User talk:IZAK

Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the fuss. JacobFrank made a prank edit to WT:JUDAISM and signed it La Comadreja or vice versa. There's no rule against having multiple accounts. (I have one, User:MShabazz.)

With respect to the Bacon Challenge page, Wikipedia pages don't get blocked, editors do. If you'd like to delete the Bacon Challenge page, please start an WP:MfD.

I'm sorry I can't be of any help, but I just don't see the problem here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I don't get it, on some pages, going back to January 2010 you warn a user about vandalism, the user should learn not to do that, then the user, after having changed their user IDs at least twice more returns to perform a "prank" in September of 2010 with the original prankish/vandal user name, and you refuse to condemn both the use of the controversial user name User:JacobFrank connected to the Jacob Frank article in violation of WP:USERNAME guidelines, let alone worry about possible sockpuppetry. No user would be allowed to call themselves User:Napoleon and be allowed to have that redirect to the Napoleon article, be warned not to play pranks and be accused of vandalism in January 2010 and then go ahead and play a prank in September of 2010 at WP:FRANCE, and at the same time switch around with at least two other user names and sow confusion, while admitting on Wikiversity that they had had serious issues with WP:FRANCE along the way and hinted at even more problems in the past on WP. Such a situation would be clarified very quickly on WP by admins concerned with WP policies and WP:FRANCE. IZAK (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying user names

Hi IZAK. What we have is a person (User:La comadreja) who changed her username once probably for privacy reasons, and also briefly used a joke account to do nothing significant. I can assure you that this has less than nothing to do with User:ChildofMidnight— I've met User:La comadreja multiple times at meetups etc and she's definitely her own person.--Pharos (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Pharos: Thanks for contacting me. This matter has certain complexities. Let's see what transpires from our other communications with each other via Email. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK,

Re: the link of JacobFrank's Userpage to his article, I am aware that this is unusual. My intent was to show people who Jacob Frank was in the quickest possible fashion, which would illustrate how Judaism and Wikimedia have another side besides the one that plays extra-stringently by the rules. JacobFrank has a real Userpage on Wikiversity, in which "purification through transgression" is used to discusses the policies of "be bold" and "ignore all rules" (these Wikiversity policies are the same as Wikipedia's). The hook for JacobFrank on Wikiversity has been up for months and reads: "There are some interesting and colorful people in Jewish history, don't you think? I'm just one of them. Find out more." His signature on Wikipedia links directly to the Wikiversity page. However, his Wikipedia userpage would only have a soft redirect if it were given that link, so I chose a redirect that would explain who Jacob Frank was as quickly as I could. If you found this problematic, I could change that redirect to my primary Wikipedia userpage. His Talk page already links directly to my Talk page, which is the same.

Part of the issue seems to be that Wikiversity has a slightly different policy about User accounts than Wikipedia. Wikiversity has several accounts, including JacobFrank, that are known as "mascots." These are obviously controlled by real people, but make edits in-character and with a distinctly different persona from the Users that control them. They are tolerated, so long as they are harmless to the encyclopedia. There was some controversy about JacobFrank becoming a Wikiversity mascot, but he was ultimately accepted. On Wikiversity, my idea was to add educational content to the mascot itself, in this case information about Jewish history that countered stereotypes. Since the real Jacob Frank has been dead for hundreds of years, I thought there would be no question User:JacobFrank is different from the historical figure.

