User talk:StevenJ81/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.


The Barnstar of David

The Barnstar of David
For their effort in furthering Wikipedia's coverage on Judaism-related topics by helping to promote Shemini Atzeret to GA status, I hereby present StevenJ81 the Barnstar of David. Please accept this sign of appreciation from me. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret

Shemini Atzeret, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Hello, StevenJ81. I want to apologize for the current situation with the Shemini Atzeret article and for not having gotten these issues addressed during the initial nomination process. While reviewing, I usually look over other GAs in the same category to get some understanding of the accepted style for that type of article, but there seems to be no precedent for this category (Shemini Atzeret is the first religious holiday to be listed). At the time, I was unaware that the issues raised on Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2 would be a cause of concern (especially those relating to how much the writer should assume the reader knows about Judaism) and used the general Wikipedia:Good article criteria as a guideline. I should have been more thorough on this.

I'm happy to help with addressing the concerns raised on Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2, if you'd like. One commenter suggested using books as sources; the list on the talk page has some that you can use. If you click one of the links, it should take you straight to the part of the book that discusses Shemini Atzeret.

Again, I'm sorry about this, and I hope everything works out and the article is able to maintain its GA status. --1ST7 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry. I am more frustrated with the other guys than with you. Many of their points were reasonable, but they ought to have caught this the first time around. I appreciate that it's not possible to watch everything as it goes through GA, but for them to come just a week or two later and challenge this is just plain frustrating.
As it happens, there are very few GA articles anywhere within WikiProject Judaism that relate specifically to religious topics. So this is pretty uncharted territory all the way around.
Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) is a little on the pompous side ("You've been told what needs to change, so I'd probably get on with it the best you can..."), but is a very experienced editor (look at his userspace) and does appear to be willing to work with people ("... and we can comment in a week or two on what still needs to be done.").
I'm not sure, on the other hand, what to make of Aymatth2 (talk · contribs). He is a Westerner (see his userspace; he lives in Ontario). So for him to compare Judaism—which, if nothing else, is at the core of Christianity—to Yoruba religion is ridiculous. I get wanting an in-line description of etrog. But Torah? Torah is absolutely a perfectly good English word at this point in history. I'm going to want your support on this issue eventually; see fourth point below.
I'd very much appreciate your advice and help on this.
  • First, I wonder if we shouldn't just accede to a delisting now so as to remove the time pressure, and then go renominate at a later date. I'd hate to do that, but this is really going to require some work, and I already spend too much time here.
  • Second, I'm thinking of creating a sandbox and working there. If I really reorganize the article, then fixing it section-by-section is going to make the article awkward and difficult to use in the meantime.
  • Third, anything you want to add from one of the books that we were given is fine by me. I'll look at any edits you make, and if I really disagree, I'll let you know.
  • Finally, at a certain point I feel certain we're going to have a run-in on Hebrew language, at least with Aymatth2, and I'd like your support when we come to words that are now good English. (Somehow, I just don't think the language issues would bother him too much if the language at hand were written in a Latin alphabet.
In any event, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this before I go any further. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and offered to withdraw the article from GA consideration. You are welcome to try to improve it and defend it, but I do not have the time and energy for this right now. Thank you for your support. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That's too bad. I will still be happy to help with this project if you decide that you want to try to get it back to GA status sometime in the future. Happy editing, --1ST7 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

Please read Wikipedia:Rollback and use wisely. John Reaves 21:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sefeika D’Yoma

Hi there StevenJ81: Sefeika D’Yoma is a new article I have just written up (it is important to help understanding what Shemnini Atzeret is about in relation to Hoshana Rabba and Simchas Torah) and see how you can weave it in. Please help by improving with sources and more information (if you have time...) Thanks and keep up your great work!!! Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar

Yes. It looks like the product of somebody's personal study of the Secrets Hidden in the Bible—a prime example of fringe material. A. Parrot (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey thanks and some Jewish geography

Thanks for your work updating the article for 18th Legislative District (New Jersey). I had seen your name regarding the Shemini Atzeret article (if I recall correctly) and when I saw you making New Jersey articles my antennae picked up, as there aren't too many editors who share that combination of topics. If you're in the 18th District I can probably narrow you down to a few places, and if you're ever up north in the 37th District maybe we could meet for a cup of coffee or some deli. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I do live in the 18th, but I do get up your way from time to time. (Two of my three sons went to a well-known high school in your district.) I'd love to, probably after Chanukah. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be my pleasure. Rarely do I have an opportunity to mix my Wikipedia interests in New Jersey political geography, Judaism, caffeinated beverages and pickled or smoked beef byproducts. Feel free to reach me on my talk page or via email. Alansohn (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
== Shemini Atzeret delisting ==

Thank you for your patience with this process. I think the decision to delist for now was sensible since the article is half way through an overhaul, so is rather confused. This way it can be improved without any sense of pressure, then renominated later. It is a tough challenge: giving a clear and concise explanation to the general reader while also giving accurate coverage of all the main points. I have no idea how to determine the optimum level of detail. Pushing detail towards the back may help, like appendices, giving the casual reader what they are likely to want without forcing them to read the whole thing. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sfeka d'yoma may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the first Yom Tov is celebrated on 15 and 16 Nisan, and the last Yom Tov on 21 and 22 Nisan (thereby creating an eight-day holiday. In keeping with the principle that a ''sfeka d'yoma'' is

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed.

I agree. You should archive it swifter than usual, lest we have copycats. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thartan, unless someone suggests I go faster, I will do this in 48 hours. (Do you know how to archive a RfC in Wikipedia namespace?) StevenJ81 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment

Would you be able to revisit the discussion on my talkpage? I am trying to get editors to comment on the real issue, after they strayed away a little. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Another local?

