the history of what is going on. Can you provide a brief explanation? If it is too complicated, that's fine as well. S0091 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with S0091. I don't know what Warshy is saying. Additionally, he accused this user of being a sock. Maybe he is just confused? In any case, an explanation is required.155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the warning you left, IP. There is no reason to believe Warshy was acting in anything other than good faith and may have a valid reason which may simply be a misunderstanding. S0091 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

S0091, just look at the recent editing on that page, since this IP started editing there. He is removing longstanding referenced material, simply blanking a whole section that has been there stably. This cannot be right. I had seen Pipsally's editing on a different page, and he did not look to me to be a sock. I may be wrong on that, but the IP tendentious editing on this page cannot continue. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, warshy. 155.246.151.38, now looking at the history of the article, it does appear the removal of this text started back in at least 2020 (see March 13th 2020) so even though Pipsally was a sock they may have been correct (tricky, for sure). I think warshy may have some helpful historical knowledge. Warshy, it would be very valuable to post a note on the talk page so it is available for other editors in the future as this is likely to happen again. 155.246.151.38 and any other editors can engage there. Thanks again. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh and 155.246.151.38, please consider reverting yourself given warshy's concerns above. Both of you were acting in good faith based on the knowledge you two had at the time but warshy's concerns are valid. (Don't let socks cause any more disruption than they do already). S0091 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You are now a pending changes reviewer!

Hi Warshy! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.

Please keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

• A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
• A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
• Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
• You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
• Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page - I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Oshwah for your confidence. I must confess I wasn't expecting such an honor, and I will have to, with time, to study carefully your instructions above, and make sure I can undertand how to use the new tool appropriately. Thank you again! warshy ^(¥¥) 23:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) It's really not that difficult to understand and get the hang of; you'll be proficient with the tool in no time at all. Like I said above, it's pretty straight-forward. :-) Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The ANI discussion about you

The IP user who filed the ANI report looks to be on their way to a possible WP:BOOMERANG. However, I just wanted to take a moment and talk to you about accusing other users of being a sock puppet. I highly advise not doing that, and for many reasons. To speak in general: Users should never be accusing other users of being a sock puppet on Wikipedia. If they have evidence supporting such a claim, they should file a report at SPI with that evidence so that it can be investigated and handled.

Directly accusing other users of being a sock puppet serves absolutely no good or helpful purpose in any context. Let's say that the accuser is correct and the user being accused is a sock puppet... You just let the sock user know that you're onto them and that their "cover is blown", and they now have an opportunity to make another account or switch IPs before they get blocked, which will make enforcing the matter much more difficult for administrators. Now, let's say that the accuser is not correct and that the user being accused is not a sock puppet. Well, now the accuser just looks like an ass - especially when it comes back that they're wrong. :-) You see what I'm getting at when I say that making accusations like that does no good? Of course it doesn't... it only makes things worse no matter how you look at it. ;-)

Anyways, I told the IP user that the best way to handle their grievance is to politely ask you not to make those kinds of accusations toward them. I figured I'd just leave you a message about it in order to encourage you to refrain from doing that in the future. Like I said, it only makes matters worse or more difficult to handle. :-) That's all I had to say! I hope you have a great day, I wish you happy editing, and I hope that the ANI discussion comes to a positive and peaceful close. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice Oshwah. This is the first time this has happened to me in 16 years of editing WP. But I think your advice is correct and good, certainly, and I will try my best to refrain from doing it again. Thanks again for all your help and advice. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You bet; always happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge Request

Hi, Warshy. There is currently a discussion on whether or nor King's Garden (Jerusalem) should be merged with Silwan. Can you please interject your opinion there?--Davidbena (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, as I have explained to you previously (or at least tried to) I don't participate in any discussions that are directly or indirectly related to the I/P conflict. Any debates in that area are only part of the overall political warfare, and I am not here for any warfare, not even political warfare. The archeology of the land is an area that is at least indirectly related to the conflict, and I will keep my hand completely out of it for as long as I can. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, Warshy. Here, we're talking exclusively about a historical site. The King's Garden has absolutely nothing to do with the I/P conflict.Davidbena (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I'm keeping my hand out of there. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks for your kind words about my proposed edit! I don't know much about awards and things, but I feel like you deserve this:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being an encouraging, noble editor! Voteins (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Voteins (talk · contribs) Wow! I tried to give a few of these out over the year, but this is the first one I get myself. Thank you! Thanks for your hard work on the Masoretic Text page. I commented on the talk there on your latest edits, and I agree that your suggetions were good and they did indeed improve the page. Thanks a lot again for all the work, and for your kindness there and here. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Shabbethaī Sevi

Hey I don’t know if you still need this but my library reopened and I was able to get a scan of the microfilm. Wiki mail me for a pdf of the pamphlet. Umimmak (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Umimmak. Thank you so much for still remembering this request even after all this time. I just sent you an email through WP, hope you get it. Thank you so much again for all your efforts on getting this important resource to me! Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, got your email; PDF has been Sent Umimmak (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Got the PDF and it works 100%. It is everything I needed. Thank you so much again! never mind warshy ^(¥¥) 21:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Chufut-Kale

The funny thing is, I know this Turkish word from Romanian, and I wonder: does chufut really mean Jewish? Either it's not exactly the same word, or it really doesn't look good :) Just look here, in the Romanian dictionary:

CIUFÚT [reads exactly like "chufut" in English] 1. stingy, cheap (person). 2. Moody, grumpy (person). 3. Moneylender, usurer, loan shark. – From Turkish çıfıt.