It seems to me that your real question is about the character of Jacob Frank, and why I would choose to impersonate him. My choice of Frank was not because I support his rendition of Sabbateanism, but mostly because of where and when he lived--Frank was the most recent of the major Sabbatean leaders, and the only one based in Eastern Europe. Frankism was considered to have foreshadowed the predecessor of my own Judaism, the Ashkenazic Judaism of the Haskalah. While I do not believe Zevi was the Messiah, I differ from most Jews in admiring his boldly original antinomianism and in asking whether it's still possible to give his story a different ending. I think Zevi was a Jewish genius reminiscent of William Blake or Joni Mitchell. Blake, in his illuminated book _The Marriage of Heaven and Hell_ (which I shared in a JacobFrank post to WikiProject Judaism), also moved contrary to the religious trends of his day in advocating a religion of emotion and spontaneity rather than strict obedience. Perhaps this is one reason the High Holy Day JacobFrank post was "provocative" to you. Mitchell resembles another side of Zevi--a major theme of her music is the redemptive power of individualism. She pioneered the use of alternate string tunings, and in songs like "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" (about sexual activities that would be reviled in traditional Judaeo-Christianity) she showed that these tunings opened new realms of expression to the guitar. In "Woodstock," Mitchell even reaches toward the idea of redemption of the world--"And I dreamed I saw the bombers riding shotgun in the sky, and they turned into butterflies above our nation. We are stardust…and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden." Unlike Ottoman Sufism or 1960s America, which encouraged antinomian creative spirits to accomplish realistic goals, the Judaism of Sabbatai's time had no clear place for such a person and ran into trouble when it found one. Frank had a number of interesting ideas, but his excesses were part of the trouble. However, people who are conventionally considered Jewish heroes committed crimes at least as terrible--it is difficult to top King David, who murdered Uriah because of Bathsheba. Even Jacob Frank does not seem to have gone that far.

I am not the only editor with a positive view of Zevi, or the only editor with a Username based on Jacob Frank or other Sabbatean leaders--some of the other owners of Sabbatean Usernames have commented on my User talk page. While mine is not the conventional viewpoint of Progressive Judaism, I believe most major Progressive movements are making the mistakes of (1) failing to develop a distinct and compelling Progressive Jewish story to teach our children, (2) confusing Progressive Judaism (or Judaism in general) with social conformism. The major thrust of Classic Reform Judaism is integration with the surrounding society, and the major thrust of Traditionalist Reform and Conservative Judaism is mimicking Orthodox Jews in replicating the old traditions. Although Zevi's story is normally taught as a cautionary tale, he reveals that there is a third path, one that may be essential to realizing Progressive Judaism's creative potential. As Jews, we are already consciously choosing to be different from most of the world. So long as we do not depend on fulfilling impossible objectives and we remain moral, there is a power in being ourselves.

I try to be neutral in my edits to articles and in my suggestions about what should be done to them. Other types of Talk page comments, as well as User pages, are another story. My philosophy about them is almost the opposite, that they are a chance to express an editor's individuality and reveal that editor's particular angle. While Wikipedia is not Myspace, a byproduct of the editing process is that it accomplishes another worthy goal--to provide a common meeting ground for experts, some of whom may have unconventional angles. Someone relatively sympathetic to Judas Iscariot should not be prevented from participating in WP:Christianity as User:JudasIscariot, and hopefully countering the tendency to speak excessively negatively about him so that the overall discussion approaches neutrality.

I hope this answers your questions. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi La comadreja: Thanks for your detailed response actually in response to my own Email response which I repost now, with a few added comments, because it both serves to explain the lengths to which you responded and still retains the main problems stemming from the usage of the "JacobFrank" ID:

1. It was only when I recently saw your recent pre-holiday "greetings" from Jacob FrankatWP:TALKJUDAISM from the "User:JacobFrank" account linking as it did (I see that you recently corrected that, thank you!) to the Jacob Frank article that I became very worried that a huge prank and violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:HOAX was underway because I found that the "User:JacobFrank" ID linked back to the actual Jacob Frank article, which you must admit is highly unusual for a user ID. It almost never happens, unless a user's ID needs to be linked to a subject since the user has over-stepped their mark.
2. I then spent a couple of hours trying to figure out the trail of your IDs and I came up with at least two more, the "La comadreja" one, and then the "AFriedman" one and you must admit that it's also not that often that you find one user jumping from one ID to others at least three times, and that it's both highly unusual and arouses suspicion living as we do in a world of sockpuppetry, vandalism, sickos, and all sorts of banned users.
3. Then I noticed edits by two of your user IDs ("JacobFrank" and "La comadreja") at the User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 page (of a blocked user yet, about a typical topic that a true Frankist would love of breaking Judaism's barriers!) and I was not sure what to make of it, whether it was yet another link by you to another user ID of yours as well and this time it was banned or was it a comment. I assumed the former, until user Malik Shabbaz told me more about you and pointed out that you had only edited that page but were not a banned user.
4. Ok, so then I also contacted you to find out what's up and let you know about that long into-the-wee-hours trail I was following.
5. Which brings me back to the first issue and that is the usage of the "User:JacobFrank" ID and the way you linked it to the main Jacob Frank article and the way you had chosen to use it not just for neutral WM purposes but you were clearly injecting a Jacob Frank type message AS IF YOU WERE IMPERSONATING and PROMOTING the deceased Jacob Frank himself. Which put Judaic editors on the spot. How so?
6. If you know anything about the real Jacob Frank's life you will know that he is notorious among Jews and Judaism for having betrayed Judaism and apostatized and became a full Catholic Christian in Poland.
7. He was also discovered to be running a cult of sexual licentiousness that did not recognize any sexual boundaries, FRANKISTS HAD SEX WITH EACH OTHER OVER TIME, and his daughter with whom he had incest took over as the high-priestess of his cult after he died. He had hundreds perhaps even thousands or tens of thousands of Jewish followers who followed him and apostatized and became Christians and were absorbed into Poland's Catholic aristocracy and became leaders there.
8. Now that is good stuff for an encyclopedia, but it should NOT become the grounds for injecting controversy into the usual question-and-answer type format at WP:JUDAISM, as if a red flag was being waved to the bulls.
9. This is a very sad time in Jewish history, and nothing that Jews or Judaism are proud of. Yes, Frank had a Sabbatean philosophy, that on an abstract level perhaps had merits and was serious but it was actually mostly misplaced Jewish teachings that he twisted for his own perverted ends.
10. No one in Judaism, even Reform Judaism, has anything good to say about him. He is a tragic and controversial figure. Notorious according to some.
11. So it is thoroughly amazing to actually find a user who uses that name altogether.
12. Even Christians downplay him because Frankists were notorious in their disregard for classical Biblical sexual morality which they held no longer applied since Frank was the "Messiah" and he declared an "end" to all those "old" things.
13. At any rate, it is nothing like using Malik Shabbaz who was a black nationalist or a Christian icon (both heroes to their constituencies), but even that I think is wrong and they should not be doing it.
14. My concern is that within the domain WP:JUDAISM the name "Jacob Frank" is an automatic red flag and challenge and puts people on the spot, then, when you seem to actually be "speaking for him" in WP:SOAPBOX fashion as if he were "communicating" from the grave as it were.
15. It's doubly confusing, especially when you claim you want to be a neutral leader on WM when "Jacob Frank" is about as far from neutral as you can go in the history of the Jewish people in modern times.
16. It would be like taking the ID of Judas Iscariot and enter into the WP:Christianity as User "Judas Iscariot (talk · contribs)" (a sockpuppet blocked indefinitely, as it happens), or take the user name Muhammad (talk · contribs) and expect not to be noticed in WP:ISLAM or elsewhere and naively expect to be go "unnoticed" and given a free pass and claim to be protected by "neutrality" or some such rationalization, if you get what I am saying. It's provocative and violates WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CIVIL for some users.
17. One should be wary of taking upon their shoulders the name of a famous person or movement or subject in history and come on as a user as if one were that person or movement or subject, and that is why WP:USERNAME#Dealing with inappropriate usernames discourages such choices:『...an inappropriate username – in particular, a username that is misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive...』or even "...Conflict of interest:If the username simply indicates that the user has a conflict of interest, without otherwise being an inappropriate username,..." and more like this
18. Therefore, if as you say you are willing to let go of the User JacobFrank (talk · contribs) ID on both WP, WM or anywhere else in the WP universe it would be a great idea and very helpful all around but most of all it would help you.
19. Because, you and any editor are obviously free to privately and personally hold any and all views and to work to add or improve any articles about any subjects and no one questions your right to delve into any aspect of the Frankists or the Sabbateans.
20. But when a user takes on names of serious personalities fraught with controversy, it creates awkwardness and unease which then gets in the way of helping WP grow as a neutral encyclopedia. This should be logical and clear.
21. In the past there have been users who decided to use user names like Judaism (talk · contribs) (red-linked now) or Chabad (talk · contribs) (inactive since 16 December 2004, and complaints were lodged) and they were likewise similarly reminded to stop or switch and choose other user names that would not create confusion and misunderstandings.