So, I take a wild wager that you live in my old stomping grounds from 1995–2014. I noticed your edits on List of county routes in Middlesex County, New Jersey and your edit summary + userpage kind of gives it away. I am a Conservative Jew from Highland Park (not a native), but I had to point this out. Mitch32(The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity.) 16:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You win! (Actually, refresh my userpage tomorrow to reveal the, um, Easter Egg.) I therefore wouldn't be entirely surprised if we've met IRL, as I've lived here a long time. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't exactly have a lot of Orthodox people I know in Highland Park. Also, you couldn't come up with a term instead of easter egg? :p Mitch32(The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity.) 19:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a lot of friends at the Conservative Temple. Anyway, a certain calendar product called "Kaluach" has one that they call an Afikoman. But I've never found it. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've not been to Etz Achiam since 2001 and the Conservative one since 1995. Mitch32(The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity.)
OK, then. I've still lived in town a long time. Let me know if you ever swing through. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Saturday I will be, during Shabbos of course. Mitch32(The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity.) 23:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

You marked User:Supdiop as "patrolled". Thank you. I suspect they are a troll. They have been active a week and have tagged at least three articles for Deletion, that were only minutes old, including mine at Morris Animal Foundation. I had marked it as a stub, and it was only seven minutes old. Yikes! So thanks Nick Beeson (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pending change revert

Hi StevenJ81 - please note that I reverted your pending changes approval of this edit as it introduced a WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS violation into the article. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

United Synagogue

Steven,

Internetwikier here: this 'back and forth' is becoming an issue on the US website talk page.

I am concerned that you have a pre-existing POV bias regarding that 'State of Israel' that means you are

1) not exercising clear judgement on what constitutes reliable and verifiable quotes/references and

2) have failed to address the issue of user MikeSchwartz613 simply 'deleting' content without written justification.

Please remember that your opinion of the material I added is not shared by some admins, and it is therefore something that needs careful attention.

The original admin , Dweller, blocked additions only due to an edit-war, but did not take -sides- on the content referencing, as you seem to be doing. This needs to be explained.

Please engage with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Internetwikier, I have replied in full to your comments at Talk:United Synagogue. Please note that (a) I am not an administrator, and (b) that I am disengaging from this topic and removing it from my watchlist. So please take your efforts at journalism elsewhere. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