It's normally used nowadays only as a synonym for grumpy, but how much better does it make it? Anyway, see you in Grumpy Castle. Cheers, Arminden (talk)

Arminden, the only thing that may ring a bell is that "cheap," "stingy," "moneylender," "usurer," "loan shark" are all stereotypes that are usually applied to or associated with Jews in Eastern (and Western) European societies. I any case, since the 1830 Crimean Karaites started a concerted effort to separate themselves from the Jews, and to get recognized by the Russian Imperial authorities as "non-Jewish," i.e. as a Middle Easter race that did not have anything to do with the killing of Christ. They eventually succeeded in this endeavor, toward the end of the 19th century. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The only "good" thing is that I never knew it's a Turkish word for 'Jew', just that it's an old, funny sounding word for 'grumpy'. It has lost all antisemitic connotations long ago.

I read up and the etymology is Aramaic yhd, so yahud or smth like that - jhd in ancient Persian - çıfıt (chıfıt) in Ottoman Turkish, later çufut (chufut). So y→j→ch, h→f, d→t. A long way, that's why it never occurred to me where it might come from. But that's secondary, the slanderous aspect is the main one here, and it's nice to see that nobody other than some philologists knows about it nowadays. Arminden (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations and clarifications. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't mention. The point is that it actually made me smile, the rest is Google & too much time on my hands. The Romanians probably mainly took to the word because the end syllable is identical to the very frequently used native sexual expletive, and the first four letters build another funny word for 'shock of hair'. What comes up in one's mind is an angry person with a wild & disorderly hairdo. The rest was probably an inconsequential bonus. The world according to Romanian speakers :) Arminden (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The zitz im leben of the Romanians in Eastern Europe brings up some interesting insights: they speak a Latin language but live in the middle of a storming Slavic ocean. The turks to the south apparently do provide some support. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

!important

Would you mind removing the !important from your signature? It is harmful for inline styles to have !important in them for users who might want to do, well, anything for signatures in their own CSS. I don't really see a reason for it to be there at all. IznoPublic (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I was never aware it was there to begin with, and I have no idea what it does. I will try to remove it. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I just removed it. I will try to sign now and see what it does to my signature... warshy ^(¥¥) 19:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

On the surface it does not appear to have changed anything, so you should be all set. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

IznoPublic, I'removed it and tested it, and no changes in the function and appearance of the sig could be seen or detected. I have no idea how the parameter got in there to begin with, but it is now removed, tested, and you should be all set with your request. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! The directive means "override any other styles applied to this element for this specific rule (which was font color in this case), even if those styles are more specific (unless those styles themselves also have !important)". Which can make it problematic for when you would want to change the color of all signatures on talk pages for yourself, for example. IznoPublic (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't bothered with color changes since I first created it, and I don't foresee myself bothering about it any time soon. I should be OK without it, I guess. Thank you again and be well! warshy ^(¥¥) 20:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think what Izno means is that if another editor wanted to change the look of all signatures as he/she saw them then !important would stop them doing that. SpinningSpark 12:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Classical element

Thank you for thanking me for my edits at Talk:Classical element. What would be more useful is you commenting directly on the page. That would help to establish whether or not we have a consensus. SpinningSpark 12:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I will comment if/whenever I think I have something to add to the conversation. I support the removal of the unreferenced material in the vein of what you and Apaugasma have been suggesting. At this point it does not look to me that I need to register my support on the talk page there, as both of you agree. If/when I feel I have something to add I will comment there. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 12:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Lots of vandals... once in a while I get it wrong. Thanks for the fix! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 23:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Closure of Amedeo Modigliani RfC

The discussion in this RfC about Amedeo Modigliani seems to be over. I am not sure how to proceed to close it, any suggestion? Sansgloire (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sansgloire, As the editor who opened the RfC, I did not imagine you would be the one to close it? I think the other Admin that was participating in the discussions would be better perhaps to ask and to maybe close it, if he agrees that it should be closed now. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant Martinevans123. I am not sure he is an Admin, but he surely looked to me like one... :<). Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That's what I meant, I wasn't sure who is supposed to close it since I shouldn't be the one. I'll try to ask Martinevans123, thank you. Sansgloire (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)