User talk:RK/Archive 5

Miracle

---Hi RK, Miracles -Biblical literature is art and drama. The critical history beneath can never be known. We are dealing with scant records of the ancient past. We are being selective by only dealing with surviving remnants. Biblical literature is often written in story form. Don't expect to know "what really happened". Wonder stories they sucked ass

Zeraim Source

Hi RK, I was just planning on revising/twiddling with the lists of tractates in the Sedarim and for a while I've noticed that there was something about the Zeraim article, which you started, that I found familliar - maybe I saw it in another encyclopedia or something (the style of listing chapter numbers and then the description and then Scriptural references in roman numerals). Am I mistaken or was that based on prior material (in which case it would probably only have to be edited to be suffieicently different)?

Thanks Frikle 23:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think I brought over a lot of this from the 1906 public domain source, the Jewish Encyclopedia. RK 02:03, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Lustiger

You might like to look at Jean-Marie Lustiger and tell me if I have got any of the Jewish stuff wrong. A friend tells me that Lustiger is still halachically (is that the word?) a Jew because it is impossible to "convert out." Your opinion? Adam 05:46, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yep, he is still considered a Jew. As a Christian, he is not considered a Jew in good standing in the Jewish community (just as someone who left Christianity would not be considered a Christian in good standing with their church), but he is regarded as ethnically Jewish nonetheless. In case that Cardinal Lustiger wanted to leave Christianity and follow Judaism as his religion, he would not even need to convert; he would need only publicly state that he no longer follows Christianity, and instead now accepts the teachings of Judaism. Lustiger is an interesting case; there has been speculation that he could become the first Jewish Pope, and this has been a source of quasi-pride and humor in the Jewish community. RK 16:57, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

A Oui Taste Of Jewish N.Y. French clerics, led by Paris archbishop, come to town for a week’s worth of diverse community

1998 Nostra Aetate Awards and Lecture: "Jews and Christians, Tomorrow" by Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger

I suspect St Peter was the first Jewish Pope. In fact it would be interesting to know who was the first Pope who wasn't Jewish. Anyway, if you are feeling like an argument, you might like to come to my aid against the hippies at Traditional Chinese medicine. Adam 14:09, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

=Traditional Chinese medicine

RK, would you be so kind as to explain your knowledge and background regarding traditional Chinese medicine? heidimo 17:10, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have extensive knowledge of how to test any kind of medical or scientific claim. Unless one posits some sort of racial supermacy of Chinese people, then we must accept claims they make as no more valid or invalid than claims made by non-Chinese people. When people (Chinese or not) make specific scientific ormedical claims, then people (of any background) can examine these claims to see if evidence exists to support such claims. RK

I see. If, as you suggest, Chinese people were indeed racially supreme, how would one demonstrate that with the scientific method? And, if Chinese racial supremacy were scientifically proven, are you suggesting that Chinese medical claims would then be exempt from scientific scrutiny? heidimo 19:10, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will not respond to your bizarre ranting, except to point out that such comments indicate that you have no ability to rationally converse about science. RK 02:03, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

Just in case you're interested, I've listed the "List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war" for deletion. Looking back at it, I definately agree with you that such an article is un-encyclopedic and doesn't have a place on the Wiki --Alex S 04:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cool. It seems to me that a "list of massacres" for any war doesn't really belong an encyclopedia. I can just imagine the abuses of such articles for Iraqis versus Iranians, Turks versus Armenians, Arabs versus Israelis, Brits versus Americans, etc. RK 21:07, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Scientific Revolution

Are you currently watching this? Ericross has put a long piece on the Talk page, and it's mainly about your work on the lead paragraph of the Literary section. You may want to look at it if you have the time. I'm sticking mainly to the four-step program below that, which I've edited to eliminate the need for my additional paragraphs. But as you'll see, I am contemplating a new section on the empirical reality of the revolution. Dandrake 02:13, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have been offline for a few days; I think the article is improving. I don't want to make any new edits today; intsead I'd just like to watch what you and others contribute. One thing that concerns me is the excessive concern with the work of Bruno Latour here, and in other Wikipedia articles. Although is often quoted by Wikipedians as an authority, my understanding of him is that his analysis of science is not accepted by most historians of science. Both from comments on the Wiki-En discussion list, and on various science article Talk pages, I am worried that there is significant clique of people who only use fringe authorities to back them up, and use them to dismiss the value of science, scientific skepticism, and experiment in general. RK 21:07, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of "If you have time", I recently read the book _The Sokal Hoax_, in which one gets enough exposure to Latour to see that he's thoroughly nuts and widely accepted by people who are paid to talk about these things -- certain of them, anyway. The Hoax book is interesting reading, and if you like to see your enemies make themselves look bad, it's rewarding. To the point: Yes, Latour's virtual presence is annoying; I'm making an effort to sidestep that fact, because anything I'd say would likely be a flame. I hope to stick to weakening the Latour-based arguments wherever I can. Dandrake 02:20, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

