User talk:IZAK/Archive 4

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Holocaust Denial

In addition to the Jew article, please note that Alberuni is inserting the identical Holocaust Denial material into Nazi concentration camps and Extermination camp. Jayjg 06:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Usually User:Danny and User:Adam Carr deal with that. IZAK 06:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam refuses to do so any more, and I think Danny is on a Wikibreak. Jayjg 06:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also User:John Kenney, maybe you can beg Adam to intervene he really knows his stuff in this area. But I will look into it. IZAK 06:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also User:GeneralPatton who is very concerned about World War II issues. IZAK 06:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Adam is "adam"ant (excuse the pun) that he is restricting his edits to Australian politics. Jayjg 06:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We should sign a "Petition" to beg him to return to editing Holocaust-related articles and issues at least, he is truly superb in that dept. IZAK 06:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes_for_deletion/Zionist_Revisionism

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zionist_Revisionism Please help inform others of this.--Josiah 00:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deactivated this template placed here by User:Ta bu shi da yu as it was filling the page with too many details. IZAK 06:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

{{User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict}}

Opposing Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK

Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC against Proteus

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. Regards, Jayjg 21:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist categories

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion has two lists of categories related to terrorists up for deletion. Jayjg 20:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problem with template

Hi IZAK, tt wasn't me who created this template. However, I have corrected the problem. --YUL89YYZ 13:16, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou. It may have been MathKnight's template, but when he created the template it was fine, something or someone must have interfered, but thank you for fixing it. IZAK 06:38, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the error

You're right, I meant to put it on the Talk: page. Jayjg 13:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, aka "Thomas Jefferson"

Sam Spade is engaging in historical revisionism on Nazi Germany and Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. --Viriditas 22:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi IZAK

Interested in meeting with other WPans in NYC? Planned for the weekend of Nov 13: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. I hope you can make it... +sj + 21:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a meetup scheduled for December 12 as well. (same link) – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:27, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Categories up for votes of deletion

Thanks for showing me the six categories up for votes of deletion... Out of the six, my priority is getting rid of Category:Jewish terrorist organizations above all. The idea of putting secular and nationalistic organizations like Irgun under this category strikes me as a blatant example of anti-Semitism. 172 12:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

An arbitration request has been opened against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#IZAK regarding your practice of "spamming" messages across user talk pages. -- Netoholic @ 17:02, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Hi Netoholic, it is NOT "spam", see my response at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Response by User:IZAK: I am not "spamming"! This is normal communication for a very active Wikipedia user. Why should you care if I want to communicate with my fellow Judaica and Israel editors. Wikipedia has over 100,000 registred Users see Wikipedia:Wikipedians, and I try to stay in touch with about ten or twenty or thirthy people that I communicate with, that is not "spam" by any standard. Thank you. IZAK 06:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: IZAK RfA

Fred: I see that voting is taking place on my case. Why does that page only cite only the few examples you wrote on it? How do I know that every arbitrator will read everything that relates to the case and not just your one-sentence summaries? Why are you not applying the same standards to HistoryBuffEr in his case, such as suggesting the he be banned for one year? Could you please explain. Thanks. IZAK 05:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would hope, as you would, that the other arbitrators will come to an independent decision after considering all the evidence. Practically, they sometimes follow my lead if they feel comfortable. I am proposing something new with HistoryBuffEr. If you would like the same remedies proposed for him I will try to get them for you, but the other arbitrators may not go along with what is, admittedly, a novel proposal. By the way, look at Ambi's analysis of the situation on the talk page of the proposed decision. I will try to answer it eventually, but I would also welcome your take on it. Fred Bauder 12:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#IZAK

I seconded Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#IZAK. I would be willing to withdraw my support however if you agreed to mediation. I am sincere in this offer, as I am in my concerns. Sam [Spade] 20:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam, it is NOT "spam", see my response at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Response by User:IZAK: I am not "spamming"! This is normal communication for a very active Wikipedia user. Why should you care if I want to communicate with my fellow Judaica and Israel editors. Wikipedia has over 100,000 registred Users see Wikipedia:Wikipedians, and I try to stay in touch with about ten or twenty or thirthy people that I communicate with, that is not "spam" by any standard. Thank you. IZAK 06:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violence against Palestinian Children article

This page does not currently have consensus for delete, and a strong plurality exists to merge the content. Please discuss possible destination articles at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Israeli violence against Palestinian children. Cool Hand Luke 07:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Responses to anti-semitism