I am being honest and upfront with you, and I assume you will take what I say in the right spirit. I enjoy WP and above all I have a lot of respect for it as an institution and that is why I care so much. IZAK (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you and other people might be offended, and realize this is taking away from making useful edits to the encyclopedia. I'll be retiring the Jacob Frank account from now on. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi La comadreja: Thank you for your understanding. Let's stay in touch. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}tothe top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I am not even sure what this is about, it's been so long that I edited Holocaust-related stuff. IZAK (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know, I have commented. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought you might be interested in the new article about Harris Lenowitz I've just created. Lenowitz is one of the leading modern authorities on Jacob Frank. I've just found out about Lenowitz from User:Yalhak, and I'm trying to make the Lenowitz article into a Did You Know. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi La comadreja: Thanks for contacting me. I am unable to help you with this. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily expecting your help, but was thinking more along the lines of you being interested in reading the article. Also, that there are serious and constructive things to do in lieu of what I'd been doing earlier. Have you seen this e-book? I just found it when I was looking for information on Lenowitz, and I didn't realize anyone had translated it into English. There is lots of interesting stuff in there. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, congrats about being recognized as one of the most active Users. I'm sure you worked hard for that. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! IZAK (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your interest, I plan to reopen the ArbCom case. I hope this time it will rule clearly to exclude you from making edits in Judaism-related article. Please see User_talk:Dougweller#How_to_proceed.3F for your information ONLY. You are kindly requested not to comment there. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Debresser: Thanks for letting me know, I have responded there. But, unlike yourself who almost habitually runs to admins and ANI rather than discuss and talk about issues especially when you venture into non-Chabad Judaic topics with your quite evident POV edits, I have opened discussions at two of the articles talk pages in question, see (1) Talk:Musar movement#Musar or Mussar (see my lengthy exposition of why you are wrong at Talk:Musar movement#Use of the double middle letters in transliterated Hebrew words) and also at (2) Talk:Posek#Notable Poskim that asks for more comprehensive discussions on relevant article's talk pages when there will be a probability that your pro-Chabad POV will create a WP:COI. Please engage in those discussions positively without name calling and deprecating anyone and instead of engaging in your constant WP:NPA against me or anyone who disagrees with you. Looking forward to getting your input. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening those discussion was a good thing, and I have gladly participated in them. It is a shame that you constantly keep clouding the atmosphere and poisoning the well with your wild and baseless accusations against Chabad editors. A good word of advise, if I may: try not to use the word "Chabad" for a month (or a week, for starters). That is sure to help! Debresser (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like, in time, to see all the portals related to Christianity be serious contenders for Featured Portal status. One of those portals, even though it is not solely related to Christianity, is Portal:Bible. For what little it might be worth, I personally think that maybe, given the amount of material that exists here related to the topic, that we might be able to alter the portal so that the two articles, and maybe the DYKs and images, which appear together might all be directly related to one book of subdivision of the Bible. I do know that the Jewish editors are probably the ones who have the greatest interest in the books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and think that having input from Jewish editors on which article, DYKs, and image should be chosen as accompaniments for a given book or subsection of the Jewish Bible would be probably the most reasonable way to go for that material. Perhaps, ultimately, the portal might be arranged such that the selections change on a weekly basis, starting with alternating weeks of Jewish Bible and New Testament selections, and then continuing with selections on the remainder of the Jewish Bible until all the books/sections are completed. Personally, I think that we would definitely be more likely to get it to FP if we were to include all the directly relevant FAs and GAs and maybe FPs somewhere in the selections. Anyway, you seem to be one of the editors who most frequently works with Portal:Judaism, so I'm thinking your input would be possibly particularly valuable. If you would like to offer any advice on selections or any other input regarding the subect at User:John Carter/Christianity portals#Portal:Bible, I would be very appreciative. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, Izak.
I am one little bold, it is not that the English is my language, the problem is that I do not speak it. Now I use a translator of the web page.
I ask you excuses for the troubles.
Using my audacity, I will comment you a question, if you allow me it, I am the author of the original article in Catalan ca:xueta, this article was translated to English before that it was intensely improved incorporating bibliographical references and some other improvements, the article was considerate “Featured article” in Catalan, later in Spanish es:chueta, it has also been translated literally to the German de:xueta. Much work is not necessary to the article in English for attaining the same level of quality than those of the other three languages.
Could we make anything?
Best regards--Lliura (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you take the discussion to WP:SPAIN. Ask around, IZAK (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've made a number of substantive changes to the Yitzchok Hutner page, without bothering to comply with WP:VERIFY. Additionally, your edits appear to run afoul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I have spent considerable time improving the article with WP:SOURCES and would appreciate your contributing in kind. It seems quite clear that edits to this article are likely to be met with WP:CHALLENGE and should therefore be clearly based on WP:SOURCE material only. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for contacting me. Firstly I was adding to the article and not removing information. That's how article's are written. What points would you like to verify, let me know and I will respond gladly. I do not make things up, if anything I try to be as inclusive as I can and base it on factual, known as sourced information. You are the only one making problems right now. Your tense and angry tone does not make working with you an easy task. You have a tendency to insult and demean editors who disagree with you. I was the creator of the article and I have watched over it since its inception. Dozens of editors have added touches to it over the years and have not seen fit to wage WP:WAR with me over it. Everything is true and verifiable, I assure you. Can you specify which points bother you, besides Hutner's known criticisms of Chabad, rather than make sweeping accusations and threats? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin was NOT founded by Rabbi Hutner, in fact its existence preceded his arrival to the US by more than thirty years!