@Number 57: Should I do a second revert myself and lure him into a fourth? Somehow it feels like a violation of the commandment "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind." (Leviticus 19:14) But if I don't, he might technically skip off, and this needs to get put to bed. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well hopefully someone will actually respond to the edit warring report this time, and one of us can revert after he's blocked without risking yet another round of reverting. Number 57 15:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: I think I'll wait until late in the day my time to see if we get a response, and then I'll see.
(Why won't he take my suggestion? This is Wikipedia, not Wiki-infoboxes. I'm sure you wouldn't revert a description of that party's leadership as "dual" in the body text, would you?) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It's clear from their comments that they're not interested in compromise. No problems re the body text. Number 57 15:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Going home for Shabbat. Just reverted again, after EXPLICITLY warning Narbit. But if Narbit reverts again, that will be 3. Don't think it will matter. (sigh) StevenJ81 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your discussion with Narbit on his user page, he's actually correct about one of his points. What Livni said 12 hours before the election was that the rotation agreement would not be a barrier to coalition formation - i.e., that it was negotiable, that they'd be willing to drop it if that became necessary to form a government. But the media took that as "we're dropping it now!" and ran with it. I'd go hunt down some reliable sources on the subject (I remember some that even excoriated the rest of the media for twisting what Livni said into something she didn't) but I'm not going to bother because it's tangential at best to the substance of Narbit's argument and I disagree with him regardless. Kimpire (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for writing. Mostly, Narbit's argument—that ZU had fully dual leadership—is correct, as far as it goes. That late-campaign issue could potentially have someone questioning Narbit's argument a bit, and if that by itself were what this had been all about, that would be one thing. But as I said at the end, that wasn't really the point, anyway. I'm thinking/hoping Narbit got the point, because there hasn't been a further reversion. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57 and @Kimpire: First, you'll see that the 3RR report aged out without a formal sanction. Doesn't mean it would take a full, new set of three reverts to invoke a ban going forward, but do keep that in mind. Second, I invited him to seek input at WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums (referendums?) if he really wants to try to get enough support to change things on that article. As I don't have to tell you two, the issue comes down to a conflict between ordinary Wikipedia policy on how to handle election infoboxes and the objective truth of this particular situation. I must tell you guys that the citation he posted overnight at Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2015 is incontrovertible proof of the legal correctness of his argument: that by Israeli law, the two are equally leaders of the party and the Knesset faction. (How much Herzog is really primus inter pares is a good question, of course, and in the long party name Herzog is named first. But legally our interlocutor is correct.)
So, Number 57, I know you are active at that WikiProject. Are there discussions of similar cases anywhere in the past, ending in specific consensus to limit infoboxes to one leader per party? Or is this just a loose, rough consensus based on the fact that in most elections only one person is his/her party's candidate to be the prime minister/president? I don't disagree with that as a policy, and I'm not changing sides, but the evidence of Israeli law just provided is really not trivial.
On the other hand, I'm pretty annoyed at our friend, particularly for going to several Wikipedias overnight to change "the facts on the ground." But we've begged him to stay within the rules, and so far, what he's done is not against the rules. (We'll see if he is reverted elsewhere. He was reverted at Hebrew Wikipedia last week, but so far didn't revert the revert.)
I'm getting a little tired of how much effort this has taken, and I still wonder if this will ever stop without a block. But if we have to try again for a block, I would strongly urge you to be prepared with evidence that this policy on infoboxes is long-standing and has strong backing from the WikiProject. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Narbit (and you) are actually very wrong about the legal status of Herzog and Livni as heads of the party. Herzog and Livni do not have joint leadership of a party because they're simply not in the same party and never have been. The legal definition of a "party", a "list", and a "Knesset faction" are all very different; Herzog and Livni (arguably) had joint leadership of a list and now (arguably) have joint leadership of a Knesset faction.
So far as I'm aware, there is no such thing, in Israeli law, as a "head of a party". The rights and obligations and powers granted to a person over a party are defined entirely by that party's internal bylaws. In Yisrael Beiteinu, Lieberman makes all the decisions dictatorially; the Likud and Labor have party judges and internal checks and balances; Shas's party leader is a figurehead because all the power is in the hands of the Council of Torah Sages.
Most importantly (and most relevantly), the name given to a list need not bear any resemblance to the party's structure; it can be anything you want, so long as it is within the legal bounds of "not being misleading". I could write "headed by (name of the #47 candidate)" or "headed by my pet fish". There's no actual legal effect of the words "headed by Herzog and Livni".
Some examples:
The name of the party list simply does not indicate any binding legal status. The only exception is for situations like this: the Na Nach party was prevented by the Elections Committee from writing "headed by Rabbi Nachman" in their list title, but that was because it was judged to be potentially misleading for them to imply that somebody who's been dead for quite a long time knows about and approves of their platform.
Now, the fact that the statement "headed by Herzog and Livni" proffers no legal status to Herzog and Livni doesn't necessarily mean Narbit is wrong. There is a lot to be said for his assertion that Herzog and Livni held de facto joint leadership of the merged list, though their behavior since the election does not as clearly lend itself to the argument that they now hold joint leadership of the Knesset faction. But without looking at the contract signed between the two parties regarding how the leadership of the merged list is to be structured, I wouldn't know enough about the details. And that's the crux of my argument.
It is precisely because the definition of "head of a list" is so murky that I came out against Narbit's opinion. To use the Goldstein Brothers' party I mentioned above as an example: Had the party crossed the threshold and therefore appeared in the infobox, Wikipedia probably would have - and in my opinion should have - put the celebrity's name as the party leader. But it would be ridiculous to believe that she had any power to make party decisions; she was just a figurehead. The Goldstein brothers jettisoned her immediately after the election and ran without her this time.
Basically, I think Wikipedia is better off without these hairsplitting judgments and arguments over dozens of individual cases. In short, Tzipi Livni has no *legal* authority over the list except that which is granted in the contract she signed with Herzog. If we want to bind Wikipedia policy to inter-party contracts, we can - but I don't think that's a good idea. Kimpire (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
[Me, too. And you can look how I got your bullets to line up in the right spot without all the other bullets in the way.]
Thank you for that correction. I did not fully understand that issue before. (Israel's politics are so convoluted ...) It's a good question whether the names on the list establish a legal position on election day itself, but I get your point. And I don't really disagree with Narbit that in fact they both led that list during the election, either. I've said as much to Narbit directly, as you know. I have also told him that wasn't really the point. But he's still trying to make a case, so understanding such issues might come in handy eventually.
I'm inclined to agree with you: It's not Wikipedia's job to parse inter-party contracts, and given that, the only other choice is to use the person named as #1 on the list—in this case, Herzog.
I still want to know if the WikiProject has thought on this in any great detail, though, because I can imagine a situation where it would be very hard to argue against posting the dual leadership. Imagine if (a) ZU had won and (b) ZU had come out of the coalition discussions fully prepared to go through with the Prime Minister rotation. And imagine that especially if Rivlin had asked the two of them to come to his office together to commission a new government. (Even if he could only legally commission one of them, if he asked both of them to come ...)
But it's one thing to parse the contract when the list wins and actions are taken in consequence. It's another thing to parse the contract when you really don't have to. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Kimpire has summed it up well; there was only one #1 on the list, and that was Herzog. Another thing to bear in mind is who is leader of the opposition. As far as I'm aware, it's Herzog. Number 57 21:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point, there.
@Number 57, are you aware of any formal discussions within the WikiProject on such things? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it's never previously been an issue. Number 57 21:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to drop it, then. This has wasted too much time. If he gets feisty again, we'll deal with it at the time. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
He's reverted again, so I've restored the edit warring report to see if someone actually does something this time. Number 57 08:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: OK. I just changed back, because it looks like the administrators aren't going to bother unless someone actually reverts three times. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: First of all, he reverted me, then @Kimpire reverted him, all in the last hour.
By the way, though: How and where did it get archived without action last time? I looked it up in the archive, and the only thing I found was the original report, marked "Stale." Is it possible that someone other than an administrator wiped it out last time? Wouldn't an official archiving at least have called it "stale" or "closed without action" or something? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I unarchived it - can't paste the link as am on my phone, but you can check my contribution history. Agreed it is getting silly now. Number 57 21:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Should have checked that. Should you/I have marked it "restored from archive" or something? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I hoped that "Update: This was archived without action" would be sufficient explanation. Good news about the block though. Number 57 08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
'Bout time, eh? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Semi-private record; please add any changes outside the collapsed box. Thank you.
Hidden because I do not want to publicize what could be deemed as לשון הרע unduly, but only record this in case needed later.
For the record,
  • I told an administrator at hewiki who has reverted him (he:משתמש:דולב) that a block had been imposed here. He thanked me for the information, and said that if there were another revert there, he would block at hewiki and move for a global block as well.
  • As of the current moment (19:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)), Narbit has edited infoboxes, and been reverted, at he, es and fr. He has edited infoboxes without being reverted at fo, it, id, no, ru, sr and yi, though the edit at ru has been sitting as a "pending change" edit for a while. Comparable infoboxes at fi and sr included Mrs. Livni's name without Narbit's intervention. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you StevenJ81, I will give it a try a long your recommendations  :) Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wind whistling through empty streets

