User talk:Lisa

Hello LisaLiel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Citing sources Neutral Point of View Describing points of view Attribution Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Etiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Resolving disputes Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Tools Village pump

Hello,

when you are removing large parts of an article without explaining it in the edit summary, then it could happen that another editor might see this as vandalism. Especially Recent changes patrollers like me will always look for an explanation for the removal of content. If there is no explanation for the removal of content, another editor will most likely revert the edit. You did not explain the removal see diff so I reverted it to the previous revision. This is not vandalism. The removal of content is.

Next time, simply explain the removal of content in the edit summary.

Hope this helps.

Regards

User Doe _☻T ^☼C 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa -- we're both observant, and we would both rather Messianics stop creating confusion. We just have different methodologies. To me, clarity is the solution. To you, silencing is the solution. One of the main sociological markers for a cult is term switching -- using one group's terms with radically different meanings. Mormons will say that they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But they absolutely do NOT believe in the trinity. They are polytheistic and will say so internally. What's the solution? To brand them a cult? Of course not. To pretend they don't exist? No. To define all the terms side by side? Absolutely. You see it as advertisement and I see it as exposure. However, I DO think that the table with the Muslim column belongs in interfaith and the Messianic one should stay in the Messianic category. I didn't promote it to interfaith, and now that the Muslim one exists, it is a much better table for that arena.Tim (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and put it up for arbitration. You're committing vandalism.Tim (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LisaLiel: You nominated Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms for deletion but you forgot to "insert the {{subst:afd1}} tag at the top of the page." I have now done so. Omission of such things can lead to the invalidation of a vote. If you did indeed place it there at the time you nominated the article for deletion and it was removed by someone then you should, in fact must, lodge a complaint of vandalism. If you inadvertantly forgot to do it, try to remember next time. You can see all the steps that must be completed for a valid AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. In addition, there is also a very important page that helps the Judaic editors know about deletion votes, when you place a notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Finally, please join the Judaic editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and its very active talk pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks a lot. Bruchim haba'im and a freilichen Chanukah. IZAK (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again LisaLiel: Pardon my advice. Regarding what is happening now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Normally, Wikipedia AfD pages are not the place to conduct massive debates between parties. You did a good job presenting your case why the article should be deleted. You should not be writing essay-length responses and retorts to others as that just clogs up the page, makes the whole process messy and hard to follow, and is over-all counter-productive and very annoying to most editors who do not do such things when coming to vote and give their views (usually not more than a few sentences, if that.) I know it is not easy for a writer, but try to be concise and to limit yourself to paragraph-length responses at the most. People coming onto the page can go to the article's talk page to see and join detailed debates. Thanks for giving this your attention. I am placing a similar message on the others who are creating havoc on that page with full-blown essay-length responses rather than more focused replies that would be much more helpful to all concerned. IZAK (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing citations - it seems like we have a lot of material on idolatry now in the article, so I've added an entry in the table just for that concept. I've also wikilinked the apostasy cell to the article Idolatry in Judaism. Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, just a reminder, please try to resolve your dispute with discussion - one revert followed by discussion is fine (see WP:BRD). However, the WP:3RR rule says you must not revert the edits to an article more than three times in 24hours. I know you are well meaning and it would be a pity to lose your efforts to a block. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do discuss, but even repeated WP:BRD edits over the same topic can get you blocked. I'm concerned because of your statement, "As many times as you, ....".

Sometimes working on Wikipedia can be very frustrating - especially if you are a well educated Jew, as I know you are. Try to be patient and find sources that explain your position clearly. That education of yours didn't just give you knowledge, it gave you the skill to look up things and analyze them Jewishly. If someone says the sources don't fit the claims ask them why rather than accuse them of having shuttered ears or POV stubborness. It can only help you find even better citations and get better at explaining your position. Best, Egfrank (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. Unfortunately, the Areyeh Kaplan quote you recently added comes from a source that does not use the word apostasy anywhere (I looked). Try to find another more suitable source or modify the wording to be more in keeping with the source. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa - it is not my rule, it follows WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR. Use of a quote to define "apostasy" that does not itself mention the word apostasy is an example of "synthesis". Please try to find a better quote and in the meantime remove the quote from the apostasy cell. Also keep in mind that as the nominator of the AfD it is especially important that you be scrupulous in your editing of this article, lest one think you are trying to sabotage an article you have nominated for deletion. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, I realize you feel what you are doing is right, but you have been amply warned. I have reported the situation at WP:ANI#Continued problems with editor - disruptive editing. My deepest apologies, I value your participation and do not enjoy doing this. You can explain your side there. Egfrank (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the page protection tags from Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms as the article is not currently protected. Please do not re-add them, as this is misleading to other editors. If you feel the page needs protection, please request it at Requests for page protection. Jeffpw (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Jokes you left on my talk page. Jon513 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a hypocrite, because you made a change to the article and provided no explanation onthe talk page. I reverted you, but I actually DID put a detailed explanation on the talk page. When I provided an explanation onthe talk page I assumed good faith on your part and treated you with respect. Then, you (1) reverted me and (2) had some nerve telling me to provide a reason before reverting, when I in fact DID provide a reason and YOU did NOT. This shows a real lack of respect towards me and a failure on your part to assume good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology, I appreciate it. I too have edited too quickly sometimes and am sorry I was so rough in my response. I have also added more explanaion on the Christianity-Judaism talk page to expain my edit which I hope satisfies you. By the way, I don´t see the fig discussion in that particular article but I do agre with you and left a message on the glossary talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than revert you again, I ask you to delete the word "attempted" before genocide. Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." In other words, the act of genocide includes by definition a variety of acts with a specific set of intentions. It really dons´t mean anything to say that when Ferdinand and Isabela expelled Jews from Spain they were "attempting to attempt" to destroy in whole or in part Jewish culture. They actually were intending to do so, and that means they actually did commit genocide. Please, revert your most recent edit, which only dilutes what was actually done in the past. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response on my talk page. But consider this: I believe at certain times in European history the Catholic Church intended for all Jews to convert to Judaism. This would entail the end of the Jewish culture, which, according to international law today, is genocide.Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your making the change - but I am uncomfortalbe if you feel pressured into it. If you feel strongly about your view, we can continue discussing this. That is why I did not revert you, but rather brought the discussion to your talk page. I respect your views and hope we can reach a compromise edit both of us think is accurate and NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the two of you would stop it. Or take it to your own talk pages. Lisa, you are deliberately looking ofr trouble because you accused Tim of "calling you unpleasantness" when he did no such thing. I did a search of this page and found "unpleasantness" only twice, both in posts by you. Tim never called you unpleasantness. And Tim, don´t let Lisa provoke you. Grow up. forget the past. Focus on the future. Focus on improving the article in compliance with policies.You have no intention of communicating with lisa? Liar! you just communicated with her. If you really mean it, then just ... do ... not ... respond ... to ... her. And don't wait for an apology from anyone. Water under the bridge. Assume good faith, we use the word "assume" because it doesn't matter whether it is justified or not, it is simply necessary if ANY progress is to be made on articles. So assume it, and move in! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not conflict averse. But (1) I have seen you provoke Tim as much as he has provoked you. And if it isn't 50-50, you know what, so what? Big deal. that is not the point. (2) the cycle of bickering is going no-where, it is not making either of you feel better, and it is not improving the discussion. It doen't matter who is right or wrong, the cycle itself is unconstructive and pointless. (3) talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, You know what? you have legiti ate grievances? Take them to his talk page, or ArbCom, but not the article talk page which just waste's your time and everyone else. In short, someone has to be the better person the adult, and do the right thing which is to ignore insults and stop being defensive and focuson improving the article. If that person is not you, then at least take your complaints and claims off the article talk page to a more appropriate spot. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every second I have spent trying to get you to act like an adult, I have spent trying to get Tim to act like an adult. If you haven't noticed that, it is because your hurt feelings or anger blinds you. I am not taking his side over yours by any means. You need to decide, which do you care more about: your personal grievances, or working on the encyclopedia? Hint: try to calculate how much time you have spent writing about your grievances, and how much time adding policy-compliant content to articles, in the past three days? This is how you want to spend your time? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you and Tim to stop bickering, or to take your bickering to your talk pages.

Now you have taken your bickering to my talk page. You are spitting on me, this is a total sign of disrespect as you know you are doing precisely what I asked you not to do, and you are doing it on my page.

Tim can respond to me on my talk page.

You can respond to me on my talk page.

But if Tim responds to you on my talk page, I will delete it.