2. Aaron Schechter cannot be listed as Hutners 'designated successor' as the matter has been the subject on a never resolved ongoing dispute with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach and others, which has involved various legal summonses etc., including the involvement of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. The way the paragraphs inserted by USER:IZAK read are misleading and definitely ]]wp:unsourced]].

3. One might assume that the primary value of references is that they provide the reader with the ability to see what was actually said. Goldbergs book quite clearly quotes an anonymous (pseudonym) 'Saul' as the sole source for Hutners supposed 'fierce criticism' which seems to fly in the face of much conflicting evidence. So it is correct to cite Goldberg as quoting "an anonymous source" which is exactly what he does.

4. Likewise when USER:IZAK modifies actual quotes from both Hutners work and the 'Mibeis Hagenozim' sources quoted, this amounts to vandalism and is another violation of wp:ew. Winchester2313 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Winchester2313 (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Winchester: I have responded to the above at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Verifiable information and accurate quotes from sources.. Let's try to centralize all discussions at that page. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your repeated threats and intimidation, specifically when you constantly level accusations of some spurious Chabad-POV in articles having nothing to do with Chabad. Lacking other recourse, and as you seem determined to continue with the threats and warring, I have no choice but to request an arbitrators involvement, which I will do shortly. Winchester2313 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your accusations here: [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchester2313 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for letting me know, IZAK (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester2313 at ANI

The case and its continuation, see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#User:Winchester2313
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Winchester2313 summarized

I see you are trying to help out in perfecting all the articles on prayers. This is very nice.