@Jytdog: First of all, thank you. But: do I need to add more to your suggestion? I thought my POV was already pretty clear there. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

if nobody explicitly supports, nothing happens. there was apparently no interest in the proposal so i withdrew it. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Can I be supporter there, or am I already considered an interested party? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I already withdrew it. Nobody (not just you) responded. Clearly no traction. Surprising to me, but that happens. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I just really don't know how things work on some of these noticeboards. I didn't know it was up to us to propose remedies; I thought administrators were supposed to do that. Is there any value in my creating a new request? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Take two

@Dweller: Thank you. I certainly hope no one thinks I was excited and happy to make that suggestion myself. But the support of an experienced editor like you at least validates my feelings on this a little bit. It's helpful to know sometimes that one isn't going completely nuts. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Schaengel

Schaengel's words at ANI have further strengthened my opinion of his edits, as they apparently have yours too, but since he's not touched mainspace since my warning and hasn't said anything at ANI that warrants sanctions, I'm not looking to do anything at the moment. No question that I'll block if I notice him repeating the warned-against behavior or doing other problematic stuff. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Gotcha. Makes sense to me.
On another AN/I matter, I wonder if I can ask you a "private" question. Say "no" flat-out if you want. I'm an involved party at WP:AN/I#User:Internetwikier. I am completely not asking you to close, comment, take sides, or anything else. I'm trying to understand (a) process and (b) whether I'm handling process correctly. In particular, I'm really wondering why, at this point, there is apparently nobody ready to move to close with a block/ban, nor is there apparently anyone ready to move to close with a "this is not sanctions-worthy; work it out."
Any thoughts you might have would be welcome. And, as I said, if you'd rather not comment, I understand. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The difficulty is that people are just chatting in most of the section, with only a few people voting at the end. It takes a lot more work to read through the discussions than to check the votes and compare their associated statements with each other for strength. It's much quicker/easier when a lot of participants come in with votes and reasons: typically you can say "consensus is yes" or "consensus is no" or "there's no consensus" without very much work. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, @Nyttend. Thanks. I get that. It's a dull, boring explanation, and kind of what I figured. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI humor is an acquired thing I suppose

I'm thinking that a "quote of the week" from ANI section in the news might actually help the 'conversations' there, because people might check their text more carefully?

... nor (b) that perpetrators aren't frequently guilty.

brought such a grin to my face, especially with reference to that whole situation of media-facilitated presumed guilty upon accusation. Considering the stridency of some ... editors, it would be good to not accidentally slide in their direction? Anyway, I'm happy to agree with you that forcing that name into WP/WPT transgresses BLP. I'm hoping your note has ended that conversation? Shenme (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ouch! Thanks, @Shenme. I fixed that. (In my defense, I did do that correctly a couple of sentences earlier.)
Not quite ended, but definitely winding down. Thanks for your support. StevenJ81 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked on Debresser?

Dear StevenJ81 StevenJ81 I wrote a long response to Jonney2000 on Debresser's talkpage. It is gone, couldn't post. I spent 5 hours typing and thinking, what should I do? Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. @Amalek 0123456789: First, you have to put the link here as "User:StevenJ81" or else it redlinks. If you look at the underlying markup code where I fixed it, you'll see what I mean. (If you use Visual Editor, I don't know what it will look like; I never use Visual Editor.)
  2. As for what happened at Debresser's page, I don't know what to tell you. When I'm writing [something long] here, I always save to my clipboard (that is, control-C) before I try to save, "just in case." Beyond that, you're not under a general block, because you wrote something on my page. Debresser's talk page has nothing in the edit history about your having written something and it being reverted or deleted. And even if it were the sort of posting in which administrators could actually hide the edit and the summmary (see WP:REVDEL), you'd see evidence of something in the deletion log. So I'm guessing you just hit the wrong button and lost your work. Next time consider drafting in MS Word, then just pasting in.
  3. Finally, do please keep that discussion over there. As long as you keep to the rules you and I discussed before, so will I. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks StevenJ81. Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Amalek 0123456789: Do me a favor, though. In the future, you don't need to name the people you deal with on Wikipedia—even by user name—outside Wikipedia. It's not a technical violation of the rules here, but it is a violation of the spirit of the rules here. It would have been sufficient to say something like "a courteous Wikipedian committed to the rules there." OK? Enough said. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, you mean the posting of my friend Michael Hoffman, on his site. He offered me to take down my mail communication with Wikipedia as soon as he posted it, I declined. He is a good guy, but he sincerely believes that some subjects on Wikipedia are hi-jacked by people with an agenda. Haaretz hints that the Israeli state, pays people for skewed Wikipedia editing.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-right-s-latest-weapon-zionist-editing-on-wikipedia-1.308667
Hoffman said that he tried for 5 years to alter something on Wikipedia that was clear pure defamation. He gave up finally.
If you want, I can tell Michael to take it down. Thank you StevenJ81. Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer that he take down the correspondence, at least as far as I am mentioned. Thank you.
As far as it goes, there are all kinds of issues around here associated with people editing with an agenda. Sometimes they're people who do a lot of good at Wikipedia but have a blind spot of bias around a certain subject. Sometimes they're single-issue editors who have no interest in Wikipedia except to promote single agenda items. Sometimes they are paid editors. Sometimes they're not. But I can pretty well guarantee you that on just about any controversial issue you can think of, there are hijackers with agendas around here on both sides of the issue.
I just try to do my best to avoid editing with an agenda, and try to work with people willing to do the same. So far, you seem to be willing to avoid editing with an agenda. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Today/CE/AM

Discussion moved to its appropriate place at Template talk:Today/CE/AM#Tammuz. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for a Palestinian state - Inaccurate Information

