User talk:Yehoishophot Oliver

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Hirschsprung

I made a page for Rabbi Pinchas Hirschsprung, I cant find much info for him though, would you have any good references? Gavhathehunchback (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worked a bit on the article. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over time the page for Rabbi Pinchas Hirschsprung has been completely cleaned of all references to his close connection to Chabad and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. I have posted information that is quickly removed because I don't have acceptable sources that document this relationship.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, bli neder I'll work on it. Thanks for pointing it out. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Again

I made a Chabad Niggunim page and I ran into notability problems again. I tried putting third-party references, but it got flagged again for deletion. It seems like an administrator took off the flag, so it might not be in trouble anymore, but please revise it and add as much as possible. Thanks.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Chabad Leader

I am new to wikipedia and I am running into trouble trying to make new articles about Chabad personalities. How can I establish their notability? My page on Menucha Rachel Slonim was already deleted for lack of notability and my page on Reb Mendel Futerfas might also be deleted. Gavhathehunchback (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You prevent such issues by quoting from multiple original sources. :) Please let me know if you have any other areas in which you need assistance. You can also email me using the "E-mail this user" feature on the left side of my user page. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I was actually planning to start this page for a while, but you beat me to it.:)Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new article on Rebbetzin Menucha Rachel Slonim, when you get a chance, please look it over so it doesn't get deleted.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad-Lubavitch

Yehoishophot (or is it Oliver?): I have reverted your last edit of Chabad-Lubavitch. The expression 'previous rebbe' (or frierdiker in Yiddish) is not a title – it just means what it says. It is the norm amongst chasidim (not only Chabad) to refer to the current rebbe as der rebbe shlito or der hayntiker rebbe and the most recent rebbe as der rebbe zikhroinoi livrokho or der frierdiker rebbe. – Redaktor 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netzarim

Hello Yehoishophot Oliver,

I left a message for you on Talk:Netzarim, but essentially, no matter how you may feel about a topic, all entries must be verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Let me know if you have any questions, Tewfik^Talk 06:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I've responded there. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disengagement plan

Please stop making blatant POV edits to articles concerning Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, especially using various forms of the word 'expel', a word which indicates condemnation of the events (see more here). You might be angry about it, but Wikipedia is a place for facts not opinions. Number 57 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tzniut

I reverted your edit. The edit violates our WP:NPOV policy, which prohibits presenting a single POV as fact, and wasn't supported by any sources. It is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia to present, as fact, that points of view different from yours are wrong. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User Talk Page

Would appreciate your taking a moment to review the WP:USER policy, particularly

As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see also Right to vanish).

Best, --Shirahadasha 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Sexuality

Shavua Tov! I reverted your edit to this article because you removed {{fact}} tag without supplying a source. COuld you supply a source for the statement about love of the body in Judaism? Best, --Shirahadasha 12:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide laws

I want to encourage you not to remove well-sourced materials that you disagree with, this could cause difficulties. A number of statements you removed were well-sourced. Reform Judaism sometimes seeks converts, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned not seeking them is only "generally" the case. Likewise, we know reliably that Maimonides and "the Medieval sage Nissim of Gerona" disagreed about whether Islam was a Noahide religion. But whether the Maimonides' opinion disagrees with his own Mishnah Torah, as you wrote, is a matter of opinion; a Wikipedia editor's own opinion is not a reliable source for what Maimonides would think his own work would say about a particular case, particularly when we know Maimonides himself actually applied it differently. I'd like to encourage you not to attempt to Poskin on Wikipedia; the fact that a classical authority said something doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only possible position or that everyone agrees, then or now. --Shirahadasha 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 1. Why are you posting here and not on the talk page there? 2. Reform is not Judaism. 3. "Well-sourced"?! No source was quoted for this absurd claim about the Rambam vs. the Ran. The meaning of the phrase Noahide religion must be qualified, which is exactly what I did. If other poskim disagreed, then it behooves whoever argues that that was so to quote his exact source. Yehoishophot Oliver 21:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you edited the Kabbalah article