I have a couple of questions:

1.) You made the second word of prayers in lower case. Shouldn't they be capitalized, being that they are proper names? I saw you compared it to some others, like Rosh yeshiva. But a "Rosh yeshiva" is a position, just like Prime minister is a position. Meanwhile, Baruch She'amar is a title, just like Avinu Malkeinu is a title.

2.) A noticed you created a category called Category:Siddur of Orthodox Judaism. I don't see why this is Orthodox-specific. Conservative Judaism publishes its own siddurim, but uses all the identical prayers. The only major differences are that it is geared more toward prayer in English (in the USA and Canada), and the Matriarchs are included in the liturgy. Reform Judaism leaves out a lot of prayers and modifies many others, and altogether is most unlike Orthodox. There are also variations between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and other nusachim, but mostly in the order the prayers are recited.

Why don't you tell me what you think. Xyz7890 (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi XYz7890:

1. I am really glad to hear from you and I will be very happy to talk with you.
2. Let me compliment you again on the great job you have done with your series of articles relating to Judaism over the last two years or so. Amazing and a Kiddush Hashem.
3. I went over many of your articles and I corrected many obvious small errors. Many of your article are really stubs and really need more work. I commend you for adding great references that is very important.
4. However many of the articles' titles are in Hebrew and that creates many new challenges for the English Wikipedia. One way that I am trying to ameliorate and make the mass of Hebrew titles more digestible to the vast majority of non-Hebrew speakers is by adding categories that will help as over-all guides in organizing the material into more meaningful and digestible wholes.
5. With regards to the spellings, the truth is that Barukh she'amar are the first two words of a prayer, the "title" is informal and the truth is that "Avinu Malkeinu" are also the first two words of a longer set of prayers starting with those words, yet I did NOT change "Avinu Malkeinu" because I acknowledge it describes God, so that capitals are correct, since He is both "Avinu" ("Father ours" translating literally, or "our Father" colloquially) and "Malkeinu" "'King ours" translating literally, or "our King" colloquially) and not plain "king" or "father". It can get tricky I admit and that is why I did NOT change all of them. But Rosh yeshiva] and Beth din are definitely as much real "titles" of people and institutions as any other Hebrew words, in fact more so because there are other no words that follow them, yet they are written with the second word in lower case. I would say that where it is the long-standing custom and known usage to have words like Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah then they stay because of WP:COMMONNAME, but when creating such words and using on Wikipedia for the relatively first time, then the protocol has been over the years to reduce the first letter of the second word. That's how I recall it being done for years on Wikipedia. Now that so many new Hebrew words have arrived that may have been forgotten.
6. As for the category, feel free to create a parallel category for Conservative and Reform liturgies.
7. The category does not specify order it only includes content alphabetically so matching between Sephardi and Ashkenazi versions do not matter. But the new categories do help to create direction and context that stand-alone Hebrew titles were not giving.

Thanks again for all your great work that I admire. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK, thanks for answering my questions. Here are some of my responses.

1&2.) I want to let you know my background in this. I am not a professional in Judaism, just one who has a lot of interest in personal tefilla and related topics. I have been inspired to write about it to this degree because I went to search for it some years back on Wikipedia and found there was so little information about it. I am not surprised either. Jews are less than 1% of the world's population, and of the small number of Jews in the population, most are uninterested. The one thing that does surprise me is that no rabbis or other more educated people in Judaism tried to contribute.