Please can we discuss the Following:

It would be more accurate to state the "proposed creation of a Palestinian State", rather than the current term establishment. The reason is because an independent arab state of Palestine has never existed before and therefore the term creation, which is a term used to describe something which is brought into existence, would be more accurate. The article currently states the following: "As a result of the Six-Day War of 1967 the Palestinian territories were occupied by Israel". This is an inaccurate statement. If you read the lines prior, they discuss the fact that prior to the six day war the territories in question were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. It is incorrect terminology to imply that immediately after the six day war the territories automatically became "Palestinian territories". It would be more accurate to state the following " As a result of the Six-Day War of 1967 the territories previously occupied by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (West Bank & East Jerusalem) were controlled by Israel". History

"The birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population". This statement is extremely vague, misleading and does not appear to be a NPOV. It implies that it was the "birth of Israel" that led to the displacement of the Arab population, rather than the 1948 war. The displacement resulted, not from the establishment of the State of Israel, but from the 1948 Arab Israeli War, when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war).


Gazmie (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Narbit is back

He added Tzipi Livni to the info box just now and I reverted him; User:Number 57 reverted him for the same action last week. He may now be trying to carefully avoid violating 3RR; I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia's rules to know where to go with this. Kimpire (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

When there's a history, you don't have to revert three times to invoke the equivalent rule to 3RR. @Number 57, why don't you open a case at WP:AN3, citing the previous case. I'll come back you up. I'll also go looking on the other wikis again to see whether he's being feisty or not. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Funny

As you can see on the history of Hebrew calendar, the edit summary of my last edit is "Undid revision 674508528 by 86.134.217.6", but yes, it somehow undid your edit. Thanks for fixing it. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Marcheshvan

You certainly ambushed the editors. Debresser reverted saying he had changed without consensus and there was three weeks of silence after that. Discussions are supposed to be closed by an independent third party who gives reasons for the close. Kids talk about going to "uni", but we don't title our article with an abbreviation. Everyone may call a man "Dick" but his name is Richard - it's even on his birth certificate. As there's no reasoning for the close I'm going over there now to see if I can work out what's been going on. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that "closing" that discussion was not necessary. It is also not customary, although it is done sometimes. I removed the "archive" templates, because the discussion continues, and there is no reason it shouldn't. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser: I did that to try to put closure on the part of the discussion establishing the consensus. I'm not going to revert you, though.
@84.134.217.6: See Bill Clinton. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Apology

I have to apologize for my entirely mistaken overreaction to your disdain for "Mey" at the ref desk. I am used to being hounded by trolls, and misinterpreted you entirely. Indeed it seemed so out of the blue and bizarre I should have realized as an experienced editor you weren't mocking me. My apologies. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: No, I certainly wasn't mocking you. I suppose it's fair to say I was being a touch sarcastic, but unquestionably not aimed at you. (Not really aimed at Mey, either. More aimed at the apparent presumption that academics are automatically right.) Actually, I respect your posts on that page quite a lot. Warm regards, StevenJ81 (talk) (with own apologies for not being able to figure out quickly how to ping you in Greek letters) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Like I said, it seemed quite bizarre, but I have become thin skinned. In any case, my username is Medeis and you need not use the Greek. That was just to let me find my own posts more quickly, as they stand out better. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What's going on?

Hi StevenJ81. I don't routinely monitor or contribute to the Israel-Palestine area as I know it's a cesspit of battlegrounding, POV-pushing, incivility, and general unhinged lunacy. Recently edited some uncontroversial Israel-related articles again and was reminded of the area, and while clicking around saw your "How do we make it better" discussion. I found it pretty interesting and I'd like to put forth some ideas in due course, but in the meantime could you explain briefly what happened with Malik Shabazz, what the purpose is of the topic-area arbitration case, and in general, what events led up to this discussion?

I totally hear you on getting your "head handed back" by the way. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount: I've got to tell you: Your account name looks like you're almost bragging about being a sock for someone who was banned. I'm going to hope not, and assume good faith. But this topic area is just so touchy it's hard to tell sometimes who's who.
If you want to know what happened with Malik Shabazz, better you go to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3, where the original comments on what happened with Malik can be found. I was only involved later on, and can't speak with as much direct knowledge about what originally happened.
As a result of this, though, experienced editors of goodwill have come together to express frustration that trolls have taken over the entire topic area, to the extent that experienced editors don't want to get near it. (A lot of people really admired Malik's willingness to wade in and play cop in a messy neighborhood.) My little discussion page was intended to be a place to start discussing possible solutions to that, including solutions that might even be radical by Wikipedia standards. At this point, though, I doubt that my discussion page will go anywhere, as the ArbCom has already started inviting comment formally. (That ArbCom grew out of the Malik situation, but is now focused on "How bad is Israel-Palestine, and what can/should we do about it?") I plan to incorporate some of what I wrote on my discussion page into the ArbCom Workshop page, probably later in this week.
Please feel free to share ideas either on my discussion page or directly on the appropriate ArbCom case pages. And thank you for your interest. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Timing concerns

I am working to address your concerns for the arb case --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@In actu: Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Short comment

Hi StevenJ81,

I would like to give some context to this comment that you made in the "evidence" section: "I have to say that I am extremely disappointed with Huldra's evidence. As WarKosign wrote, Huldra prevents a false dichotomy between international and Israeli points of view." because I think there may be a misunderstanding.

It is obvious that both the international point of view and the Israeli point of view must be given and explained on all the topics related to the Israelo-Arab conflict and in particular, eg, about the status of the Golan Heights, the status of Jerusalem or about the occupied/disputed territories.