What do you think of expressing responses to what you see as anti-semitism as "I feel such and such an edit expresses anti-semitism" rather than "so and so is an anti-semite, and so on"? Fred Bauder 14:12, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Fred: Thank you for contacting me. What you say has already been brought to my attention. It was only about two months ago that my attention was drawn to edits and comments within certain Israel and Jewish related articles and talk pages that evinced clear Anti-Semitism. In my initial haste to respond I responded to what appeared to be the very obvious individual Users' blatant innate personal hostility and hatred of Israel, Zionism and even Judaism in a personal way which I now admit may have been too direct, even though it may be true. Since then I have moderated my approach and I have taken the good advice of a number of Wikipedia Users and Admins and I have not called the objectionable Users by any name (no matter how well deserved it may be), but have instead already been doing what you suggest. So I readily agree with you. However, some of these hostile Users have resorted to using pejoratives such as "Zionistas" or using the label "Zionists" as a kind of "cuss word" akin to "imperialists" which is very disturbing and needs to be addressed as well. Thank you for your concern, and keep me posted. Sincerely, IZAK 03:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, while I assume you are a Zionist, I doubt you are a "Zionist" as anti-semites define it. Fred Bauder 13:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure I would like to know how Anti-Semites truly "define" either Zionist or "Zionist" as to them your use of punctuation and search for semantics actually means nothing, from what I can tell of the way they use this word, with or without qutation marks. IZAK 20:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold

Michael Snow has protected Blankfaze's version of the Dore Gold page, while the consensus on the talk page is in opposition to this version. Please see my comments on this issue. --Viriditas 12:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Please review the poll proposal on Pursuit of Nazi collaborators and discuss accordingly on the talk page. There is no voting as of yet. --Viriditas 20:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't

Do NOT edit my comments in ANY WAY - [1] - even if you believe you are right. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Neto: I did not edit "comments", is adding "[[ ]]" where it should have been an edit? IZAK 05:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is what I mean. Do not change any signed comments at all, unless someone gives you permission. Adding brackets counts, because it changes what I myself posted. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Ah, but those brackets conatined an important link to the problems with Sam Spade's views. Anyhow I was being helpful. IZAK 06:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you don't stop, I will ask for some sort of temporary measure. You cannot add evidence against Sam in your arbitration. Open a separate one. For your own good, concentrate on defending against your actions. -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Since it is Sam that cites his "proofs", I may cite the reasons against him. IZAK 05:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, he did that ONLY to answer The Concutator, not to get involved any further than that. You are best to spend your time defending my charges, rather than continuing to attack Sam. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

I suggest you read my talk page to see netoholics responses to my comments. please try and work things out with him. the longer this drags out, the less time that can be spent on real wikipedi-ing. Xtra 05:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) p.s. don't be too confrontational, it will only hurt your cause. Xtra 05:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

was that comment aimed at me or netoholic? Xtra 05:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xtra, I agree with you, the problem is Netoholic is VERY "trigger happy" when it comes to hauling up people that he does not like or disagrees with for arbitration (in my case he even skipped a "request for Mediation" first). I left him this message on your talk page: "Netoholic: Again, I strongly urge you NOT to be the "prosecutor, Judge, and executioner" as that is not what Wikipedia is for. You have been in many of your own hot disputes, and you always tend to reach for the "arbitration jugular" without fairly contacting and debating other Users you disagree with." IZAK 06:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote on the title for Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. You can vote here. I see you already informally voted, but could you move your vote to the Yes section in the Poll? Thanks. --Viriditas 02:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Please keep me posted. Thank you. IZAK 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. --Viriditas 07:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Responses to Controversy

Unfortunately, I can't comment right now on the various talk pages about the controversies. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while due to uni and various other things and shall come back to editing quite soon - but sifting through thousands of words of controversy from the start will only make me need another break. So, good luck in the meantime, I know these are all important discussions, but I'll contribute an opinion only when I know enough about it which shall probably be soon. Frikle 03:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looking forward to your return soon. All the best to you! IZAK 03:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Munich Massacre

Please add Munich Massacre to your list. Also see the Talk page to see a brief summary of HistoryBuffEr's distortions. --Viriditas 07:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israeli Security Forces

Thank you for your comments. Don't worry, I have no 'agenda'. I'll leave it to you as you know more than I, but can there be a redirect from 'Military of Israel' to the ISF page? Most nations have a 'Military of ...' page, so for those not as familiar with the unique structure of Israeli organization, this might be helpful.