I saw that you edited the aforementioned article, I invite you to join my new wikiproject Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah. Thanks. Lighthead 23:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broyde category/ies

Hi. Perhaps my summary comment wasn't clear. I mean to say that, if you would like to remove the categories I've proposed (and I feel substantiated) please discuss it first on the talk page for the article. Or you can just contact me on my talk page, as you started to do, which is fine. Thanks. Kol tuv, "HG | Talk" 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Judaism template

I noticed that on the Eruv article and a number of others, you replaced the Judaism template with an Orthodox Judaism template. I would recommend that before replacing templates in this manner, please place a notice on both Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and give the community an opportunity to discuss it. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! --Shirahadasha 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yehoishophot Oliver: Welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with User:Shirahadasha's concerns, you cannot do something so radical without first consulting some more experienced editors. IZAK 06:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Orthodox Judaism

Template:Orthodox Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad template.

The {{Chabad sidebar}} template looks like pure Chabad propaganda. Why isn't there a CONTROVERSY section in it to balance out all the schmaltz? This Wikipedia and not Chabad.org! See Template talk:Chabad#Controversy? and I would like to remind you to note the following rules:

Take care, IZAK 13:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert rule

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Jewish denominations. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. nadav (talk)

I hear what you are saying. Note that I didn't repeatedly undo others' edits, I undid their reversions of my edits, without discussion on the talk page. The only reason that they're not getting this message from you is that several people reverted me, not just one, so no other single person violated this rule.Yehoishophot Oliver 04:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit

I wouldn't call the word "denominations" a "blatant POV." I don't think your version is better or worse than the previous one, but it has become conventional to refer to Orthodox, Conservative, etc. as "denominations." The use of that word does not mean they are all equally legitimate: as an Orthodox Jew, I believe Orthodoxy is the only legitimate form of religious worship. But for Wikipedia, legitimacy is not the issue. The question is, do all these groups exist and claim to be a part of Jewish society, and the answer is yes. Yechiel Man 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what that it's conventional in some--i.e., non-Orthodox--circles to refer to Reform and Conservative as denominations? That simply reflects their POV to legitimise these religions. The issue here is not what they claim, but how their claim is presented. If they always make it clear that Orthodox Judaism considers them a heretical deviation, but they consider themselves legit., then they're at least being honest. But to call themselves, or for us to call them, denominations, implies clearly that they're legit., which is strongly disputed. Thus, it is clearly a fundamentally POV term. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm afraid I doubt you're going to get much support from other Wikipedia editors on this one. What if Reform Jews started objecting to the word "Orthodox" (which is greek for "correct belief" on the ground that it is POV for Wikipedia to use a word that implies a belief is correct? What if, whenever the beliefs of Orthodox Jews were mentioned, they insisted that Wikipedia add the phrase "but many Reform Jews consider this nothing more than a bunch of hokey myths and taboos" in order to make clear that they don't consider Orthodox Judaism legit? If you insist on doing this for Reform Judaism, what's to stop them from doing something similar for Orthodox Judaism? It would make a mishmash out of Wikipedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it doesn't have to be said every time that the names of the groups themselves are mentioned. But in the wording of an article whose very purpose is to define these groups, and it uses the POV word denomination in the article name, it should be pointed out from the outset that this usage is only accepted by some. Yehoishophot Oliver

Auspices Re Yeshivah College Melbourne

For something to be under someone's auspices there must be some level of control at the present time. Menachem Schneerson is dead. Thus he has no control. Either leave it at the "school continued" or it "continues under the chabad lubavitch movement". but continues to be under the auspices of a dead guy is misleading and unencyclopaedic. Also, please do not remove my comments from the article talk page. 58.175.200.168