But Huldra agrees too. There is eg a typical sentence that is used to solve the issue on the occupied/disputed and that is the result of a consensus used on numerous articles:

The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.[3]. Huldra (and other with me too) were involved in an editwar recently to re-establish this sentence. She agrees with this despite it could be argued that the end of the sentence has less weight than the beginning. That's a basic case of WP:NPoV.

I think that what Huldra refers to is another point. There are some articles where both "points of views" are given and must be given. But they are also other topics where it cannot be done at each line or where a choice has to be made:

  • once both points of view are given in an article with long explanations and all nuances, when we refer to the "territories" again, should we talk about the occupied or the disputed territories if we have to chose ?
  • When we have to use a title, which one would be the more relevant ?
  • How to manage categories ? Should Golan be Syrian or Israeli ?

The same questions exist on the "other side":

  • should we remind Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine too everytime we talk about this city ?
  • should we replace "Palestinian Authority" by "State of Palestine", or not ?

In these circumstances, there is no choice and the Law of highest level or the sources of higher quality/reputation have more weight than a local Law or than minority points of views. Minority point of views "disappear" by WP:Due weight.

When there is reason to go deep into details, when grey is not an option but we must be black or white, when it is not feasible to remind all the problematics and disputes, then it is clear that "West Bank is an occupied territory" and that there are nearly no article where we should remind that "Jerusalem" is the chosen capital of Palestine. And Golan Heights are not a territory that is disputed. They are a Syrian territory occupied by Israel. And Israeli settlements are illegal. And Palestinian terrorism is not resistance.

That's -I think- what Huldra meant.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That may be what she meant, but as she stated her evidence, that's not what she said. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
She said:
Is Wikipedia to reflect the International view on the Middle East, or the Israeli view? I would argue that it should reflect the International view. I urge Arb.com to clarify this. Keeping that in mind, we should understand that many of the NGOs which are branded as "radical left" in Israel, are nothing more than mainstream, when it comes to international opinion.
From my point of view, the 1st sentence gives the context and it is clearly the one that I explain. She talks about one or the other; not about NPoV.
More, when she said this, she was in a conflict where the sentence presenting both points of views on the settlements was discussed (with editwar).
In this context, I fully share what she said. When it is one or the other, Int'l Law has primacy. But when it is one or the other. In other cases, both points of views must be reported (and this is what she was arguing and editwaring for...)
It doesn't matter much any way. Just to clarify a potential misunderstanding.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Workshop

Just for information: I fully share your mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Merci, Pluto. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi StevenJ81. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

A bother

Steven, this is a very ticklish point. I've thought about it for some years, and never got round to prompting a discussion (really, after all, it is none of my business), other than dropping desultory remarks, but the lead definition at Jews is problematical (in wiki terms). All I wish to do is to get people from the interested community to fix it, without further meddling from myself. I fully understand that my standing as a fair editor in the I/P death zone is often questioned, and therefore even raising this will only tend to raise eyebrows. In any case, I just wondered whether you might cast an eye over it (and the discussion at the NOR board. if you aren't interested or regard this (as I do) as too difficult to formulate satisfactorily, could you perhaps email around or contact others you know who might be interested? A thing like that might take months to find a formulation that your community would, with its manifold perspectives, find acceptable, so it's nothing urgent. I'm sorry to prevail on your time like this, and by all means ignore this request if you think it is either noisome, noxious or whatever. Best regards.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: It's not the neatest, cleanest lead I ever saw. But what in particular do you see as especially problematic? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
If you mean the earlier lead, everything was problematic. The new version, which is taken from the GA article several years ago, is much simpler, and collegially tweakable. Since the former lead, which was a patent political definition of Jewish origins ('we are all natives of the Galilee-West Bank' was what it was saying), is no longer there, I'm happy to leave editors to figure out how to improve or finesse it. Basically, as always, if I see Ravpapa on a page, I see no point in my intruding further, since he says everything I think, arriving there by commonsense rather than the laborious WP:TLDR browbeating people, with some justice, associate with my contributions. Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: I see your point. The current version is not bad, and the tweaks will never end. But the rest of that stuff didn't belong in the lead, quite right. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is What good are WP:RS and WP:V if administrators ignore them?. Thank you. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to add something

Perhaps you would like to add something to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/79.78.168.63? Debresser (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hey, could I ask you something? I'm really an outsider to the established order of Wiki. Anyway, some third-grade university course active here added Reform Judaism to their assignment list. The two students editing it are, well, clueless and ignore my comments on the talk page. They read some general intro on the modern history of Judaism and quote voluminously from it. I reverted them once but I'm really not in the mood to argue. Should I just wait for them to finish (course ends in about two weeks) and then restore to the old version? AddMore-III (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@AddMore-III:. First of all, I'm fine with denomination. What I didn't like was confessional, which is even more Christian than doctrinal. Anyway ...
The university students are required to listen to what you have to say on the talk page, and they are required to provide sources for their edits. If they do not do those things, you can revert. But please be sure you include both on the talk page and in the edit summary the "why" of what you're doing. And don't get snagged in WP:3RR. If they're going to insist, you may have to put in a complaint at WP:ANI in order not to get blocked yourself because of 3RR.
Can you post me a diff that illustrates the problem? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Just take a peek at the talk page and the recent edits there. For one, they insist adding a ton of "info" (long quotes, actually) on the Haskalah which is totally irrelevant. The thing is, once they'll complete their assignment (21 May or maybe a few days later) they won't care anymore. I utterly despise dealing with that sort of people, I much rather wait. AddMore-III (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@AddMore-III: I've been meaning to sit down and review the work you've done on this article for quite a while. And I'm thinking I'll probably now need to do this sooner rather than later.
Look, as far as I can tell, the students have done things the way they're supposed to. They've written on the talk page. They've provided sources. They've been polite. So if you feel that their contributions are not accurate, you're just going to need to respond to them, either now or after their class is complete.
  • I sense some ownership issues here, and you need to be wary of that.
  • While the article is not about the Haskalah, I don't think it's right to say that the Haskalah is totally irrelevant, either. If nothing else, it helped create the conditions for the "[b]reakdown of traditional patterns", as you put it.
  • Similarly, "[b]reakdown of traditional patterns" is more inclusive than "no longer separated from the mainstream life of Non-Jews". But one of those phrases feels more inward-looking, while one is more outward-looking. It may be worthwhile to include a version of both ideas going forward.
I think you probably can and should keep the content mostly intact along the lines of what you wrote. But if you can find a way to incorporate a couple of the students' ideas explicitly, it will probably make them happy and prevent this from turning into a conflict. I'd encourage you to do that. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Date Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meridian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Mazl tov!