When I first came to Wikipedia several years ago, I looked up common names for various prayers, and found they often redirected to a more broad topic that provided little or no information. For example, Shacharit, Mincha, and Maariv all redirected to Jewish services. Entering the names of specific prayers rarely led to anything. I knew Wikipedia could do better. As I got familiar with the notability guidelines, and I knew all that has been written in published materials about every prayer that exists, I realized the potential.

3.) I appreciate all your correction of errors and any improvements you can make. I am aware that most of these articles are stubs and have room for expansion. At the present, I am trying to write about a page worth of information on each, and set the structure for future expansion, some of that I may add myself as I find more information.

4.) The spellings of Hebrew words transliterated into English is challenging. There are often multiple ways in which this is done that are all accepted by English-speakers, and the most important thing of all is that one looking for an article on the subject can find it. To deal with this, I have often indicated in the introduction "also spelled ________ and other variant English spellings," and redirected as many alternate spellings as possible to the title.

The spelling issue also makes finding sources a task. I have to google all the different spellings looking for sources, since these names are spelled differently in different books.

5.) With regards to capitalizing the second word of a title, it is a technicality and not a really major issue that there is any rush to resolve, but it is a complex issue that I feel needs a community discussion to resolve. I don't know where to hold the discussion. It needs to be held in a place where an issue involving multiple articles can be discussed. I canno figure out where yet. It is true. Most prayers have no official name, and are informally known by their first word(s), which are most suitable for the titles of the articles.

6&7.) I think the idea of a category pertaining to the siddur is great, but there should be some discussion about what it should include. I am considering the CfD route, but I have mixed feelings about that. CfD is generally for category deletions, merges, and renamings. I do not wish for the category to be deleted, but I have wondered if the two categories you created should be merged, or if a renaming is necessary. I do feel a community-wide discussion with ideas from others is necessary.

Sincerely yours. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi again Xyz7890: Thanks for your comprehensive and thoughtful feedback. I appreciate your honesty and I read you loud and clear. I hope that from my comments you will appreciate where I am coming from and my editorial "philosophy" which is not random. Here are some point by point responses again:

1. When talking about your idealism and wanting to contribute to Wikipedia you come across as a great Wikipedian. You have also proven it by your immense contributions. But when you say that "The one thing that does surprise me is that no rabbis or other more educated people in Judaism tried to contribute" is utterly wrong because my experience in almost eight years of being active on Wikipedia is thet almost all editors who have contributed to the majority of articles in Category:Jews and Judaism as well as to article in Category:Israel and Category:Zionism have been very educated editors and quite afew have been rabbis as well. You underestimate their contributions and also how vas and hard it is to work and contribute to Wikipedia.
2. Your own personal commitment to improving articles relating to Jewish prayer is great and very important, and your efforts are commendable. Everyone has their own unique interests and talents but that does not mean to say that others are "inferior" or "lacking" because they have had other interests.
3. This is a VERY important job, when you set your goals: "trying to write about a page worth of information on each, and set the structure for future expansion, some of that I may add myself as I find more information" and its importance cannot be stressed enough and will save those article from any future challenges to their existence.
4. Truer words have not been said when you state that "The spellings of Hebrew words transliterated into English is challenging" and, while there have been many discussions about this in the past see [[Wikipedia itself does not have one "standard" for this and probably will not have one for a long time if at all because of the genuine valid splits between the various ways of writing and pronouncing Israeli, Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Hasidic, popular, academic and even archaic ways of transliteration of Hebrew that is the real cause of the challenge to spellings of words because the choice of transliteration determines the spelling. And this is all reflected on the confusions on Google.
5. Regarding usage of Hebrew words on Wikipedia, you needn't re-invent the wheel. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and all past and present discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew), things still keep on coming up. Let me know what your conclusions are.
6. Please leave the new categories I have created because they serve as important navigational and informational tools. At this time, as I mentioned, if you wish to have categories that describe other approaches , such those of the Conservatives or Reform feel free to add categories. But chopping out my well-thought-out categories would be like cutting off our collective nose to spite our face.