Do not remove comments from article talk pages or I will report you. 203.49.58.76 05:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not write comments with no signature whatsoever, against wiki etiquette, and expect registered members to put up with it. As for your comment, I have already responded on the talk page there; I don't understand why you see fit to comment here as well. Yehoishophot Oliver 11:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing my comment from the Yeshivah College, Australia talk page. It is a form of vandalism and if you continue i will report you for it. 58.175.201.252 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you seem to have comprehension difficulties: I wrote my reason in the edit summary there, and above right here in my last message, which you surely saw: You violated wiki etiquette by posting with no signature at all. Of course, I can't threaten to report you for that, because you are hiding cowardly. Yehoishophot Oliver 10:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli flag

I have commented at Template talk:WPJewish nav.--DLand ^TALK 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible stub merge

Have you seen Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion? It is being proposed that the Chabad-stub and the Hasidic dynasties-stub be merged into {{Hasidic-Judaism-stub}}. Please make your views known! Chesdovi 10:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yehoishophot Oliver 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your splitting of Template:Jewish holidays

Hi, I noticed that you split Template:Jewish holidays and created Template:Israeli holidays. Please see my comments on Template talk:Jewish holidays regarding my reasons against this split. Previous consensus on this very topic has been to have a single template for both but to split it into sections to appease both sides of the argument. The fact that nobody commented on your proposal to split the articles does not always imply that people are in agreement. In fact, I don't think anyone noticed the proposal. I think we need to revert back to the old method until it is fully discussed, as the previous occasions this has been discussed have been pretty firmly in the single-template camp. A good place to mention the discussion would probably be WP:JEW or on the article for Jewish Holidays itself. You can direct the people on the talk pages therein to the existing discussion in Template talk:Jewish holidays. For now, I think it should be reverted according to the results of the last discussion. Kol tuv, Valley2city 04:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. I proposed it on the relevant page, waited several months, asked again and again if anyone has objections, and no one objected, even as they saw the change being made, until you've come along and objected now. So regardless of old discussions, the current consensus is clearly to split. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider a proposal that doesn't garner any comments whatsoever as "clear consensus". I would sooner claim apathy or ignorance of the proposal to be the reason that there have not been any comments. I have listed a counter proposal on WT:JEW and on the Template talk:Jewish holidays and have not received response on either but I wouldn't consider that consensus in either direction. All I have for past consensus is the compromise made in the past to have a single template split into sections. I don't think changing an established consensused compromise due to nobody else weighing in is the right way to go. Have a Good Shabbos. Valley2city 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar award

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award you with an Original Barnstar after coming across Tefillin Campaign which you created. After expanding extensively on tefillin myself, I was delighted to unexpectedly stumble upon a fine elaboration of the "Tefillin campaign" phenomena and hastily wikilinked it to the tefillin page. Thank you! Chesdovi 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thanking me! :) Yehoishophot Oliver 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notification

Just a notification but you were mentioned at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to add controversial material to Wikipedia unless there is a very reliable source to back it up. See also our policy on biographies of living people. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it in mind, thanks.Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Judaism(In regards to Jewish_views_of_religious_pluralism

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_views_of_religious_pluralism" Peace, I'm trying to learn about Judaic thought on different religions... as a former Christian, that statement about 'Old Testament God of Justice', 'New Testament God of Love'(which was taken by some early Gnostics to claim that it was a lesser God) has been typical in my understanding of Judaism thus my understanding comes from that and in my ignorance that defines my understanding of Judaism..thus in Christianity we see God as have being cruel and yet just for Judaism...could you help lead me to a better understanding of this? as a current Hindu I follow the 'religious pluralism, equal paths' precept..I'm trying to see how Judaism acknowledges other religions in their capability for salvation. Shalom,DomDomsta333 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Judaism doesn't acknowledge other religions as valid, though it recognises that they may contain elements of truth, that stem from Judaism. For non-Jews, Judaism prescribes the Noahide laws. See [www.asknoah.org here]. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Jewis views of religious pluralism article I would say that it mostly represents the views of Conservative Judaism, and tends to avoid both views within Orthodox Judaism which tend to limit a pluralistic view on grounds Jewish choseness, and sources in Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism which discourage a concept of Jewish chosenness as an obstacle to pluralism. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. both of you, reading the Noahide laws, makes me see the importance of moral conduct which is similar to that in many religions...thanks, DomDomsta333 (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad article AFD