Mazl tov, mazl tov on your son's wedding. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. (I tried to slip you a sly little note somewhere; perhaps you didn't pick it up.) I'll email you a link to the video, which should be up for another week. (We did that because my parents are in no condition to make a trip abroad.) We had a wonderful time, the wedding was fantastic, and we (especially my son) truly lucked out with a wonderful כלה and a wonderful set of מחתנים. I wish you many simchas. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mazel tov! — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mazel Tov on your son's wedding! 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sukkos

Hi, can you take a look at the Sukkos article/talk page? From the article it is unclear the status of Shmini Atzeres and Sukkos. SA is not part of Sukkos and the article is a bit contradictory in that, sometimes it says SA is at the end of Sukkos and other times it's as if SA is part of Sukkos, especially with the dates of the holiday. Your input on the talk page is appreciated. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I'll have a look, though probably not until tomorrow. Meanwhile, please look at the article Shemini Atzeret, which I have worked very hard on over the years. While "SA is not part of Sukkos", on the whole, that's not quite 100% true, either, especially in חו"ל. So this will need to be a very nuanced answer. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and I was going based on the lead of the SA article. SA is not part of Sukkos but it is related. We have 2016 dates for SA that is also part of Sukkos and that is not correct. The "last two days" are not Sukkos, it's SA. We can explain that in the article but the dates and terminology in an encyclopedia should be correct. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take my revert personal. You know that I almost always agree with you, because you are an excellent editor and knowledgeable in the area of Judaism. I would revert an edit by my mother, if I thought it was wrong. Well, if that weren't against the halakha. :) Debresser (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Tool labs

I'm not going to say it's easy, but if you'd like to try getting access the instructions are here: Wikitech:Help:Tool Labs/Getting started. I also found this helpful: Wikitech:Help:Access to ToolLabs instances with PuTTY and WinSCP. I used WinSCP, which comes with puttygen which you can use to make your key. --JFH (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, StevenJ81. 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)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Edit at Judaeo-Spanish

Apologies. This is coming from a school-registered IP address and one of the students thought it would be funny to see [angry] reactions from other editors after making that edit, deliberately getting into an edit war to see what it would be like. This is proof that there are many immature students in our school, unfortunately. —170.24.136.3 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a user named Diabedia2 (the suspected sockpuppet of Diabedia) who was behing this piddling around and was using this IP address. He made a new account just to disturb the community again. He tried to undo the edits start an edit war with me, but I countered him and undid the edits. He's had a bad history and made plenty of sockpuppet accounts just to make war with other editors in the community. He is an execrable sockpuppeteer that has been blocked several times and I sure assume this is another one of his nasty plots. If you're an admin, please block him. Thank you. —170.24.136.3 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and have taken some steps elsewhere. If this is a school account, do you think this puppet is hacking into your IP, or do you think this puppet is part of your community? If the latter, perhaps there are steps you can take at your end, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing we can do, really... If Diabedia does something mischievous again, admins will just block him. Simple as that. Diabedia could even be a hacker using VPN as well... —170.24.136.3 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

IDL basic concepts : one, two, three dates at once

If you feel like re-visiting the IDL article you were working on, please browse my talk page contribution, summarizing what I have now come to understand about the subject -- I'm feeling sort of at an end point now, unclear about what if anything ought to be done to improve the article...-71.174.190.122 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

Happy template editing! — xaosflux Talk 18:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Redolta is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!


Redolta📱 Contribs 23:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Redolta. I hope you have a happy, healthy and prosperous year! StevenJ81 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I took care of the problem in yet another way

In reply to your email, this also does the job. Debresser (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. I tend not to go that direction if I can help it. You do. Eilu v'eilu ... I did wonder why the trouble stopped so quickly this time. That said, I'm going to keep those definitions in my hip pocket, if you will. Ultimately, those two sources tend to be pretty definitive sources of US and UK English usage respectively. So if they say it, I'm confident in it from an English perspective. חג אורים שמח! StevenJ81 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not nice

You really should not edit a section that is tagged with the {{Under construction}} template. Now feel free to comment. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Sorry. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
It is huge! :) Debresser (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
It isn't tagged right now, and why would a consensus proposal be tagged as Under Construction? Seraphim System (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Because now it is finished. I tagged it because I was still working on fleshing out the details, as you can see from the result. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New article

Thanks for your input on Draft:Victoria Hanna. Is there any way that you think this can be approved by the time of the opening of the Maccabiah Games tonight? She will be singing in the opening ceremony. Thanks for your help. --2604:2000:E016:A700:3D29:A4DE:58B0:3D8E (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@2604:2000:E016:A700:3D29:A4DE:58B0:3D8E: Doubt it. I imagine the opening is actually less than an hour away, at most. (Time is currently just before 7:30 pm local in Israel.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@2604:2000:E016:A700:3D29:A4DE:58B0:3D8E: Someone approved and published at 8:10 pm local in Israel. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. 2604:2000:E016:A700:194D:74EE:343B:E313 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Translations into Hebrew of: Robert Strassburg & John Serry Sr. for the Hebrew Wikipedia and the Wikiproject Judaism

Hello StevenJ81 - Just a quick note to thank you for your outstanding contributions to the WikiProject Judaism. If you have time could you request and/or initiate a translation of the articles listed above for the Hebrew Wikipedia?