Thanks again for all your efforts and I welcome communicating with you and any and all feedback. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi JO4n: Thank you so very much! It took up about half a day believe it or not because sifting and searching through Google's flotsam and jetsam makes it tough to locate acceptable sources. But I enjoyed it a lot. Please feel free to be in touch with me if you come across similar situations. Obviously, I will not be able to deal with all such cases, that's why it pays to place a notice over at WP:TALKJUDAISM when it comes to any articles related to JewsorJudaism, there are always Judaic editors there who are on the lookout and may help out too. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure, always happy to see an article improved. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks probably falls into the same category, will notify the project. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Rabbi Moshe Sacks article is a different kettle of fish because while Country Yossi is in essence a PR creature and therefore there are lots of links on Google, the opposite is true of Moshe Sacks that creates its own challenges and I have enumerated my reasons at the AfD page, take a look. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've read your posts and see the dilema with Moshe Sacks and his ilk. The problem is that verifiability is an important policy particularly with BLPs, so we need something to verify what is in the article. Take care, J04n(talk page) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. At least on a very fundamental level he is notable for his rabbinic books. I will see what I can find, but it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Cheers, IZAK (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK - I came over here to tell you what excellent work you did on Country Yossi. I see that I've been beaten to the punch so I will simply echo the above sentiments! Joe407 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Joe!!! IZAK (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks is due to be closed soon and it still has no sources. How do you feel about it being moved to User:IZAK/Moshe Sacks until sources can be found? J04n(talk page) 23:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there JO4n: Thanks for the suggestion, but I would rather my user space not become a storehouse for such articles. Somewhere there is a rule not allowing storage of problematic articles on user spaces, especially a de facto, if not de jure, deletion that you are suggesting here. But I do like the sensible response of Wizardman [14] (the nominator of the AfD) that the article itself be noted as a "stub" to allow for keeping it under the present situation with editors familiar with this topic understanding that it would be counter-productive to lose it. I usually do not resort to this to invoke WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this type of situation but this time it must be invoked, since expert editors are adamant that the topic is notable, albeit lacking more references for now. Otherwise there is the threat of WP losing hundreds if not thousands of excellent articles based on strict invocation of referencing technicalities that can be allowed to wait. Thanks again for caring. IZAK (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi again: The notability of this subject is further reinforced, he is linked at the Edah HaChareidis#Affiliated rabbis, all valid and true, so this deletion would create a red-link/gaping hole that helps no one. IZAK (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will never get Cush to stop his crusade. Honestly. He just ignores any criticism of his behavior. He's had RfCs brought in the past, but he ignores those as well. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Lisa, Good to hear from you. Nevertheless, we must always live according to WP:AGF and hope springs eternal!IZAK (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, please don't vote again in an AfD after it was relisted, like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks and at least one other discussion I saw. The discussion simply continues, and people are expected to voice their opinion (keep, delete, redirect, ...) only once. Making additional comments, replies, ... is of course allowed and often necessary in a discussion, but please don't vote twice, it gives the cursory reader the impression that more people are supporting keeping an article than is actually the case. Fram (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Fram: Thanks for letting me know. I was not aware of this procedure. Are you sure that that is the way it goes? Could you please point me to the WP policy that forbids more comments from previous voters. Thanks a lot! IZAK (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can comment as often as you like but only one !vote per discussion. Can't find a policy to support this but it is common practice. You should strike one of your keeps but multiple comments can remain. —J04n(talk page) 20:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do! IZAK (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I took a look the AfD was closed. IZAK (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, please comment at this AfD. It seems like Wikipedia standards don't always jive with publicity-shy Haredi mosdos. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to point this out to you before, but appear to have forgotten. I've proposed that your move of SephirottoSephirot (Kabbalah) be undone. Since you made the move, I'm commenting to let you join the discussion at Talk:Sephirot (Kabbalah) if you wish. —me_and 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]