If you respond to Tim on my talk page, I will delete it.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR SKULL: Do NOT use my talk page to bicker with someone else. I care about improving the encyclopedia, not your desire to fight. If you insist on using Wikipedia to fight rather than to work on an encyclopedia, do it on your talk page. OR somewhere else. But not on an article talk page, and NOT on my talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

both of us have bent over backwards to explain things to BB. I suggest that at this point between us we have said all there is to be said and there is no more value to our trying to explain things to him. But I have asked others who have contributed regularly to Judiasm-related articles if they would comment. I propose you and I lay low for a few days and see if others chip in. They may come up with a more effective explanation (though I fail to see how); they may also be enough simply to establish consensus on this point. Let's wait and see, okay? I plan on avoiding the talk page to focus on this and other artidcles. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I leave a message for you on your talk page, why do you not respond to me hee or on my talk page? Why do you respond on the article talk page? The only purpose I can see is it is another chance for you to insult Bikinibomb publically. Be careful: Wikipedins do take WP:CIV and WP:NPA and WP:AGF seriously. It doesn't matter whether BB or anyone else attacks you - two wrongs do not make a right here, and administrators or ArbCom will handle two or more people attacking one another by banning all of you, rather than none of you.

If your purpose was not to attack BB publically, I would recommend you remove your response to me on the article talk page, and put it here, or on my talk page, where responses to me belong.

Well, the last time I posted something on your talk page, this happened. I assumed that meant you didn't want me posting there. Did I misunderstand? -LisaLiel (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I was not clear. I meant, I did not want you to respond to other people on my talk page. But it is fine your you to respond to me on my talk page, and usually prferable. Happy New Year, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now to respond to you: you are wrong. Things work at Wikipedia by building consensus of views. The more people are involved, the more stable the situation becomes.. But even if you disagree with me, why not do it on your talk page or mine? Or must you always have an audience when you put someone down? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to clarify - I know that your disagreement with me over tactics is sincere and well-intended. But I genuinely believe building or demonstrating a consensus on the talk page is important. It is especially important if a conflict reaches the point where is calls for administrative action or goes to ArbCom. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree with you on substance. But tactically, I think we can use DNFTT and effectively ignore him more succesfully if we wait for a few more people to comment, so that it is very clear that he is (1) acting against consensus and (2) refusing to dialogue with many others. If he is the troll you believe he is, then he will repeat this pattern of behavior as more people register their views. That will only make our case stronger. There is no downside to this. I know you are tired of engaging him and of course you have done your fair share. You are free not to deal with him any more. But there is no harm in a few other editors coming to the page and expressing views that support, or at least are consistent with, your own. This may look like we are feeding him but in fact in fact we are giving him enough rope to hang himself, if that is what he choses to do. At that point it will be clear to all, not just you or me, that he is a troll. And that is important at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for standing up for me on Jossi's talk page. I was tired, and made a mistake, and I appreciate your pointing out it was an honest mistake. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Wish I had thought of it!

Anyhow, I just wrote him the following:

Rabbi Telushkin,

I’m the Wikipedia editor that you were written about regarding the statement:

Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah."

I’ve been intrigued for years that you were the only Rabbi I had found to actually disagree with the Trinity. That is – you actually stated something resembling the actual doctrine that you disagreed with. I’ve not been able to find any other Jewish source to disagree with the Trinity. Instead, all of the disagreements have been with the concept of Arianism (i.e. the belief in lesser powers in partnership with God).

I’ve always understood the Jewish position to be: “Christianity is belief in multiple powers, multiple powers is idolatry, therefore Jews can’t have that belief.” That, of course, is Shituf, a concept Jews forbid for Jews, and that Christians forbid for Christians. Both groups regard the belief in multiple powers to be idolatry, and rightly so.

Instead you described something that Christians would identify as “well, I wouldn’t have worded it quite like that, but he’s VERY close.”

I’ve also understood the Jewish position to be: “idolatry is forbidden to Gentiles in the Noachide laws, the belief in the Trinity is idolatry, and it is okay for Gentiles to have that belief.”

In other words, it both is, and is not, idolatry. Now, as a Jew I can “get” that. There’s a higher standard for “idolatry.” But it’s very difficult to pin anyone down on where that line is. Your blanket statement “While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah” seemed to solve that logical problem by saying, “well, the ACTUAL doctrine isn’t polytheistic, but instead it’s polydimensional, which is forbidden for Jews” (more in line with a Guide to the Perplexed kind of reasoning).

I apologize if I falsified what you said. I had thought you to be the best source to describe how the Trinity itself (not merely Arianism) is wrong for Jews, because you seemed to actually ADDRESS the Trinity.

Should I instead understand you to mean: “While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief [because it is avodah zara], it is not avodah zarah [for Christians (i.e. Gentiles)].” Is that a correct understanding?

And for the record – I’ve never portrayed you as someone who would have allowed Christian belief for Jews. I’ve merely portrayed you as someone who could accurately show how Christianity is forbidden for Jews, and not just Jehovah’s Witness beliefs.

Thanks.

Tim

PS -- and now I'm an hour late getting out of here...Tim (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to sue for peace for a while. I gave more explanation on the Shituf talk page.Tim (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LisaLiel, thank you for teaching me the footnoting technique. Works like a dream! Das Baz, aka Erudil 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. Your instruction has been useful not only for Hillel and Shammai but also for other articles I've been working on. You should write a Wikipedia for Dummies book. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)

Lisa, I've edited the bible and history article and removed the link to Daniel (book of) which I gather you want very much to keep in. I've tried to explain my reasons on the Talk page, but fear I may not have done a good job. PLease let me know if what you think. PiCo (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LisaLiel: Please see the discussions at Template talk:Books of the Bible concerning the new troubled and troubling {{Books of the Bible}} template. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no historical evidence for the exodus nor much for the slavery either rather than what the bible tells. however there is plenty of evidence that the Hyksos people were Hebrews and there's plenty of historical and archaeological evidence that the Hyksos were exoduted to Canaan from Egypt.

Semitic Hebrews were paid workers and they had migrated to Egypt. They migrated to the royalty of Egypt. Thutmose III is heavily considered to be Moses, as Thutmose III invaded Canaan and set up 12 governed lands there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: ASEOR 2 gets all the content he has been adding from this source. He is simply on a POV-pushing campaign to put the unfounded theories from this video into articles. There is nothing else going on here. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested Ancient Canaan be redirected to Canaan. Instead, ASEOR2 redirected ancient israel to ancient canaan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Israel&action=history - did he have any authority to do so? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you really think the majority of Ron Paul's e-buddies oppose:

- Virtually any kind of amnesty or support for undocumented immigrants, or birthright citizenship - Allowing Americans to be tried in the ICC (not that he's alone in this, you might look up the Netherlands Invasion Act) - The UN, period - Abortion rights, period - Gay marriage rights, period - there's some psychobabble about "states rights", but this is an old euphemism for racism, and speaking of... - Ron Paul, whether or not he's an actually a "racist" in the standard sense, opposes any sort of institutions which help black and other racial minorities fight against historical and current injustices, which does make him a de facto racist, in that he supports policies which disproportionately help white people and harm black people - In fact, speaking of the UN - if you actually read his Issues page, which I suspect no one does, he seems to have more of a problem with wars that obey international law - Gun control, which if it's done effectively is understood by everyone to be a good idea. The American gun culture is truly an embarrassment, and you've got enough embarrassments as it is (You might compare Cuba's infant mortality rate to your own) - Speaking of, health care. It's understood that a majority of Americans want health care, it's just sort of a basic assumption that poor people, or even just working people without the exorbitant wages to cover expensive procedures, don't thereby just deserve to die - Ending environmental regulations, fundamentally rendering the United States a physical threat to the security of the world - Public schools - Public roads - The disabled - Helping - Caring about your neighbours - Kindness - Children - Orphans.

The only thing Ron Paul claims to support is "freedom", which is vacuous. Hitler supported the freedom of good German Aryan Christians to their lebensraum. "States rights" folks support the freedom of white males to kick black people, women, and gays in the face. The king supports his own right to hang people at will. You might say you support universalized or equal freedom, but this requires governmental structure to implement and support, and considering the current state of our/your society (I'm from up North), quite a lot of one. There are problems with governments, assuredly, but there are problems with governments ostensibly "democratic" (like the American Federal Government) as much as there are problems with your corporatocracy, which doesn't even pretend to be democratic. In fact, these institutions are worse - and moreover, they're no more about "freedom", and I'd argue they're no less governments, than the one which Mr. Paul babbles on about, the one which pays his salary.