---

RK thank you for your quick response. Are you going to continue with the other commandments? It appears that only two have been annotated. Might be good to cite the source as well, since it is so well-known to Jews. OneVoice 22:17, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RK, on the Ten Commandments page you deleted an extensive explanation of the Jewish view of these verses based upon a well-known and widely accepted source. The current view is based upon....what source? Let's discuss this and find a way to improve that section of the page. OneVoice 21:41, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RK, do you intend to rewrite or reinstate or supplement the material that you deleted? While the Sefer HaHinuch is not the only view, it is a widely recognized one. Will you be adding additional view(s)...just removing material without contributing seems to be a less desireable path to take. Its been 8 days since we last spoke on this matter. OneVoice 19:13, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

The Mormonism and Christianity is in trouble, I think. Perhaps it is an unavoidable entropy magnet. I notice you have been an editor. If you get a moment, perhaps you could take some time to weed it so it is more of a credit to this encyclopedia. The subject isn't my forte, and I don't understand the page all too well, or I would make an attempt. Is there even hope for that article? Hawstom 23:02, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Invite

I would like to formally invite you to join others at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict to work with us toward resolving issues that have arisen and resulted in edit wars here at Wikipedia. Also, I would like to formally request that you agree, along with the rest of us, to refrain from editting each of the articles that are listed as currently under protection or subject to edit wars on that page till the issues regarding that particular article have been resolved and we have removed that article from the currently under protection or subject to edit wars list. OneVoice 13:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I know the people involved, and some of them I no longer can trust. RK

---

You need to go to the [1] page and vote regarding the changes some are trying to make there.

Pharisees

When you have a chance, can you look at Pharisees? I have extensively revised the article. Can you correct my errors and also try to make it a little more nuanced? Until a few days ago the article was based almost entirely on the New Testament depiction of the Pharisees! My goal for now has simply been to provide a fuller, historical, and non-Christian view of the Pharisees. But it was a hasty job and I am sure can be improved. Slrubenstein

Zionism

RK, I note the existence of a link to an article defending Zionism on your web page. Could I suggest that you are clearly imposing a pro-Zionist bias on the Israel article. This paragraph:

Yes, I am pro-Zionist. I reject the racist, anti-Semitic position that Jews and Jews alone have no rights like other peoples. How this makes me biased, I do not understand. RK 02:03, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

In the years since 1948, Israel and the United Nations have often suffered an adversarial relationship. A bloc of Muslim countries (and formerly, Soviet clients) has promulgated dozens of resolutions which condemn Israeli actions without specific mention of comparable Arab atrocities. Supporters of the anti-Jewish view place primary responsibility on Israel for violating several United Nations resolution

is unadulterated pro-Israeli propaganda. For example, it accuses critics of Israel of being "anti-Jewish" (a standard ploy used by defenders of Israel to discredit their opponents), and furthermore lies by stating that these resolutions were produced by hostile Muslim/Soviet client states, when in fact these are Security Council resolutions. When it comes to concrete facts, such as the fact that Ariel Sharon was held responsible for involvement in Sabra/Shatila by the Israeli Kahan Committee, you simply cannot delete them for being anti-Jewish propaganda.

That is not what I did; I never deleted this info from this encyclopedia. RK

If you wish to add something along the lines of "supporters of Sharon such as bla-bla defend his conduct for this-and-this reason", then you are more than welcome to. Note for example that when discussing the security fence, I have stated "Israel claims as neccessary to defend its territory against terrorism"; furthermore, on possession of nuclear weapons: "However, many Zionists have claimed that this is neccessary to protect Israel's security given a widespread desire in the Middle East to destroy Israel." How can including both the Zionist and the Arab perceptions of Israel, and the Arab/Jewish proportions of the population at certain times, be construed as a "pro-Arab agenda"? Furthermore, you may well be uncomfortable with the Zionist terrorist campaign, but it is a crucial part of the history of Israel's foundation - by all means add a defence, but deleting it is simply the censorship of facts which you would prefer to forget about.