Robert Strassburg was a noted Jewish/American composer/educator and conductor, a native New Yorker. He was also a classmate of the eminent conductor/composer Leonard Bernstein at Harvard University. He studied with Igor Stravinsky, Walter Piston and Paul Hindemith (all leading composers of their time) and is noted as an authority on the music of the Jewish/Swiss composer Ernest Bloch. Strassburg composed a collection of Jewish liturgical music for Kabbalat Shabbat, Ma Tovu and Psalm 117 as well as a Jewish opera "Chelm" (See http://www.milkenarchive.org/artists/view/robert-strassburg/) In addition, he maintained close contact with the noted Israeli composer Paul Ben-Haim and the Jewish/American composer Eric Zeisl. He was also a mentor to the noted Jewish/American composer Yehudi Wyner.

One of his many students was John Serry Sr. who shared Strassburg's interest in composing and performing liturgical works as an organist. He also shared Strassburg's philosophical interest in promoting international peace through the performance of secular music for Voice of America as well as performances of sacred liturgical music of many religious traditions (including Judaism) throughout his professional career over 70 years. Serry's English Wikipedia article has already been translated into Italian and German. A French translation is also in progress. Strassburg's article has been translated into Italian. I'm certain that scholars and researchers of the future who consult the Hebrew Wikipedia would benefit from a translation of each of these biographical articles! Thanks once again for your kind and thoughtful consideration. Best wishes for the continued success of your outstanding editorial efforts on Wikipedia. Respectfully yours PeterS.72.69.152.90 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. But you clearly have an enormous interest in these composers. You have probably noticed that I reverted edits you made in both the English and French Wikipedias (so far). The immediate reason for that is WP:UNDUE, but in your case I'm also worried about WP:COI (and unless I miss my guess, WP:COISELF—are you his son or other relative?). I don't necessarily think in this case that anything is exactly wrong or controversial. But it was clear to me that a whole section on Shabbat liturgical music featuring just that work was way out of line within a broad subject like Shabbat. And If you are family, or a close friend, or a student, you need to be particularly careful to be objective, and not to make his admittedly important contributions not look more important than they really are. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi StevenJ81 --Many thanks for your prompt reply and kind assistance. I fully understand and appreciate your assistance in correcting my hasty editorial efforts on the French and English Wikipedias in reference to the articles about Shabbat. My intention was to create a small section which might serve to highlight the efforts of many composers through the efforts of other researchers on Wikipedia at some time in the future (as opposed to providing an exclusive citation of only one composer at this time). Thank you in advance for forgiving my blunders--your insights are quite impartial and correct. Alas, I am only partially conversant with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I shall naturally refrain from further careless editing in the future as per your suggestions and leave such editorial efforts in the capable of hands of experienced professionals such as yourself. In addition, kindly accept my sincerest thanks for your genuine interest in sharing these articles with our fellow researchers, scholars and students in Israel. There can be no doubt that the spirit of peace, harmony and mutual respect for all religious traditions which is reflected in the compositions and performances of these imaginative musicians and their colleagues from past generations can be shared with future generations only through the concerted efforts of highly skilled editorial professionals such as yourself. In the process, all of humanity benefits from our efforts and the fervent belief of these composers and their colleagues that mankind is capable of aspiring to a higher level of civilized existence through shared cultural and religious experience lives on to inspire future generations. Many thanks again for your thoughtfulness and patience. Best wishes for your future endeavors on Wikipedia! I look forward to reading more of your research in the future. Shalom! Respectfully yours Pete104.207.219.150 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Editing of article "Shabbat "on French Wikipedia & translations of Robert Strassburg & John Serry Sr.

Hi StevenJ81 --Many thanks for your prompt reply and kind assistance. I fully understand and appreciate your assistance in correcting my hasty editorial efforts on the French and English Wikipedias in reference to the articles about Shabbat. My intention was to create a small section which might serve to highlight the efforts of many composers through the efforts of other researchers on Wikipedia at some time in the future (as opposed to providing an exclusive citation of only one composer at this time). Thank you in advance for forgiving my blunders--your insights are quite impartial and correct. Alas, I am only partially conversant with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I shall naturally refrain from further careless editing in the future as per your suggestions and leave such editorial efforts in the capable of hands of experienced professionals such as yourself. In addition, kindly accept my sincerest thanks for your genuine interest in sharing these articles with our fellow researchers, scholars and students in Israel. There can be no doubt that the spirit of peace, harmony and mutual respect for all religious traditions which is reflected in the compositions and performances of these imaginative musicians and their colleagues from past generations can be shared with future generations only through the concerted efforts of highly skilled editorial professionals such as yourself. In the process, all of humanity benefits from our efforts and the fervent belief of these composers and their colleagues that mankind is capable of aspiring to a higher level of civilized existence through shared cultural and religious experience lives on to inspire future generations. Many thanks again for your thoughtfulness and patience. Best wishes for your future endeavors on Wikipedia! I look forward to reading more of your research in the future. Shalom! Respectfully yours Pete104.207.219.150 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Pete104.207.219.150 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Troll

@Stevenj81 Please see the edit history of this Wiki user. He is a sick troll, and has been messing with Jewish related pages. Please ban him. This is above my paygrade as a Wiki Jew User ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Meatmaster69 Alanadrubin (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alanadrubin: you have to report at WP:AIV. I'm not an admin on this wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:StevenJ81/Archive_3"