Hi: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House and if you can raise the quality of Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help

I create some stubs that need help. Jewish Learning Institute, Vaad Rabonei Lubavitch, and Zelig Sharfstein can you help improve them? Chocolatepizza (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I'll see what I can do. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:431px-Zevin.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:431px-Zevin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 04:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I did my best to credit it. I posted the information from Hebrew wikipedia. What do I have to do that I didn't do? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Issue with Tefillin campaign

I noticed that you created and had been editing this page, but 90% of the material appears to be a direct word-for-word copy of this article. You might want to take a look at WP:NFC for issues regarding including copyrighted works in Wikipedia. The linked article would be fine as a source, but it needs to be cited rather than being copied into the article. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist offencive

Hello! Rabbi or Mr. Yehoishophot Oliver. I am relativelly new in the Wikipedia, but I see that the Zionists made themselves very comfortable here, and are attacking everyone that believes different then them. I have created the Yishuv haYashan article, which is something important historically speaking. I see they are trying to remove any information about the Haredim who didn't participate in the Zionist movement. Furthermore the whole history of the Yishuv haYashan Kollelim was ignored but instead an article about Halukka in a negative spotlight. They are trying to persuade that all those who did for our brothers in Eretz Yisroel were Zionists. I would suggest that we incorporate in a WikiProject:Yishuv haYashan or WikiProject:Torah Judaism in order to clearify the facts.

HagiMalachi (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you much success in your campaign to prevent cover-up of religious involvement in resettling Eretz Yisroel, but I'm not convinced that the Yishuv warrants a separate WikiProject. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, ~~barnstars~~, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD on Christianity and Judaism

Hi! I see that you were one of the participants in the recent AfD on the article Christianity and Judaism. That AfD recommended (in a snowball result) that the article be merged into Judeo-Christian. However, since the AfD concerns have been raised, most notably

Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.) That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion [his emphasis], then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.

Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), LisaLiel (talk · contribs) and SkyWriter (talk · contribs).

This post is therefore to let you know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion, with a view to perhaps setting aside the AfD decision.

Of course, some significant issues were raised in the AfD about the article in its present form, so the best way forward is a question that needs some thought. Please feel welcome to come and participate! Jheald (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lipkin's book

I saw you said that you have read parts of Lipkin's book. If you have a change, could you specify link [34] in Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I only new the copies the the Renne's wills are somewhere in chapters 3 and 4, but actual page numbers would be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the English of the first will is translated in ch. 3 and the Hebrew of the second will is written up in Hebrew in ch. 4, but the actual original copies of the documents are at the end. I've added the exact references. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we both have the same book? the page numbers you added to the article do not have the documents in my book, they (originals) are at pages 63-64 and 81-82 in my book. Shlomke (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says in mine in the front that it's "the second edition, with additions and corrections." So perhaps you have the first edition. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is likely. There were two editions in the same year. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible and homosexuality

After you pointed my attention to your conflict with User:Lisa in The Bible and homosexuality I made an edit to that paragraph, introducing some NPOV language. I hope both of you will be able to live with this edit. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tzniut