More importantly, if Ron Paul supporters really do agree with all these things... then what? My point is I sincerely hope, believe but hope, that it's an extreme minority that actually believes these things. --Jammoe (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found at History of early Christianity: "Alister McGrath stated that many of the Jewish Christians were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. As such, they believed that circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic law were required for salvation." User:Vassyana reverts any attempt at neutrality: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_early_Christianity&diff=198025225&oldid=198011765 75.0.0.97 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: I was in an 'edit war' with POV J4J folks (in which two of them & I were warned by admin for revert violations) - I only kept the C-J fringe statement in the header to keep the J4J gang from continuing to edit out the important sentence right before it that states clearly that Judaism does not include the Messianic bunch. THANKS for editing it out of the header. If more editors were monitoring the situation it would have been done sooner. Cheers, A Sniper 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. Yes, that's what I do every time, but for some reason my user name is never hyperlinked...which is fine by me. Cheers, A Sniper 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re The bible and history: I take it you don't dispute that Noth's "primeval history" was defined by Noth as taking in Genesis 1-11 rather than Genesis 1-12? This being so, what exactly are you disputing? PiCo (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to irritate you Lia - I was basically just having some fun, and now I feel contrite. So, to get serious, what do you propose we do? Make a suggestion on the Talk page and we'll discuss. PiCo (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you help expand this article. ephix (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Objectivism Salutations, Lisa. I've noticed you identify as an Objectivist Wikipedian and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to Objectivism. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts WP:AYN WP:RAND

Hi. Wikiblame tells me it is your edit [1] I've removed twice today saying it was OR. It really does look like OR and I can't square it with other chronologies. Another editor has put the tables back twice and I've responded here [2] suggesting he look at other versions. I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone over this, but I definitely do not understand the precise dates in the list you added. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've finished editing my book, I have a sequel to write and I'm in the middle of negotiating a screenplay. I do not have time for this. My only entrance came when you wrote: "There was a huge edit war over an attempt to give them" (Messianic Jews) "more visibility here back in January". The effort, rather was to cover up definitions. Now -- if you will take back the implication that I'm Christian or Messianic, then I'll take back my suspicion (based on your implications) that you are one. I really don't care further than that.Tim (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not consider HaShem to be non-feminine, Rabbi Paula Reimers says this is a key feature of his masculinity in the Tanakh. Of course there are other points of view within Judaism. All points of view should be covered in the article, probably none of them should be in the lead. I remind you that reliable sources like Reimers are not to be removed without discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I removed a source? Granted, Paula Reimers is not a valid source for Judaism's view of God; only for Reform Judaism's view of God. But I didn't remove it. Nor did I write anything that contradicted it. Judaism does not see God as having gender. Reimers' view that God is "non-feminine" in Judaism does not contradict it. God is non-feminine. God is also non-masculine. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Reimers' argument is that God is portrayed as masculine and not feminine for compelling theological reasons. The last of the three sources currently cited says nothing about gender, it only speaks of sex and noun class. It is quite specific—"no body, no genitalia". It speaks of male rather than masculine. Christianity is exactly the same, Father and Spirit are not male, but masculine. Jesus, however, is both masculine and male.

So, what we have is two sources apparently opposed to one another. Reimers saying God is masculine in the Tanakh, Kaplan saying gender doesn't apply to God. Kaplan doesn't say what he means by this, either he disagrees with Reimers, or he's not talking about the Tanakh, or he's arguing his branch of Judaism considers the Tanakh's masculine God is to be understood metaphorically. Actually, all he says is his own use of the masculine pronoun for God does not imply masculinity. He doesn't say what this means in the Tanakh. Reimers is the only authority cited on that.

Summary

1. Reimers: God masculine in Tanakh
2. Kaplan: Jewish use of masculine pronouns implies nothing
3. "Judaism 101": God does not have male biological sex

Conclusion: regarding gender (not sex) sources imply only that God is masculine in the Tanakh.

I will emend the text accordingly. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your continued interaction on this important point. Please understand that I note your scrupulous understanding of the common sense and common decency of Wiki policies. You are obviously a polite as well as insightful discussion partner. You also know far, far more than I about Judaism. I genuinely seek to learn from your comments, though I consider them as critically (in the good sense) as I am pleased you consider my own.

I will touch on something more personal. I am a conservative Christian, I believe there is a God, and only one, who chose and saved a people for himself through Noah, through Abraham and Moses. With Moses he made an everlasting covenant, to doubt that covenant is to doubt the Word and character of the God who gave it. But with mercy, although scattering the northern kingdom, he disciplined Judah in Babylon, restoring them to the Land and returned to dwell with them in the new temple. These things are true, and worthy of a response involving the whole of one's heart, soul and mind. I would convert to conservative Judaism were it not that I learned these things from those who claimed to record the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

I am passionately likeminded with you on very many profoundly important matters. And, like you, I respect the nature of the Wiki forum, which is all about forming a responsible editorial judgement of which sources fairly represent positions addressing the topics of articles, then quoting or summarising them accurately.

But, to the point at hand, I want to know what "the Jewish view of God's gender" is. From what I've read, there are actually three notable points of view—masculine, feminine and neither. It would be odd if this were not so. The feminine view is so marginal as to be arguably WP:UNDUE. However, one thing is clear, no-one I've ever read has suggested God has male sex. Polytheism has deities with sex (and corresponding gender), henotheistic religions (afaik) are unanimous that sex is not applicable to God. However, the article is about gender not sex. If it needs a hatnote, it is one that addresses that issue, it would be easy, "This article is about God's gender. Divinities to whom sexuality is attributed, have this noted in their entries."

I'm busy with other things atm, but I will make a point of providing you with more material from Paula's article. Regardless of her other views (which both of us may disagree with), as regards the Tanakh, and its theological significance, she argues that masculinity for YHWH protects the Mosaic presentation from sinking into pantheism (nature worship), since an instinctive human association with a feminine God involves birth, whereas masculine associations allow for clearer separation of creator from creature. Of course, she doesn't mind admitting this, because the Tanakh is far from the final word in shaping her perspective.

But regardless of Paula, you and I may need to discuss further how significant the distinction between sex and gender is with God. Perhaps you are not convinced that sex and gender provides a helpful distinction in this, or any setting. There are many sources on this. I would particularly appreciate hearing from a keen mind like yours, just what you think are the limitations of this (now popular) distinction. I believe it has reservations myself, I merely work with it because it is the language of contemporary academic dialogue. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note Lisa. Please, please, please provide several sources that use the words "Judaism", "God" or synonyms, "gender" and "masculine" or "feminine" in the same sentence. If masculine and feminine refer to grammar they don't count. "Male", "female" and sex don't count either. We already know God isn't sexual, the article is about gender not sex. We also need to know what the expert Jewish readings of the Tanakh say, because Judaism and the Tanakh can be two different things.

So far, all I know is that Judaism views God as having no sex, and grammatical gender is irrelevant. But as far as God's gender role, whether he is understood in masculine or feminine terms, I'm mainly hearing that God is "non-feminine" in Judaism, or at least that feminine gender is a controversial understanding. You and Paul Reimers are telling me that, there must be others.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I've replied at WT:JEW#Shituf Page. Good luck. HG | Talk 04:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Berger[edit]

Sent[edit]

Lisa, I've sent the following to Dr. Berger:

Dr. Berger,

I've read through Lasker's book and your shiur, and you are right that Shituf is intended to be directed not only to Arianism and Tritheism, but also to Trinitarianism as well.

I have a working definition for "Shituf" that I think covers all three theistic systems, and would appreciate it if you let me know if I am understanding the full scope of the word:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Is that correct?

The wording "external powers" addresses Arianism, "deities" addresses Tritheism, and "internal aspects" addresses Trinitarianism.

Thanks so much for your help!

Tim

I probably should have finished it with something like "is there anything I left out that I need to add?"

BTW, I'm not trying to take credit for your wording. I'm just trying to stay focused on the definition. I'll let you know what Dr. Berger writes.Tim (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Dear Tim, This still has some problems. Shituf as you define it clearly includes beliefs that fall short of pure monotheism (tritheism for sure). Thus, the second sentence doesn't work. Also, some Jews did not regard "internal aspects" as problematic, depending on how they are understood (attributes for some philosophers; the sefirot for many kabbalists). Best regards. David Berger

Notes[edit]

Lisa,

It looks like we've got a bit of work to do. I can see his point about internal aspects possibly intersecting with some kinds of Jewish thought. We are both agreed, however, that Christianity is seen to NOT be permissible to Jews in Jewish thought, while the Sefirot are.

While I have no intention of OR -- I think some R is in order. If you're willing, I'll do some research this week on Sephirot and try to map out informally what I think the differences are between Kabbalistic thought and Trinitarian theory.

Right now I'm trying to figure out a wording based on Dr. Berger's answer... now that he points it out, I DO see an internal contradiction in the second sentence:

Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews,

but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

That is, according to the first half, "any...avodah zarah...is...forbidden...to non-Jews".

But in the second half some "avodah zara [is]...permissible for non-Jews".

I recall that Telushkin explicitly said in his quote that belief in the Trinity is "forbidden for Jews, but it is not avodah zara."

Are we getting something wrong in the definition of avodah zara that I'm missing?

Also, if I understand Dr. Berger correctly, tritheism is not really Shituf, but idolatry.

Tim

Dr. Greenstein[edit]

Sent[edit]

Lisa,

Here's what I wrote to the other source:

Dr. Greenstein,

My Rabbi suggested I email you with a question I gave him. I’ve been working on a definition of “Shituf” to make sure I understand the full application of it:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

If I understand Shituf correctly, it is not only applied by Jews to Arianism (“external powers”) and Tritheism (“deities”), but is also applied to Trinitarianism (“aspects”). Am I correct that it applies to all three theistic systems? Does this wording cover everything intended by the term, or do I need to add anything?