Hi, thank you for your message. By the way, you should sign your messages with four ~~~~. Yes a redirect from Military of Israel to the Israeli Security Forces is probably a good idea. Keep up the good work. IZAK 15:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just taken a look, and there is already a redirect from Military of Israel to Israel Defense Forces which is more accurate. IZAK 15:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further on Military

I understand that Israeli Defense Forces and Israeli Security Forces are different categories. I do think you are right that Israeli Security Forces are not equivalent to 'Military of Israel'. However, Israeli Defense Forces are, and that was what I was asking, and as you noted it exists. The 'Military of ...' convention allows a researcher to access the categories for the military of any nation without having to know the vagaries of a particular nation's naming. Once a researcher reaches the category, they can then access links and articles that explain the unique national structure, naming, and authorities of that nation's military. This also makes it easier for contributors to provide links quickly.

On another note, I ask your advice regarding RAFAEL. It's article is Raphael (security industry), which seems odd, in that 90% of the Western technical literature about their weapon systems and electronics refers to them as RAFAEL or Rafael. Since RAFAEL is actually a Hebrew abbreviation, and my Hebrew is kind of rusty, I wonder if you might comment on the talk:Raphael (security industry) page and give your insight. Thanks, Joshbaumgartner 16:26, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Josh, both spellings are good. But if RAFAEL is more widely used it should be OK to change it to that. Why not consult the company's own website, which I will do, and use that name's spelling. IZAK 16:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it should be RAFAEL, the page should be moved, but not to a version of its long corporate name. IZAK 16:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with not using the long name. Joshbaumgartner 16:36, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Categorization

Please elaborate on your concerns about categorization. I am eager to hear issues, and as in cases where errors such as the spelling of defense vs. defence take place, it is good to note. If you have other specific concerns, please detail them and I will be more than willing to discuss and remedy them. Thanks... Joshbaumgartner 17:16, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV editing by IZAK

Please add the url to any edit in this manner which you have made which contains referenced information which shows Zionism or Israel in a negative light to the evidence page of your arbitration. This can include edits where you left such information in place. I will make a heading ==Evidence of NPOV editing by IZAK== for you to place this evidence. To be candid, I will propose as a principle in your case that Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda or advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I will then propose a finding of fact that you regularly engage in POV editing regarding Zionism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and other Jewish subjects. I will then, provided no evidence is found of NPOV editing by you, propose a remedy based on that finding which would ban you from editing in those areas for a period of time.

I hope that will not be necessary but that will depend on evidence being placed in the case that in the past you have engaged in NPOV editing which fairly represented diverse views regarding these subjects. You may, if you wish, certainly without opposition from me, solicit the usual folks to help you find his evidence. Fred Bauder 11:36, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Fred, while I am somewhat mystified at your request, I have gone ahead and provided many important instances that will show that I ONLY adhere to a NPOV AT ALL TIMES. Take a look at my examples at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Evidence of NPOV editing by IZAK and you will see that I am totally fair whenever I write. You seem to have a very wrong impression of me. I feel you are assuming that if someone has a great interest in a subject then they must be "subjective" and hence POV. This makes no sense, as one would not accuse a person who loves flying with being POV if they continue to write clearly and well about aviation, or for that matter that a wine expert should be banned from drinking wine because he knows too much about the subject and enjoys writing copiously about it. At any rate, I have done as you requested and cited many examples of my fair treatment of all sides of the Arab or Nazi or Zionist or Jewish or Christian or Reform Judaism side of the coin. I give every subject and article a fair shake and I certainly hope that you will approach this matter with an open mind and not with the foregone conclusions you seem to be espousing here. What I do find extremely reprehensible are the views of such users as Sam Spade and HistoryBUffer who seem to have taken it upon themslves to heap constant scorn on all matters dealing with Israel and Zionism or the Holocaust which I 100% object to at any time, and I hope you and the other arbiters will find ways of dealing with their constant abuse and violations! By the way, why don't we hear from some of the other arbiters besides you? Are they involved? Are they reading all the material and leaving no stone unturned as well as reading between all the lines here. I certainly hope so. Thanks again for your input and direction. IZAK 13:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Advocacy