I am certainly open to discussion. In fact, I will take the opportunity to lay out my point. The primary source for the issue in contention is the talmud which states that covering hair is "dat" yisrael. The translation of dat is nothing other than practice or custom, certainly NOT jewish law or halacha. This is plain and simple. In fact juxtaposed to the above referenced segment of misha where the practice is called a tradition is a whole list of various other traditions including that a women shouldnt yell loudly. The text of the mishna states that that if a married women does not cover her hair then her husband can divorce her without payment of ketubah sum as a matter of contractual law. There is no plausible reading of the text to argue that it is an "obligation" "requirement" or any such misleading and inaccurate terms. If my objectors are to believed then it would follow that this is a matter of jewish law as well, which seems rather absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldsultan (talk • contribs) 02:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, das means law. That's why he can divorce her and she forfeits her kesuba if she doesn't do it, because it's a strict obligation--i.e., law, not just custom. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the phrase dat yisrael that Haroldsultan "quotes" does not appear there. It is obvious from the above that he has never actually looked at the section of Talmud in question. If he had he would know that it explicitly says that: 1) going out with uncovered hair is deoraita; 2) dat yehudit (not "yisrael") forbids her from going out in public with hair covered only by a basket (but that this is allowed in a private or semi-public area); and 3) that kolanit means a woman who speaks with her husband about their intimate lives so loudly that the neighbours can hear, and that is indeed forbidden by law. -- Zsero (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Public menorah

An article that you have been involved in editing, Public menorah, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe407 (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Tefillin campaign

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Tefillin campaign meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign

I have nominated Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Noahide Campaign

I have nominated Noahide Campaign, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noahide Campaign. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ohel Chana

A tag has been placed on Ohel Chana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Beth Rivkah Ladies College

A tag has been placed on Beth Rivkah Ladies College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is absurd, as this is an established private school. I've responded on the talk page there. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Reb

The article Reb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article not necessary. This can be placed in the Rabbi article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

This is a general warning to all users involved in recent COIN and ANI discussions. Please stop talking about other users mental status, mental health or their person. As the WP:CIVILITY policy says, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and WP:NPA which states: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people". I am drawing a line under what has been said to this point so you all right now have a clean slate, but I intend to start blocking users on both sides of the dispute who continue engaging in violations of the behavioural policies so please accept this as a final warning. Thanks, Sarah 05:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where I said such a thing. I think you are confusing me with another editor. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; my comment at the arbcom case was intended to define the "sides" as Izak on the one hand and everyone arguing with him on the other, and not to imply that you accused anyone of mental illness. My apologies for the imprecise language. Even the diff I provided doesn't really paint you in a bad light, after looking at it again, especially in contrast to the other things being thrown around, and I think the arbitrators will see that. If you would like me to make an explicit correction for clarity in my evidence section I will do that. Sincerely, Kaisershatner (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please correct it. Thanks in advance. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kol Menachem

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kol Menachem. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kol Menachem. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad movement evidence

Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hello Yehoishophot Oliver: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are reminded to keep in mind Wikipedia policies, and seek content-dispute resolution if collaboration between editors breaks down. Editors are also reminded to continue editing in good faith. No enforcement motions are included in the final decision, but a request may be made to reopen the case should the situation deteriorate.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yeshivah Gedolah Zal

Howdy. After you undid an edit of mine, I've posted on the article talk page. I'd like to hear your thoughts but let's keep the discussion all in one place. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Rubashin article and AfD

Hi Yehoishophot Oliver: Because of your interest in this topic, you will hopefully be able to upgrade the Sholom Rubashkin article and add a balanced WP:NPOV to this important biography. You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholom Rubashkin. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmee Schneersohn