Thanks so much,

Tim

I'll let you know what they say when they write back!

Additional Shituf Notes[edit]

I moved this from the other page:

<sigh> Tim, that's not it. I don't know if it's honestly that I'm just incapable of explaining it cogently. It isn't a matter of "internal aspects" being forbidden to Jews. Any worship of a trinity is forbidden to Jews, whether the idea behind it is "internal aspects" or anything else. The whole "internal aspects" thing is a huge red herring. Once it's a trinity, it doesn't matter what the intent is. Just like someone defecating on a statue of Baal Peor has violated avodah zarah even if his intent was to show scorn for Baal Peor, so too is any worship of a trinity with any and all intents, ideas, philosophies, theologies, rationalizations or flights of fancy that the worshipper might come up with. It's the act of worshipping a trinity that's forbidden. The "why" doesn't matter.

I agreed to let you put the "internal aspects" in there because I just got tired of fighting with you about it. But from the point of view of Judaism, Trinitarianism and Arianism and Tritheism are all the same thing. There is no difference, because any difference is on a frequency that we aren't listening to, and will never listen to.

A car with two doors is a car. A car with four doors is a car. A car with four doors and a hatchback is a car. Suppose I have a 16 year old daughter, and I tell her she isn't allowed to drive a car. Now... she might come and say, "Well, that's a coupe and a sedan and a station wagon there, and I use the word 'car' only for sedans, so I'm going to go ahead and drive this coupe." And I'll reply, "Very nice. You're grounded." Because while there is a point of view in which the distinction between sedans and coupes and wagons is of interest and value, I don't care. I told her she can't drive a car, period. No car, no how.

Judaism says that anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic. How non-monotheistic is it? A little (shituf)? A lot (avodah zarah)? That's not the point. And Judaism says that worshipping a trinity is a car. If you want to say that Christians say it's a sedan, and not a station wagon, well, who am I to argue with you? By all means, let Christians call things sedans and coupes and station wagons and insist that they're different things. Maybe they even are different things. But they're all a subset of "car". And Trinitarianism and Arianism and Tritheism and any other -ism that has ever been or will ever be created to explain the worship of a trinity are all "worship of a trinity". And Judaism says that's non-monotheistic.

Again, I'm not saying anything I haven't said before, and I know it's as unlikely to be understood this time as it has been in all my previous attempts, but I can't help it. There's a little part of me that is certain that if I can just say it clearly enough, it'll be understood. You might disagree, but at least you'd understand. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, you write "anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic". But that's the problem. CHRISTIANS not only agree with you, they INSIST on it. Really, it's a dimensional thing. A billiard ball is one ball. It has three spatial dimensions. The Christian deity has three personal dimensions. That's it. Period. It's FORBIDDEN in Judaism. But exactly in which category is it forbidden, and is that actually Shituf, or is it some other forbidden thing? I think we agree that the "trinity" is forbidden in Judaism. We also agree that tritheism is flat out idolatry (Christians do too). I'm glad for that note from Dr. Berger, by the way, because it was troubling. Anyhow, the only difference is in the definition of the "trinity". You are giving an Arian definition (which is fine, you can state your meaning from the outset and we're set). The problem is that this isn't the Wikipedia definition, nor even the English definition. So, what do we do? We ARE writing in Wikipedia, and we ARE doing it in English.Tim (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also -- if you're willing, this will really help: when you make a statement about the "trinity" run it through a dimension-analogy to see if that's working out. For instance, "Jews believe in a singular and indivisible billiard ball." Right. But... they don't. Here's the real difference: there is no "inside" or "outside" to God. There are no external or internal anythings to associate him with. The problem of the trinity (more relevant even than shituf, I suspect) is that it is a definition at all. To speak of "internal" or "external" or aspectual relationships is to put God on some kind of intellectual display, which is (if I understand Maimonides right) idolatrous. Anyhow, it's a Shituf page. There's a Trinity page. Maybe they do or don't intersect. As I said, it doesn't matter to me whether they do or don't, only that we note it and move on.Tim (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I am not giving an Arian definition. I am giving a Jewish definition. As I said, it doesn't matter if Christians say that they're worshipping one billard ball with three dimensions or three billard balls. That distinction doesn't matter to Judaism. Judaism says it's forbidden to worship billiard balls. Period. One billiard ball with three dimensions or three billiard balls, it makes no never-mind to us. Billiard balls are verboten.

I give up. I can only conclude that either you honestly aren't interested in the Jewish view on this, or that I'm utterly incompetant when it comes to explaining this to you. Either way, you won't change and I've done everything in my power to explain this to you, and you still come back with the same "Arian" crap. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa -- my Rabbi doesn't have any problem with this honest inquiry, and Dr. Berger doesn't seem to either. Perhaps we shouldn't do it together, but that doesn't mean it isn't an honest reasonable Jewish inquiry. As I've said before, and again, and will in the future -- I don't care whether Jews are right about the definition of Christianity or Christians are right about the definition of Christianity. I only care, if Jews are applying a concept to "Christianity" whether the definition of that concept matches the definition of the concept of Christianity. That is -- do Jews and Christians have a different definition of "Christian". If so, in an encyclopedia article that addresses such an application, it should be noted. It does not matter who is right, only that it is different. Also, while I agree that this is a Jewish concept and is defined by Jews, I insist that it is written in intelligible English -- that is, English that can be understood by a generic audience.

In any case, maybe we just don't communicate well to each other, which is no fault to either of us. No one is wrong. We are, perhaps, just not compatable. So perhaps we should wish each other the best and try our best to stay out of conflict.

Also, for what it's worth, most of the time when I'm discussing this with a Rabbi I know (at least the times it's come up), the billiard ball analogy is a snap, and they get it. Maybe it's a clergy thing. I don't know. But that could be something I need to be aware of -- since I am also trying to communicate with a generic (non-clergy) audience. So, in that I do appreciate your honesty describing your frustration. I'll try to be aware of this in the future.Tim (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender of God. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't fan the flames any more. He doesn't get it, let's leave it at that.

By the way, I'm not female ;-). A common mistake, which amuses me greatly. — Werdna • talk 09:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about mistaking your Gender -- while we're Gender bending, check out the Gender of God page Werdna... ;-)Tim (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, there's a Messianic author of the "Orthodox Jewish Bible" making inappropriate links to his website. The screen name is Fredeee [3]. Looks like a lot of links to a site that's badly formatted with no scholarly information, but trying to convert Jews to Messianism. Looks like we could use some of our edit energy together getting rid of some non-wiki-standard links.Tim (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because several misstatements of fact, tendentious claims, and wikilawyering have come out with regards to this section, I thought it would be worthwhile to present a brief history of the editing that has occurred on this section. It will be useful for mediation, and if necessary, for arbitration.

• On July 4, 2008, I noticed that the header in this article stated, without any citation, that Judaism views God as male. Since this isn't the case, I edited it (diff: [4]) and provided two reliable sources for my edit.

• Alastair immediately responded by editing to state that Judaism views God as "non-feminine" (whatever that was supposed to mean), and added a reference to a quote by Paula Reimers that doesn't address the question of how Judaism views God in terms of gender, but rather addresses the reasons why some people might want to use feminine terminology for God (diff: [5]).

• Since the two sources I had posted backed up the edit which stated that God has no gender in Judaism, and since the Reimers quote did not support Alastairs edit claiming that God is seen as "non-feminine" in Judaism, I changed the text back. Despite the fact that the Reimers quote was irrelevant, I left it there (diff: [6]).

• Alastair replied to this edit by posting a scolding on my talk page (diff: [7]) telling me not to remove sourced material. Of course, you can see by the article history that I hadn't done any such thing.

• On July 5, 2008, Alastair then edited the header of the article to say, again, and removed any statement about how Judaism views God in terms of gender, and instead stated that the Tanakh of Judaism presents God as masculine (diff: [8]).

• On July 6, 2008, I once again changed the text to state that Judaism views God as having no gender, and I moved the Reimers quote into the Judaism section, allowing it to stand in the body of the article, immediately after another quote by Rebecca Alpert about modern Reconstructionist prayer book which uses feminine language for God (diff: [9]). I did not remove the source, because Alastair clearly felt strongly about it, but I took it out of the header, because it did not address the issue of how Judaism views God in terms of gender.

• Alastair's response was to label the citation of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan as "POV" and the citation of Jewfaq.com (a well known resource for Jewish concepts) as "irrelevant" (diff: [10]). While I'm trying to present these edits without commentary, I was stunned that an editor on Wikipedia would behave this way. So I simply reverted it (diff: [11]).

• On July 8, 2008, I edited out the two sources I'd put in (diff: [12]). I then placed those sources in the Judaism section, where they more properly belonged (diff: [13]). And then I moved the {{fact}} tag in the header so that it was only pointing to the statement about Islam, because the sources for Judaism were available in the Judaism section (diff: [14]).