Please vote on Category:Advocacy. HistoryBuffEr created this category as a duplicate of Category:Activism, and fabricated a negative definition associating Advocacy with propaganda -- a definition that cannot be found in any dictionary. Then, he replaced Category:Activism with his new Category:Advocacy on Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Advocacy groups are already categorized under Activism so HistoryBuffEr's new category is essentially a duplicate, and contains a false definition. --Viriditas 10:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I voted to Delete. HistoryBuffer is on a "jihad" to waste everyone's time and tie people up in knots. IZAK 12:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some other know. Thank you. IZAK 03:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks! If you have time, we'll also need to come up with some more detailed proposals. Your help would be much appreciated. 172 03:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, Thanks for informing me! I've joined.GeneralPatton 03:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello IZAK. I've removed your comment from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on the mediation between Adam and Herschelkrustofsky. Because of the nature of mediation, we ask that those not directly involved in the dispute do not edit the page. I appreciate that you were aiming to help Adam, and I realise that removing comments is an unusual step, but in this case it is best to leave it to the mediators. Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Cults

Hi IZAK. I saw your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I added a comment to yours, but they were both removed. I've therefore posted my comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation instead.

I feel that Adam Carr should not have to stand alone against the activities of a cult, be it LaRouche or any other. I feel that Wikipedia needs to develop some sort of policy on how to deal with cults, and I'd be willing to be part of that effort.

The message I posted on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation is below, FYI Slim 21:54, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have just joined Wikipedia. I have edited only a few articles and created one, and have found my material being beseiged by three users who I believe are Lyndon LaRouche activists or advocates. They are user:Herschelkrustofsky, user:C Colden and user:Weed Harper. In fairness to Herschelkrustosky, I should add that he has been courteous throughout the process and has appeared willing to compromise. Nonetheless, it has been extremely time-consuming.

I would ask the mediators in the case between Adam Carr and Herschelkrustofsky to consider the amount of time the LaRouche advocates force editors to spend defending their material. It begins, in fact, to look like a modus operandi - the wearing down of editors by the sheer volume of corrections, deletions, additions, calls for explanations etc. In just over 24 hours, these three users made 33 changes, including the deletion of accurate information and informative links, to the article I created (Jeremiah Duggan) and a second article I had added information to (Schiller Institute). I tried to act in good faith and assume good faith of them, and was therefore required to address their concerns on the talk pages, try to see things from their POV, look things up, find other secondary sources, carefully re-edit the material to get rid of LaRoucheisms without also getting rid of anything accurate they might have added, and so on. It has turned into a full-time job. In my view, this is why editors might end up deleting material from these people on sight. It is not a vendetta against them. It is simply despair.

I hope the mediators will take this into account when judging this case. I also hope that Wikipedia will try to develop a policy to ensure that editors are not left isolated and undefended when trying to protect the integrity of articles against the advocates of what is widely perceived as a cult. I support Wikipedia's open policies, but I feel that LaRouche material falls into the category of original research (which I believe is not allowed in Wikipedia's articles), because invariably it is hard, if not impossible, to find a non-LaRouche source to back up either the accuracy or the relevance of their claims. Slim 21:34, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Comments on the evidence page

On the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence page, it says : "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence." Please move your responses and comments to either a separate section, or to the Talk page. Please follow the format of the page, because your replies make it difficult for me to organize those sections. -- Netoholic @ 00:06, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running

Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later.

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence * 01:59, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Rfa

Please see my oppose vote at [2] Thanks. 172 01:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boilerplate talk page messages

Why not just tell User:CheeseDreams once, and not bother with all the talk pages? You're only looking for a reply from CheeseDreams himself, not any other editor of those articles, aren't you? -- Tim Starling 07:34, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tim, since about 50 pages were edited individually by him without explanation, he needs to explain why each of those pages needed one or more of the {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} signs he placed on them. I would assume that each of those pages were different enough to require their own fair allotments of time in order to read them and arrive at the conclusions that they neeeded to be marked so drastically by him, otherwise he had no right to just splash those signs on them just because they did not measure up to his standards which he never explains. IZAK 07:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changed the message

Tim, thanks for your input again, I have ammended the wording of the message/s to read: "The sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you." IZAK 07:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough, thanks. -- Tim Starling 07:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I am finding other users who have already removed some of the signs without discussing it themselves on the talk pages. I will try to cite them though as I go through this list of Category:Bible stories. Thank you. IZAK 07:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bible Stories