Personally, I think it is outrageously irresponsible for you to attempt to censor facts which do not sit comfortable with your political outlook. Jonesy 19:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And I think hatred of the Jewish state is outrageous. RK 03:21, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Islam contributor

Allow me to acknowledge and convey my sincere respect to your views and contributions towards any Islamic subject. We together encountered much conflict and disagreement in the past. My stubborn and juvenile position, along with an inexperience with the Islamic genre, was fueled by personal conflicts within myself. Rather than being professional, I attacked your views because of my own insecurity.
Your comments encouraged me to evaluate my position as a Islamic fundamentalist. I no longer consider the Qur'an, the sacred text of Islam, to be the literal Word of God. This awakening unexpectedly influenced not only my personal views regarding Islam, but my overall intellectual and spiritual views as well. You may not be aware of this but I was a Buddhist for many years before converting to Islam. Now that I've rejected literalism, I've become more tolerant and closer to the epitome of what religions attempt to describe as the ultimate Truth. Conventionally speaking, I am mostly inspired by Buddhism but have now converted to Religious_pluralism.
What I really want to convey to you simply is... that I deeply am sorry for my intolerance towards you (and others) and for seeing you as the enemy. You helped me shatter the illusions indoctrinated to me and for that I am truly thankful. May you be well and happy RK, including Israel. Shalom and Metta (loving-kindness). :0) Usedbook 19:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. RK 02:03, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Temple Mount polemic

As a matter of politeness, I would like to inform you that I have deleted your polemic against the traditional Islamic interpretation of ayah 17.1 from the Temple Mount article; while I can (with some difficulty) imagine a fruitful Wikipedia article on the interpretation of that verse, it goes into far more detail than is relevant or appropriate for an article on the Temple Mount (especially given that that verse is only one of several reasons for its importance in Islam), and is far from neutral insofar as it gives massively more space to the arguments against than for. Moreover, it quoted without comment a guy with a pseudonym meaning "Slave of the Pig, Dog of God, the Apostate" in a manner which would mislead the average reader into believing this guy was some kind of Muslim. If you want to put this material back (in which case I will have to extensively edit it for balance), then please put it at the title Interpretation of ayah 17.1 of the Qur'an. Mustafaa 00:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't a polemic; it was an addition of historical context. And I am glad to see that you have kept this material. RK 03:21, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I realized that the 8-paragraph digression is almost entirely about the interpretation of the term "masjid al-aqsa". It thus naturally belongs in the Masjid al-Aqsa (Al-Aqsa Mosque) article, and I have moved it there, with some editing to correct mistakes and present the other side a bit. Mustafaa 10:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TCM

RK, I agree with your desire to remove zealousness from the TCM page, but it looks like the back and forth is not the best approach. I think the points you are trying to make are true, but putting them right up front is perhaps too much in the face of the TCM supporters. The points need to be considered elsewhere. An example: your statement starts out saying Yin and Yang are energies, yet under Ying and Yang in the text below, it says they are NOT energies. I agree, that New Agers in the West DO refer to these as "energies" and they are NOT known or demonstrated by scientific methods. So the text seems less POV than you may be reading into it. I would reconsider your important points and find where in the text they can better balance POV. I will be happy to help out, although I know little about TCM, I am a confirmed Skeptic - Marshman 02:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heidemo erased my message to you (above). I'm not sure if it was an accident or what (see page history) - Marshman

RK - I have placed a warning on Heidimo's talk page - Marshman 23:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did not remove anything from this page, and would not consider it my business to do so, unless perhaps if it were my own posting that I thought better of. It looks like there was an edit conflict. heidimo 01:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Robert, please immediately stop your personal attacks against me. I have made no such attacks on you, and I have been polite in asking you to cease your vandalism. I would also appreciate if you would stop assuming I'm male and calling me "he." I am female. There is plenty to do in Articles needing attention in the science section, if you need something to do. heidimo 17:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MNH

Some of us don't follow the mailing lists. It would be helpful if you could quote/link to specific pages. -- Decumanus | Talk 15:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

I have protected the alternative medicine page and set up a mediation dialogue on the talk page in hopes that you and Mr-Natural-Health can come to a compromise. Please see Talk:Alternative_medicine#Page_protection. --Αλεξ Σ 16:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