• At this point, Tim and Ilkali got into war over grammar. I lost interest and didn't pay much attention to the article for a while, except for removing the quotes that Tim had placed around the word God (diff [15]).

• On July 28, 2008, though I wasn't paying attention, so I missed it at the time, Alastair again labeled the sources I'd brought as POV and moved them to the bottom of the sections (diff: [16]). In the intervening time, Alastair had had an RfC brought against him by Ilkili for bullying and wikilawyering, had threatened legal action against Wikipedia, been banned, backed out of his threat and gotten unbanned, and refused to respond to the RfC, whereapon it was closed by an admin.

• Alastair next changed the sources so that instead of them reading as reliable sources for Judaism, they were presented as opinions (diff: [17]). Again, I wasn't paying attention, or I would have challenged this as soon as he did it. He stated that one of the sources "sees" things a certain way, and that the other "believes" what he wrote. It's hard to imagine a more weaselly way of trying to get around reliable sources.

• Today, August 3, 2008, Tim added a piece of material about Mesopotamian myths to the Judaism section, which has no relevance, since Judaism does not consider itself to be derived from such myths, even if some modern biblical scholars claim it was (diff: [18]).

• At about that point, I noticed what Alastair had done, and I went in to fix it (diff: [19]). I moved the reliable sources back up to the beginning of the article, since they are the only sources in the entire article which even speak to the question of God's gender in Judaism. The quote from Rebecca Alpert does not; it talks about a controversial prayer book put out by the Reconstructionist Movement which uses feminine grammar and imagery for God, but which does not claim that God is female in Judaism (or male for that matter; it doesn't address the issue at all). The quote from Paula Reimers does not; it speaks only to the sociological reasons why some people like a book like the one Alpert commented on. The material on Mesopotamian myths is not relevant to the Jewish view of God's gender, because Judaism does not believe itself to be based on Mesopotamian myths, even if some modern biblical scholars claim it was. The material demonstrating that God is referred to with masculine grammar and imagery in the Bible is irrelevant, since the reliable sources in the section stipulate that this is the case. Nevertheless, I left all of that material in, and merely moved the only reliable sources in the entire section to the top, and removed the weasel words that Alastair had added for the purpose of dismissing them as mere "opinion pieces".

• That was when Alastair decided to eliminate edits he didn't agree with. Without any discussion whatsoever, he reverted my edit (diff: [20]).

• I then restored my edit, which Alastair has labeled a reversion (diff: [21]).

• Alastair responded by reverting my edit again, and warning me against "edit warring". It's a strange thing to call what I did edit warring. I made a reasonable edit, which Alastair reverted without a word of explanation, and when I restored it, he accused me of edit warring. And reverted it for the second time (diff: [22]).

• I restored my edit for the second time, and placed a warning on the Talk page to Alastair. I gave a lengthy explanation for my initial edit, and warned Alastair to stop reverting my edit (diff: [23]). This time, I also removed the paragraph which contained a lengthy discussion of Hebrew grammar, which had no relevance to the Jewish position on the gender of God.

• On the Talk page, Alastair labeled the text that I edited "the consensus text". He also claimed that I was "altering text that has stood for more than a year", when the edit history clearly shows (as I think the diffs I've given show) that what I altered was text that had been there for several weeks.

• Alastair had reverted my edit twice, so he sent Tim in to do it the next time. Tim reverted the Judaism section to the way it had been before my initial edit on this day, including putting the only two relevant reliable sources at the bottom of the section, with weasel words preceding each one (diff: [24]). He then added a citation which says that God is both male and female (diff: [25]).

• I then edited the page so that it reflected my initial edit with the addition of Tim's source. This should not be considered a reversion, since it included Tim's addition of a source (diff: [26]).

• Without any discussion, Tim reverted my edit (diff: [27]).

• I restored my edit once more, but this time omitted the irrelevant paragraph about Mesopotamian myths (diff: [28]).

• Tim then reverted my edit again. This was the third time he reverted my edit, yet I note that he has not been blocked. The only reversions I have done this entire day have been to restore the edit I made initially which was reverted for no legitimate reason (diff: [29]).

• So I restored my edit one more time (diff: [30]).

• Then Alastair reverted my edit for his third time (diff: [31]). At this point, my edit had been reverted six times in the space of an hour. Three times by Tim and three times by Alastair.

• Finally, I restored my edit for the last time (diff: [32]).

• As a result of all of this, I was banned for 24 hours, even though my "reverts" consisted only of restoring a good faith edit that had been reverted by two other editors without any discussion.

Hello, Lisa. You have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am glad you are editing constructively - I will look at the article again but am in transit and may not be able to for a couple of days, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The verses from Deuteronomy do not mention shituf anywhere and have been needing a citation for the past three months. If someone wants to present a reliable source that says that these particular verses in Deuteronomy are about shituf, that would be reasonable for this article. But without such a source, including these verses from Deuteronomy on the grounds that you think what it is addressing is the equivalent of shituf is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you are unable to provide a rationale for this material being in the article, I will remove it on the basis of WP:OR. --Jerryofaiken (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I think that three months was a reasonable amount of time for you to come up with such sources. If you put it back in without citations, I won't engage in an edit war with you; instead, I'll report you for a violation of WP:OR. --Jerryofaiken (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Jimmy Wales

You have two days to correct the rest of your citations or remove them. Some of your citations are misleading since a verfication check indicates the source cited is not the source for the reference. If you do not remove them, I will report you for a Wikipedia:Verifiability violation. --Jerryofaiken (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that person had had a talk page I would have answered him myself. Kudos for just deleting it.Tim (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To my shame, I must admit I've been slow to read your Evidence talk page comments. As always, you write clearly and very honestly. But in the quote below, you show (imo) a consistency of quality that extends even deeper into your character.
• "If people accuse Alastair of improper behavior, it's my fault. That's on this very page." — Lisa
• Despite our disagreements, I've always been able to detect a sincerity about them. Your words above are an example to everyone. You are willing to take responsibility for criticisms you offer.
• Yet again I note that you are a remarkable woman that I feel priveleged to have met, albeit in difficult circumstances. And, yet again, I think your resolution of the content dispute was nothing short of brilliant, all the more so given the context in which you generously provided it.
• Best regards Lisa, Alastair Haines (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response here. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, even better, you have corrected my misreading nicely. Thanks, I see your intention in what you wrote now, it fits your argument better. I'll go and check the diffs and the talk page. From memory it all happened quite quickly, my point would be that I'd previously objected to the removal on the talk page, and restored the text, without any counter-objection later being recorded on the talk page. As burden of proof had still not been accepted and attempted, it was my belief you were bypassing discussion to insist on your edit. Frankly, were it not for the AN/I and arbcom, I'd have let the whole thing be, since you did marvellously the next day. Even at ArbCom, I have no interest in dwelling on your actions (as I perceive them), merely to deflect the suggestion that I was doing anything different to what I see regularly elsewhere, and never construed as edit warring.

I think many people are genuinely confused on this point. And I could well be wrong myself. However, I've not yet heard a single argument that I edit warred in this case. We'll see in the end I guess. I'll probably provide a dozen examples from various adminstrators doing exactly what I did. That should help clarify things I should hope. Perhaps there's a whole bunch of us getting away with murder for our misreading of the policies. It would be a good outcome to clarify that. I'd insist that despite making 7 reversions, you had not edit warred at all. And you'd be a hero. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa. I didn't want to belabor this on the Talk page, especially after your nice comment about choc and vanilla. Since we seem to share an interest in accuracy, allow me to reply that "blatant" has negative connotations and does not simply mean clear or obvious. From OED: "Of persons or their words: Noisy; offensively or vulgarly clamorous; bellowing." "In recent usage: obtrusive to the eye (rather than to the ear as in orig. senses); glaringly or defiantly conspicuous; palpably prominent or obvious." Anyway, I do appreciate your effort on the Talk page to keep the conversation civil and on topic. Cheers. HG | Talk 18:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was used in the books of Jubilees and 1 Enoch, which are considered part of the Bible by Ethiopian Christians (though not part of the "Hebrew Bible as such)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa. I honestly don't understand why you're preocupied with the vocalisation aspect - I've tried to accommodate your views with a compromise localising the article to the single divine name mentioned in Exodus, yet you reject this - why? And why so much concentration with the vocalisation - there's an article YHWH which would surely be a beter place for such a discussion. The Yahweh article has so much junk in it - the first trhing we're told is the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, of all things, but they're a tiny sect, not a mainstream group, why should an entire section be devoted to them? Ther's so much more important to talk about, like the first appearances of the name in the archaeological record, the meaning of the two divine revelations in Exodus, the meaning of the combined form Yahweh-Elohim (or YHWH Elohim if you prefer). Honestly, I have no objection to your point about the vocalisation being uncertain, I just want to move beyond that. PiCo (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa and thanks fopr the answer. It seems that you're saying that the things I want to say on the Yahweh page, you'd rather see on the YHWH page - i.e., keep the Yahweh article for a discussion of the vocalisation issue. I have no problem with that. I'll have a lok at the YHWH page. But while we're on the topic of the Yahweh page, it seems to me to have a great deal of irrelevant material if all that's to be discussed is the pronunciation. I guess this comes from being an issue that many people feel strongly about. Might be hard to prune it back. PiCo (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, where are getting the figure of 410 years for the cumulative reigns of the kings from? Barr says 430. Is there a division of opinion among scholars?PiCo (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Barr? I'm taking it from Seder Olam Rabba. As far as scholars are concerned, the actual number is 380. See Tadmor and Thiele and others. Maybe Barr came up with 430 years because he wanted to associate it with the 430 years associated with Israel's time in Egypt. I don't know. But it's certainly not a common view. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've sworn off battling you, I hope you don't mind if I come in when we both agree (which was really 99% of the time on substance anyway).Tim (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to do an RfC on a user, but I feel like we're getting close to it. SkyWriter 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I could tell he was going to be a problem from the get-go. It's a shame. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you could ask for some help on the Judaism Wikiproject page. I'd try again, but I'm afraid L'Aquatique will bite my head off again. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I also posted on her talk page asking if we should start thinking RfC. I'm still not clear on when we get to that kind of thing. SkyWriter (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him on his talk page, and also reported him for 3RR. SkyWriter (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need any help on pages I don't notice. Garzo has been dealing with four or five pages already (or course, he's an admin). SkyWriter (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mod_objective SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Great catch on the sock-puppet problem. You were the first to catch the problem, and your documentation on the RfC was so good I had to quote it on the check user. Only question is how to fix the mess that the socks created... SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a result: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mod_objective&curid=19060106&diff=240960485&oldid=240959099