To answer your question about why an article about her. In a recent book just published about The Lubavitcher Rebbe, she is mentioned as one of 3 people, cousins of the Rebbe, who were living in Paris, and had an influence on his choosing to come to Paris in 1933 and remaining in France for about 8 years. (Highland14 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A passing influence that is highly speculative by a highly slanted biographer does not qualify as notability. Again, lineage in and of itself doesn't make one notable. The Rebbe's cousin, the poet Zelda, is highly notable independent of her lineage; in the article on her, that lineage is notable. However, that lineage alone doesn't make her notable. So, too, here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are very judgmental. That's not what Wikipedia is all about. When you speak about the highly slanted biographer, you show your true colors. I read the book. I doubt, you did. (Highland14 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That biographer is highly slanted, but here is not the place to discuss it; it's really irrelevant. Even if the report in the book is totally accurate, that alleged episode combined with this woman's lineage still does not suffice to warrant a stand-alone article according to accepted standards of Wikipedia. To put it simply--this woman did not accomplish anything of note, not poetry like the Rebbe's other cousin, and not anything else. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you don't get it. How can you say that this woman is not notable, if she had an influence in the move to Paris of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. You are going to tell me that that move had not an importance in the Rebbe's life. Again, your judgment about the biography makes no sense. You have not read it. You just show your bias. There is no place for that in Wikipedia. (Highland14 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It is surmised that she influenced a decision along with two other people. So what? I can tell you scores of people whom the Rebbe said in some way influenced his decisions; that doesn't in an of itself make them notable. Does every person who influences the decision of a notable personage warrant a stand-alone article detailing their non-notable lives? I think not. Again, this has nothing to do with the biography per se; even if the report is accurate, it doesn't prove that this woman is notable. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. You mix up things. It's very interesting that now you omit to speak about the reference, which confirms that you never read it. Your judgment is just a biased judgment. (Highland14 (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Accusations of NPOV violating WP:AGF are not appreciated. You have not responded to my point at all, as far as I'm concerned. We shall see what other editors think. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You dared make a judgment about a book, and in what terms, that you have not read. It shows on what you based your evaluation. Your opinion is biased. You are not listening to any argument. On my part, I have no intention to continue talking to the wall and will cease communicating with you. (Highland14 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The feeling is mutual. See you in afd. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As reviewing administrator, I thought the nature of the AfD discussion had so far degenerated that, invoking IAR, I thought it advisable to close, blank, and relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Édmée Schneerson (2nd nomination). I'm sorry that you'll have to give the argument over again, but see my note at the AfD 2. and as a hint, if you wish to challenge reliability of a PUP book, you needs some sources, such as reviews. And please avoid mentioning other matters than the article in question. I find it helps to avoid the word "you" and "I". And I see you had the good judgment to get out of the discussion before it really became disgraceful. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Book about Itche der masmid.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Book about Itche der masmid.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Book about Itche der masmid.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Book about Itche der masmid.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Book about Itche der masmid.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Book about Itche der masmid.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 23:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Nissan Neminov, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Nissan Neminov" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Zalman Serebryanski, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Zalman Serebryanski" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad messianism

Can you please explain what you did here? Why add {{Citation needed}} if a source is provided on the spot? -- -- -- 23:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I missed that. I checked the current version, and it seems that the request for citations have been since removed. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I removed the request. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't misunderstand your intention.

כתיבה וחתימה טובה

-- -- -- 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schneersohn dynasty

Category:Schneersohn dynasty, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP article: "Festival-day (Jewish)"

User:Yehoishophot Oliver, shalom. As of yesterday, there was no specific article on Wikipedia dealing with the specific Jewish festivals known as a "Festival-day" (Yom-Tov). That means 15-years of Wikipedia without an article on the Jewish "Festival-day." This prompted me to write an article yesterday on the subject, which you can read here: Festival-day (Jewish), but now a person has wrongly suggested that it be deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival-day. Can you please interject here and voice your opinion whether or not the article should be deleted, as your view is important here, I would think. It's urgent.Davidbena (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I missed this. --Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yehoishophot Oliver. 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)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ohel Chana

The article Ohel Chana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability, no independent sources provided. I couldn't turn up any reliable source coverage at all. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and doesn't qualify under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as it's not independently accredited and does not appear to confer degrees.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article

Shalom, I can see that you haven't been heavily active for a while on Wikipedia, but maybe you would be interested in adding your opinion to the recent changes at Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh's page and commenting at the talk page. 238-Gdn (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yehoishophot Oliver. 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)[reply]

Please resolve this problem on the Meiniach article

Please see the issue on Talk:Meiniach. I hope you can do something about it. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yehoishophot Oliver. 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)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Book 3d.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Book 3d.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yom Hillula

The article Yom Hillula has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page contains no cited information whatsoever and is entirely composed of extremely inaccurate original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]