If you feel the category is not needed, please vote to delete List of Bible stories. Not to do so would be pure Hypocracy CheeseDreams 19:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will re-print what I wrote elsewhere and also the words of others who grasp this matter as you do not seem to yet:

"Keep (the List of Bible stories) as a list there is not much of a problem as it's a mere "list" (like a "shopping list" or "to do list" nothing more and nothing less)....It is precisely because a "List" and a "Category" are so different that I can vote this way. A "List" on Wikipedia can be a very general catch-all and one can be more tolerant of it, whereas a "Category" is a much more precise methodology as it needs to fit with other related Categories or sub-Categories. IZAK 02:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) [3] " And, ""Lists" and "Categories" are different methodologies. A "List" on Wikipedia is a much looser collection of items and articles, whereas a "Category" has to be much more exact and becomes itself either a sub-category of something or has many of its own sub and sub-sub-categories etc. In this case the Category:Bible already exists and one can follow it either according to the Christian tradition via Category:Christian texts and its many sub-categories or the Jewish tradition via Category:Jewish texts as well as other category choices. IZAK 02:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) [4]" Others who agree: "Delete (the Category:Bible stories) Not only does the term "Bible" mean different things to different people, but lumping every topic related to the Bible into this inchoate grab-bag makes no sense either. This category goes against the basic encyclopedic standards of hierarchy and precision... Please stick with the existing categories mentioned above by IZAK, e.g., Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, Category:Torah, Category:Jewish texts and Category:Bible. 172 10:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) [5]", and "Yes, the content can be changed, but it probably won't be. Some users don't seem to get the distinction in context between the list and the category, and so long as this category attempts to replicate the list, it'll be both redundant and inferior. A category could exist alongside the list, but in the current state of the two pages, the list should definitely be kept and the category be deleted. -Sean Curtin 03:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) [6]". I hope this makes it clearer for you. IZAK 03:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy

You will immediately revert all the reverts removing the category from the articles in question.

Hi, I did NOT remove the "category" from any of the articles in question, so please be accurate, as this is a false accusation. What I did do, was go to each article , using your Category:Bible stories (as proof that I did not touch the category or the category links to it from articles on it) and remove the three signs, or "tabs" or "templates" for one or all of {{cleanup}}{{NPOV}}{{expansion}} about which many other users have complained that you inserted these tags in too many articles and without saying anything on the talk pages of the articles at all. IZAK 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Presuming the result of VfD is absolutely forbidden. From the policy-

How to declare a "delete" decision:

Wait at least 7 days after nomination. Make sure there is a clear consensus to delete. Save interesting conversations in /resolved; discard uninteresting conversations. De-populate the category or move it to "Empty me". List the category to "Delete me" (unless it is a "red link", in which case, it is already deleted) An administrator will delete it. How to declare a "keep" decision:

Wait at least 7 days after nomination. Make sure there is a clear consensus to keep. Copy the discussion to the category's talk page. Link to precedent-setting conversations from /resolved. Remove the {{cfd}} tag from the category page.

Note the 7 days.

CheeseDreams 19:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This has now been reported to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#IZAK and Requests for arbitration/IZAK

Again, I repeat that I did NOT do any of the above things. I did two things: Bring the category for review at the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion page and reported:

"November 18: Category:Bible stories: New Category:Bible stories (started November 17) is very confusing and not needed. Into it have been added anything that is randomly and a Bible "story". Here are some problems with it:

First of all there is a big difference between the Old Testament which is referred to on Wikipedia as Hebrew Bible (as many people of the Jewish faith who accept and believe in the Bible are offended by the name "Old" Testament) and the New Testament accepted by Christians.
BOOKS of the Bible , such as Book of Daniel, Book of Job, Book of Exodus are tossed into this category of "stories" with articles that are just "one topic pieces" such as Creation according to Genesis or New Testament view on Jesus' life.
There are already categories Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, Category:Torah, Category:Jewish texts and Category:Bible, Category:Holy scripture, Category:Christian texts that comprehensivley deal with these topics.
The category is NOT being careful enough, therefore Category:Bible stories category be deleted as it is not needed and confusing (it also seems to be promoting a secular POV as its creator User:CheeseDreams has placed many {{cleanup}}{{NPOV}}{{expansion}} signs an many pages causing much new dispute on all those pages. IZAK 05:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete very soon! IZAK 05:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) [7]" and subsequently added my responses to the comments and votes by others as they came in. Again, I repeat, I did NOT "delete" the page, so your charge is both false and baseless. Please apologize.IZAK 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for your charge of "vandalism" it's totally ludicrous as it was Wikipedia admins who listed YOU for something akin to vandalism, and to which I responded, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#CheeseDreams:

"It's not really vandalism, but I don't know where else to post it. User:CheeseDreams has been adding NPOV, clean-up and expansion templates over a lot (and I mean a LOT) of religious articles, without offering any explanation as to why (s)he thinks those articles are non-neutral, need clean-up or expansion. I think these should be reverted until CheeseDreams explains his/her position. Could some sysops with more time on their hands than me help? jguk 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

(My response was:)

"Hi, I am not a sysop, but I went ahead and reverted about 50 Bible articles in Category:Bible stories created by User:CheeseDreams. I also placed on each talk page a brief message: "One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you." IZAK 10:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) [8]. And on top of this you were told: "Someone ought to take this new Abuser aside and explain Wikietiqutte. --Wetman 20:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) [9], and [[User:Mirv} removed all talk of vandalism from this subject, see [10], so a "vandal" I am NOT ! IZAK 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Furthermore YOUR actions have NOTHING to do with the RfA you mention, unless you want one opened against you? IZAK 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My full response to your baseless charges

CheeseDream: Please see my full response to your false charges at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#User:IZAK's response to User:CheeseDreams's false claims regarding Category:Bible stories. Thank you. IZAK 07:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, the charge I made was only about your cross-posting. I didn't say you did anything wrong with the category itself. CheeseDreams made only one small (misplaced) comment on the Evidence page. Why make such a battle over it on that page? -- Netoholic @ 07:12, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Netoholic: Please see User:CheeseDream's accusations against me above. I am responding in detail, so that it can be seen that what you call my "cross-postings" have a context in that we are dealing with about 50 articles in the newly created Category:Bible stories all of which were edited by CheeseDream and about two thirds had comments and edits that all called for more Talk and crticising CheeseDream's approach, which is what my posts asked for as that was the common denominator of the subject we are discussing. Would you have rather that I just made the edits in each without leaving any comments at all on the Talk page? (And which you now seek to exploit as some kind of "trespass" on my part.) Please make up your mind. Thank you. IZAK 07:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it isn't necessary to respond on the arbitration Evidence page. It is already a confusing mess, and if you were to organize your response into a clear, non-ranting format, you would probably be doing yourself a favor. -- Netoholic @ 08:24, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

IZAK, please stop contacting me

Recently I've been receiving several unsolicited requests from to vote in VfD's, arbitration requests etc. To put it quite simply, these petty arguments are of little interest to me and I would appreciate not being subject to such requests in the future. Thanks! Jeru 11:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Point well-taken, you should have let me know earlier. All the best! IZAK 04:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Category:Jewish Encyclopedia

Dear Jmabel: I have been meaning to ask you, why did you create Category:Jewish Encyclopedia? I am very puzzled by the need for a category about an encyclopedia which is only used as a source or reference for Jewish-content articles. Isn't it enough that articles using its material cite it as a source if and when material is derived from it (the Jewish Encyclopedia). You also mistakenly refer to it as the "Encyclopedia Judaica" (Template:JewishEncyclopedia "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (a.k.a. Encyclopedia Judaica). Please feel free to update like any other article.") which is problematic because the modern "Encyclopedia Judaica" exists and is copyrighted (a new hard-copy sells for around $1,350 see [11] for example) it's also sold as a CD, see [12] for example. Seems someone also started stub on it at Encyclopedia Judaica. My main point though, is that we don't need the "category" of an ancyclopedia as it serves no purpose that I can tell. I am thinking that it should be removed. What do you think? Thanks. IZAK 05:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I created this to parallel our handling of material from the 1911 Britannica. Articles taken from these two sources raise parallel maintenance issues: they are excellent, but not recent, scholarship. So far we haven't taken a lot from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but I hope we do in the future: it covers a lot of ground that we are currently missing.

Yes, I appear to have been mistaken in referring to it also as Encyclopedia Judaica, I will correct that. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, so let me ask you, are you saying that once articles are "fixed up", or "up-dated" or "expanded", that they will then be taken off the Category:Jewish Encyclopedia? Why do we need the category though? I am still not clear about this, could you please explain. Thanks. IZAK 05:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)