I'll post this to the RfC as well. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the barnstar, Tim, but it isn't really deserved. I only pointed out that Alleichem had accused you of sockpuppetry, and you were the one who figured out that it was a case of kol ha-posel, b'mumo posel. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't thinking about that part of it -- I was thinking of your quick identification of the problem with Alleichem when he first appeared. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lisa...Please see my comment on Alleichem's talk...in Help me comment...I thought I was helping but I see now it may be a sockpuppet situation. But my kudo's to you and Tim still stand.--Buster7 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! Sorry I missed it! I was slightly busy ;) But I will be sure to work on problems with him in the future ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 01:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you figure out where this guy is from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.3454.34TT

What is this? Some kind of IPv6? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... he is persistent. Betcha we get back after Rosh Hashana and find his tracks all over Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ice cream bet (whoever wins, everyone gets ice cream). In any case, this latest is blocked already. He'll have to try again. Shana Tovah. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

puh-lease. 3RR? No need to tag team with Jayjg on this. Why do you guys insist on modifying a GA-qualified intro FIRST before talking about it in talk? Don't give me a 3RR warning if you won't follow common wiki etiquette concerning modifying the intro for a very hotly disputed article. I expect more from an admin to back off applying wikilaw for such an article, especially when you're involved in the dispute and not following common etiquette. It could almost be considered an abuse of power. inigmatus (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, it appears there is an edit warrer with an agenda on the Messianic Judaism article. He keeps changing the material so quickly that I'm having trouble following the actual consensus edits. When you get a chance, could you help me reconstruct somewhere -- maybe in a sandbox -- what the article header is supposed to look like? This guy is difficult to keep track of, and has even gone so far as to use an Artscroll Siddur footnote about excommunicated early Christians to prove that Messianic Jews are a sect of Judaism!

1. Modern Messianics are not Ancient Christians
2. Ancient Christians were being EXCLUDED by the subject of the footnote, and do not represent Judaism
3. He's turned the preceding two negatives into a positive.

There's no telling what else this user is doing to the page without some help figuring out what the actual consensus would be without these bizarre edits. Thanks.

Oh, Chag Sameach. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, Sky, let's calm down here. What Artscroll material? Do us all a favor Lisa, and before you go on the warpath, actually do a cntrl+f find search on the article (now that I just undid your change) for the word "artscroll" - you won't find it. I've never added the ARTSCROLL material back in Lisa. If so, then its unintentional. Please prove which revert you are referring to that violates 3RR. This is getting ridiculous. Can we just talk this out or do you have to turn this into a battleground here? You're making threats that are uncharacteristic of a good faith editor and I suggest you either talk this out with me, or take a break from the article altogether. Oh, and Chag Sameach to you both. inigmatus (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly Lisa, you are banned from more than one revert per page per week. You just violated that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LisaLiel But I am not here to war. You appear to be. Please explain what content I have posted that you disagree with, and I will gladly remove it and bring it to talk. inigmatus (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inigmatus, MJ is not a sect of Judaism. It is a Christian movement. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, according to your POV, yes. But for sake of consensus, for sake of this editing trip that you're on, for the sake of God and his kingdom, where on earth do you see me adding anywhere to the article the phrase "sect of Judaism" let alone any related claim? You are reverting without reading, and that's bad wiki etiquette. Let's pause for a moment and actually read what's being posted shall we? inigmatus (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the diffs for your edits in which you claimed MJ was a sect of Judaism? Here's one. I'm too bored to get the rest. But now you're just saying "sect". That's called gaming the system, and it's against the rules just as much as 3RR is. Nothing is a "sect" in a vacuum. A sect must be a sect of something. To call it a sect without specifying what it's a sect of is not encyclopedic. To call it a sect of Judaism is what you're trying to claim you're not doing. So I edited it to say that it's a Christian sect. Which after all, it is. You can try and claim that believing that JC is a messiah and a deity doesn't constitute Christianity, but by every definition in the world, it does. You can't change that by trying to redefine Christianity to suit yourself. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree it is a sect of something. In my POV (sourced of course even with Artscroll), it's a sect of Judaism. Actually I didn't call it "sect" of nothing. That was Sky's call. I was fine with it. I think it's neutrally acceptable concerning the sources that can be proved for both sect of Christianity and sect of Judaism. (Although sources exist that clearly prove that Christianity is a sect of Messianic Judaism). inigmatus (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such sources exist. MJ didn't even come into existence until recently.

Tim, I seem to have screwed up my arbcom limitations (in retrospect, I guess that wasn't the best idea, was it?). If you have a chance, would you mind posting the following on the MJ talk page for me?

Let's not forget Kwisatz Haderach. But no, it's not a common term. It's completely unknown except for a few places within the movement itself. This is like putting "Dat Moshe v'Yisrael" in to the lead of the article on Judaism as an alternative name.

Off the derech is a common Jewish term for someone who has left Orthodox Judaism. Derech Hashem is an important and widely studied book by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. There's no way MJ is going to co-opt that term like this. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Youch! Sorry about that. I've been away from the computer for a few hours. I'll post it and try to catch up. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill post it for you. But we can also talk about it here. I do value your input. inigmatus (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This addition is straight forword with references. Please help me to see any errors. Thank you for your assistance, cerefhavu Jehovah It is claimed to be a direct phonetic transliteration, but a Hebrew biblical lexicon easily proves is not. The term Jehovah is a compound word in Hebrew. The first word of Jehovah is the Hebrew letter "yod", commonly printed "Je", pronounced "ye" (as in yes). "Ye" is a common Hebrew prefix, meaning third person future (he/she will). The name we know as Jesus was origionally Yeshua/Yeshu in Hebrew/Aramaic which was shortened from Yehoshua(Joshua). The name Yeshua is also a compound Hebrew word with the same prefix, the first Hebrew letter is "yod", pronounced "ye" which means third person future (he/she will); "shua" (shortened from "hoshua") means save or help. Yeshua/Yehoshua literally means "He will save" commonly translated in a single word, "salvation". In the term Jehovah, "ye" is a Hebrew prefix that means third person future (he/she will); hovah is a Hebrew noun meaning "ruin","desaster" or "destruction" (Strong’s Hebrew number 1943). Jehovah literally means "He will bring Destruction" or "The Destroyer" which is the opposite of "The Creator" or "I exist (I need nothing to sustain me.)". The Hebrew noun, hovah or howah (Strong’s Hebrew number 1943) meaning: ruin, disaster and destruction as in Ezekiel 7:26 and Isaiah 47:11. Similar to the Hebrew noun, havvah or hawwah (Strong’s Hebrew number 1942) meaning: ruin, destruction and calamity; or evil desire as in Job 6:2 and 6:30 which is not an attribute of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Hi Cerefhavu. Actually, this addition lacks references. Basically, you're drawing conclusions from references. You can't do that. Have you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? You should; it'll save you some time and wasted effort.

I will add, btw, that the verb in Job is heh-waw-aleph, and not heh-waw-heh. So it's not even a valid source for this claim in a paper or a blog. But Wikipedia isn't a paper or a blog. It's an encyclopedia. If you can find a reliable source (an article in an acceptable publication, a non-self-published book, etc.) that adduces those sources (or any others) to come to the conclusion that the Tetragrammaton means what you're claiming, you can post that claim, citing the reliable source.

But even then, I'm not sure what you're adding. The idea of the root meaning that is already mentioned in the article. Even if you weren't violating the rules against original research and synthesis, your addition would be redundant. See here. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed that you changed the dates in this article to the BCE format, even though the majority of them are BC format and the lead begins that way (it's true that not all are, but most are). It is not recommended that you do this, as per wiki guidelines: "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." I switched them back for you. Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a request to amend the Alastair case, hoping to introduce some new measures which will prevent further flare ups. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How chassidim are not chareidim. I sure don't know of any chassidic group which does not consider itself to be chareidi. Or are you referring to Bat Ayin-type people, or Na Nach Nachmans? Please don't tell me you are equaling those weirdos to real chassidim. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're kind of rude, aren't you. I was really thinking about Carlebach types. Not to mention the fact that you simply posted your opinion. No source whatsoever. That's not actually what you're supposed to do on Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made a habit of this kind of rudeness. I'm thinking of taking it to wikiquette alerts. If you'd prefer that I not do this (since it would involve something directed at you), I'll respect your preference on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is his ordinary way of speaking, then yes, it should probably go to an alert. I don't have any problem with that. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, as you may have noted, I didn't do any further editing on articles with regards to the term "Torah Judaism", or even on related topics. I tried my best to explain my point of view, and give some sources. Then I took a step back to see what research and editing you and other Wikipedia editors come up with. Perhaps I'm wrong about how widely it is (or was) understood in a negative fashion. I also am refraining from editing on this and related topics as a sign of good faith - to you in specific. Although I obviously have a somewhat different view of Jewish theology than you, I do appreciate the work you've done to prevent some serious abuses from occurring in many Wikipedia articles.

BTW, do you know if there are any English translations of bible commentaries in the Da'at_Miqra series? Or anything like this? I have been looking for modern Orthodox Tanakh commentary, not just the Soncino, but anything else. Torah commentaries I've got plenty of (there is no end to their publication), but English, Jewish commentaries on the rest of Tanakh (except Artscroll) seem very hard to come by.
Take care.
--- Robert. RK (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am beginning to think it is necessary to take some action to deal with this editor, who uses talk pages as forums (in fact almost as mini-articles) and pushes his OR there and in articles. What do you think? dougweller (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect an RfC is the only way to go, probably involving editors such as Pico and Cush, so it would be editors who don't always agree with each other which is probably a good thing. dougweller (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see this [33]. dougweller (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little out of control Doug. Putting references on talk pages and discussing them, then adding them to an article is not against Wikipedia's policy. Try discussing something productively or adding some content and references of your own. Rktect (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added referenced content to 3 articles at least yesterday. It is my opinion that what you are doing is a combination of OR and using talk pages to make an argument. dougweller (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LisaLiel. Your explanation is complete nonesense and is full of contradictions.

U say "There's no evidence that they were "worshippers", and much that they were planning an attack on nearby Jews.)  

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist"" Now it is known that Muslims go to mosque for worshipping their God, not to eat their launch, not to wed, and not to celebrate. You know as I know as everybody knows that they were worshippers. What else would more than 150 men (the number of casualties), of them 52 were killed, would do in a mosque at the time of down prayer ?

U claim that they were planning an attack on nearby jews !!?? Would they do that with the presence of 9 armed Israeli military in the place ? How would they attack newrby jews ? with stones? in the total darkness before down? will you say they had guns? why then did they used their hands to beat the person who cimmitted the massacre to death if they had guns? and Do U have any proof that they planned to attack newrby jews !?

At the end, U should have discuess it here before reverting it. They were wirshippers and U know it, Ill report U if you dont cancel your revert.

( PS. Its the first time I edit anything here.. I am not sure that I am writing in the correct place too. If that, I should say I am sorry because I respect the rules.

Iceq (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was living in Israel at the time. The Arabs in Hebron had been announcing their intent to attack the Jews of Kiryat Arba for a couple weeks prior to this event, and people were in total outrage that the government wasn't doing anything to pre-empt them. Furthermore, the official investigation after the incident found an enormous cache of weapons in the cave. Muslims in Israel very often use mosques not only to conceal weapons, but to whip themselves up into a frenzy prior to an attack. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U could say many things and provide many points that unless you prove them, they are LIES !

U didnt answer my question on why didnt they use those "guns they hidden in the cave" (very funny btw), against the committer of the massacre ? And apart from that, U have to proof that they planned what you are claiming they planned. Iceq (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be synthesis if it was article space, but it was a combination of diffs that show the relationship.
Coren's block notice on User talk:Alastair Haines indicated that "we have received further legal threats from a person making a credible claim to be your publisher and to be acting in your interest" and referenced OTRS ticket #2009040310049955.
Coren's block notice on User talk:SkyWriter indicated that they were being blocked for making legal threats and referenced the same OTRS ticket.
I suppose there might be another explanation, but SkyWriter being, or at least acting like they were, his publisher seems to be the most logical. --Onorem♠Dil 14:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through SkyWriter's talk page, it appears that there's at least a chance that there was some misunderstanding about who submitted the ticket. Would you consider not prodding him any more over it until it's cleared up? --Onorem♠Dil 14:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your little dust up with User:RevAntonio. While I have removed comments from this user on talk pages in the past, it has always been because of personal attacks in his talk page posts. The talk page edits of his you removed today did not have any such personal attacks in them. As many issues as I have with this particular editor, I want it to be clear that you are not the end-all authority on what is or is not a legitimate issue someone has with the content of an article. You do not own this article. Like every other article on Wikipedia, the opinions and rantings of fringe "experts" will eventually fall upon the wayside as they fail to get consensus or the support of others. Besides that point, you are in no position to bring up this user's past.. I trust that this won't be an issue beyond this point. Trusilver 19:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lisa, I had no idea RevAntonio was bothering other people. I thought he was exclusive to the Anna Anderson page. He's some kind of really terrible fanatic who is prone to long wild rants, ridiculous insults and accusations, and over the top behavior. He then begs for forgiveness, deletes his posts, then starts all over and the whole cycle continues. I am firmly convinced he is the same person using a different name who has been acting this way and also vandalizing the article, sticking stuff in the middle of my sourced quotes to change their meaning, and erasing my sourced material he disagrees with only to add his with only a person's name as a reference. I can't understand why he is even still allowed to be here. The mods have taken action on him and I appreciate it, but honestly his behavior is never going to stop and he needs to be removed forever. He wants to 'vanish' and is begging for all his stuff in the history to be deleted, which makes me even more sure he is afraid of being caught for his sockpuppets. Even if he is banned/deleted/etc. please keep on the lookout for him to return under a different name, because he likely will. Good luck.Aggiebean (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proof your troll is indeed RevAntonio, here's one of his posts from our fight on the AA page, some were signed, some only an IP but the same person:

i have taken leave of this wretched page and you stubborn people who have trusilver's protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.116.175 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC

Aggiebean (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's back and vandalizing the Anna Anderson talk page now, deleting and changing comments by me and others. Will you please join me in asking this person be removed permanently? He is of no useful purpose to this site and is never going to change. Here's the latest IP 75.21.98.62Aggiebean (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa I would also like to request that something be done about User:RevAntonio and his many sock guises as shown above by Aggiebean. A quick look on the Anna Anderson talk page shows a very long history of rants and other bizarre behaviour. I believe one of his many guises has recently been ChatNoir24. I really hope something can be done before the current freeze on the Anna Anderson page is lifted otherwise his grossly disruptive behvaiour will start all over again. He makes no positive contributions whatsoever and personally attacks many contributors. Thanks very much in your efforts to clear up all of this problem. Finneganw talk 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lisa, I would like to draw your attend to ChatNoir24 and his many guises on the Anna Anderson page. He is reengaging in an edit war pushing a proven inaccurate agenda always using the same book, Peter Kurth, which has been totally discredited. He can find no other source as they don't exist. He makes no attempt to use the discussion page and has not responded to the request that the page be considerably simplified. If fact he continues to push his inaccurate agenda that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia. No serious historian believes this at all. It has been completely disproven. I have requested to Trusilver that the page be locked as soon as possible to avoid ChatNoir24's constant POV vandalism. I believe an investigation is currently underway. If you check his entries he uses ISPs starting with 66 and 67 of late as well as ChatNoir24. I believe he is as Aggiebean has stated, Peter Kurth. He needs to be banned like he has been from a large number of other internet sites. Certainly his inaccurate agenda has no place at wikipedia. Finneganw 01:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lisa I thought you should know that the troll is back again on the Anna Anderson discussion page and elsewhere. He has already caused disruption using the same tactics that lead to him being blocked. He is also threatening Trusilver, Aggiebean and myself. Finneganw 13:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would like to know that ChatNoir24 is persisting in an edit war at Anna Anderson. He refuses to take part in discussion and just abuses those who do not share his historically inaccurate obsessed POV. He continues to only push a discredited source. Can you assist please? Thanks. Finneganw 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you would like to know that ChatNoir24 is breaching 3RR at Anna Anderson. I believe he needs to be blocked for a period. Please note he uses other IP addresses as shown on the discussion page. Thanks Finneganw 23:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rev" is back as 75.21.124.148 and is running rampant all over talk pages, making ridiculous accusations and interjecting in the middle of other posts. He has completely lost it. Look out for this and similar IPs.Aggiebean (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He went on quite an abusive rampage before he was gone, he may be banned. I hope so. If you didn't suffer this time you're lucky, he was terrible to us over at AA. He used IPs starting with 75 and 76. I hope he's gone, but I doubt it.Aggiebean (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your excellent writing style. I've seen several of your edits to existing material, and wish I could improve on text as smoothly and effectively as you do. I've seen professional editors do far less. Or...maybe you are one??? Thanks very much. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, I'm not an editor, but I am a writer. Thanks for your kudos. -Lisa (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed Dougweller of your disruptive editing on the Passage of the Red Sea article without engaging in a discussion first. You are restoring the Rktect stuff without any consensus. Please stop forcing your or his WP:OR into the article. Cush (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to you, I'm coming to your talk page and asking that you please put those tags back into the Haredi Judaism article. When there's a content dispute, placing those tags on the article is completely appropriate until the dispute is resolved. You don't get to make the final decision on these things without reaching consensus - regardless of whether you say "verdict"[34][35][36] in the discussions. -shirulashem^(talk) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent edit of the Messianic Judaism lead; I noticed your Edit Summary:

(Much as I agree with you, Tim (and I do), they'll never accept that. Let's stay with what was worked out before the last two editors changed it.)

Who are you refering to? Whoever "they" are, I'm not sure it's appropriate to make assumptions regarding what they will accept. Please join the talk page discussion so we can find out.

Peace,

JosiahHenderson (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lisa. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug. -Lisa (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, don't thank me, I raised it. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought Josiah did. Either way, thanks for letting me know about it, even if it's silly to accuse me of POV when I was merely making a point. -Lisa (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought you were referring to the other one. <sigh> Fine, whatever. If y'all want to punish me for a technical violation, go right ahead. If you want an apology, I apologize. I don't even know when the ridiculous ArbCom restriction expires. The fact that I received a restriction in that case, which was against Alastair Haines, was somewhere between Orwellian and Kafkaesque, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't really keep track of it. -Lisa (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my goodness. There's a week and a half left on the ArbCom thing? So seriously? A technical violation that clearly wasn't what the ArbCom meant, a couple of weeks before the whole thing expires? And you found that worthy of an ANI? -Lisa (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug -- any way you could withdraw it? It's only a week and a half, and you and I would both have probably made that revert.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's okay Tim. I appreciate your defending me, but if Doug feels it's important enough, I can live with a week and a half ban. -Lisa (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not important enough. For some reason I was thinking end of September. I didn't say pov by the way. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. When you first posted to tell me about the ANI thing, I thought you were referring to the rather silly one that Josiah posted a little earlier. -Lisa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. The argument in the Mercer Bible Dictionary is as follows: 1. Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26 - it checks out); 2. Isaac died at 180 and Jacob fled to Laban shortly before that, therefore Jacob was then 120 (180-60); 3. Jacob spent 20 years with Laban (Gen. 31:38) then returned to Canaan (also checks out); 4. Therefore Jacob was 140 at that point (120+20).

However, as you rightly point out, Jacob tells Pharaoh that he's 130 when he arrives in Egypt, many years later (Gen. 47:9). The logic of points 1 to 4 is impeccable, but the statement at Genesis 47:9 creates a logical contradiction. How to explain this? If you have Gleason Archer's explanation of all contradictions to hand (I don't) I'd be interested to see if he mentions it.

• Off my own, and using a line of argument that Archer never would allow, I see that each of these statements - Genesis 25:26, Genesis 31:38, and Genesis 47:9 - comes from a different source, the first from the Jahwist, the second from the Elohist, and the third from the Priestly source. If you allow that, then the Mercer Dictionary is doing something that it shouldn't do, combining two distinct sources.
• Another possible explanation is that the author/editor of the passages either didn't care about contradictions, or else deliberately put them in for his own purposes. After all, the statement at Genesis is the only explicit statement of Jacob's age - the other one has to be deduced. If the author sees his numbers as conveying hidden meanings, he might be quite happy to have a narrative contradiction.

Those are my own suggestions, and totally OR. I'm interested in this, and I'll send an email to a professor of OT studies I know and see what he has to say. Let you know. PiCo (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the professor got back, but not much illumination. This is what he said: "The Joseph story might an originally independent unit incorporated as a novel into the Pentateuch. Then no harmonization. But numbers did definitely not have the same meaning to the ancients as to us today, so there might be a hidden agenda of some sort."PiCo (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say "The logic of points 1 to 4 is impeccable", but it isn't at all. Point two is mere assumption, and since it contradicts actual concrete numbers in the account, the assumption must be wrong. Isaac was old, yes. But that doesn't mean it was right before he died.

You're actually starting from the POV that the story is a hodgepodge. And yes, that's one POV. But you can't use a subjective impression (i.e., Isaac was almost 180 when Jacob fled) while ignoring the context that shows the impression to be false. -Lisa (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pico -- as you said, your position is OR and involves a contradiction with at least one passage in the greater text. You therefore cannot simply drop it into the article as some kind of fact. If you want to quote someone who said that he was 140, that might have a place on Wikipedia -- but even then not in the location you are trying to put it, in the context of a number of times 140 is used. Further, if I understand you correctly, you seem to regard 140 to have some kind of numerical significance to the original authors or later redactors. Great -- but it would have to be an overt use of the number, rather than an inference that you derive in CONTRAST to the numbers the author/redactor later uses when he gives Pharaoh his age. Find a source, and find a more appropriate place on Wikipedia. There are a lot of sources, and a lot of articles. It shouldn't be difficult. But please stop what you are doing here, or I'll start reverting you myself.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, what you call my position isn't mine at all - it's from the Mercer Bible Dictionary, a Reliable Source as understood in Wikiworld. And Lisa's quite wrong about point 2 being an assumption - its in the text of Genesis. PiCo (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said both here and on the article talk page -- this MAY belong in another article (perhaps one on Jacob), but not in the passage you are placing it. Please find a better location. I have no objections to Mercer Bible Dictionary. But I DO have objections to your choice of placement. It may belong elsewhere, but certainly does not belong in the passage you are placing it in.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PiCo, if you think it's in the text of Genesis, quote it. I assure you you're mistaken. -Lisa (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete "Bible Deaths by God"? this is very useful information. Were should I post it? Thank you for your time Ptrwatson418 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because it has absolutely nothing to do with chronology. -Lisa (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were should I add it? Ptrwatson418 (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it's encyclopedic? I mean, it's pretty obvious that you're only adding it as a swipe at God and people who believe in God, right? "Look how horrible God is, killing someone for picking up sticks!" That's more appropriate to a blog than an encyclopedia.

Suppose someone wanted to add a list of every place it says "God said". That's trivia; not encyclopedia. -Lisa (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral information and very useful for people who study the Bible. Were should I add it? Ptrwatson418 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could put it in God in Judaism, but add an introduction. It is of course encyclopedic and it helps in clarifying the character of the Jewish deity and thus the values conveyed by the religions that adhere to it. Cush (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is also the Christian God. Ok thank you. I will do my best. Ptrwatson418 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is also the article The supreme deity in Abrahamic religions, but I am not sure your list would fit there. After all, all the divine killing is in the Jewish part of the Bible. Cush (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it elsewhere, kids. -Lisa (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you insulting us? Ptrwatson418 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because she is the Lisa Liel who is well known on WP for her uncompromising adherence to the God in Judaism. She does not want that god to be presented as the killer that it is described as in the Bible. Cush (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can write about her here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests Ptrwatson418 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I appreciate the comment (on the translation as well). May I ask why you believe I am doing original research? I think the book is short enough that the major principles can be enumerated. This is done for many other kinds of works described in encyclopedias, e.g., "major themes" in novels. Certainly, the Jewish Encyclopedia provides themes and quotes for almost every work. Do you see a reason that someone would object? Thanks. —Dfass (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph, maybe. A whole chart like that... well, I won't complain about it, but I thought you should know. You're sorting various themes from inside the book and reorganizing them according to categories you've chosen. That isn't going to go over well here. -Lisa (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's wait and see. If they reject it here, I will post it elsewhere. (That was actually my original plan, but then I stumbled onto the this Avot article, and was sad that the article was so short, so I decided to flesh it out.) If someone objects strongly, not a problem. Thanks for the tip. —Dfass (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Users who file RfC/Us are expected to sign under the "Users certifying the basis fo