Would you be willing to participate in mediation with heidimo over Traditional Chinese medicine? Please respond either on my talk page or at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Tuf-Kat 04:14, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I wish that this were possible, but there can be no mediation between people who rely on science to test scientific claims, and people who insist that their religious beliefs are true, regardless of what scientific tests show. Measurable facts about medicine are not subject to debate, nor is medical truth determined by vote. I do not let Jewish, Muslim, or Chinese believers alter articles by pushing their religious beliefs as medical and scientific facts. RK

The great majority of us here on Wikipedia have long ago accepted that religious beliefs cannot be stated as facts, and that our articles must point this out. If someone claims that they can manipulate and detect mysterious energy fields that affect the human body, they that is a claim that can be tested in the real world. Heidimo wants to claim that these energy fields are real...but he also holds his Chinese religious beliefs over and above any form of testing. That is a double-standard which violated Wikipedia NPOV policy. RK 02:03, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

Hello RK I'm Nick, Mr. Natural-Health contacted me about this edit war invoving Alternative Medicine, now i know both of you have been at it for quite a while. Now, i want to assist you both because i don't want either one of you getting banned from the project. Now i am not member of the mediation committee but who needs them, I prefer compromise rather than ruling for one side or another. also look here on the revert rule:

"Reversion wars" between two competing individuals are against Wikipedia's spirit, and reflect badly on both participants. Instead of performing a straight revert, look for ways to compromise, or alternate ways of saying the same thing - while such edits take more time and thought than another unthinking revert, they are far more likely to result in a mutually satisfactory article.

Allright, now my main question for you is what is the main POV dispute on the article of Alternative medicine? I think i could work with both you without having to go though committees and the like. Thank you for time mr. RK. Comrade Nick

MNH has a long history of threatening many people on Usenet newsgroups, and that he calls himself a Nazi? This man is not someone we should be negotiating with; he needs to be banned. RK

New Rules

Robert, while you were (apparently) gone for several weeks, they went and changed the rules. It's now a violation to revert the same article more than 3 times in one day. Ironically, even if a "good" person like you is reverting to stop "vandalism", this would put you in the wrong. So, watch out. Please do not revert the same page more than 3x per day. If you need help, contact me or any of several dozen other admins. We're here to help! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vogel

I've started a quickpoll on banning Vogel. AndyL 18:41, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could you please correct the HEBREW spelling on the Sarah page. Thank you.

Hi RK, I noticed you started the page on Sarah a while back. I noticed that the Hebrew words for her name at the top of the page are not in order. Could you do something about it and correct them please. Thanks! IZAK 10:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jew page edits

RK: See the Talk page on the Jew article about making radical changes...IZAK 05:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seemed fine to me

RK, I don't think you did anything "radical". Seemed fine to me. However, IZAK has been known to try to force a "my way or the highway" policy on anything he disagrees with...--Yoshiah ap 17:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--Yoshiah ap 22:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)===Responding to the Karaite "crusader"=== Now now, Yoshiah be nice...I only wanted to know what user|RK intended, I have NO problem with his edit at Jew as he created a whole new section mainly for the parts dealing with conversion/s to Judaism, that I had nothing to do with and always wondered how they got so much attention in the first place. On the other hand, you seem to be on a quest to slant the entire Wiki and Internet Jewish universes towards "Karaism", a creed that has long ceased to be important and is so peripheral to modern day Judaism today. So I would say, that it is YOU that is no the "Karaite Highway or my way"! IZAK 07:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Izak, please stop your bizarre ad-homenim claims. I am not a Karaite. In fact, I am philosophically opposed to Karaism, as well as to fundamentalism. I find both belief systems to be incorrect. Thus, it is grossly irresponsible for you ro make up bald-faced lies about me, and spread them in public. Please stop your hysterical fictions and trolling. RK 13:06, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think IZAK has just proved my point for me. --Yoshiah ap 20:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Firstly to RK:Dear RK: I was NOT addressing myself to you! If you notice I said "Now now, Yoshiah" (see above) as he (Yoshiah) had left comments on your page. (Please read more carefully next time). It is not "trolling" to respond to comments that Yoshiah made about me here (after I had left a question for you and he butted in). I know full well that you (RK) are not a Karaite at all, and I do apologize if it created the wrong impression. You also needn't have gone into your own ad hominem attack if you find such methods repulsive in the first place.IZAK 02:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Secondly to Yoshiah:Why are you so "happy", RK has just insulted the Karaites and all you can do is cheer on HIS ad hominem attacks (for which he has been excoriated on Wikipedia many times)? Go figure..? IZAK 02:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • IZAK, there is a big difference between being opposed to a set of beliefs and insulting them. He stated that he was opposed to Karaite beliefs, he didn't insult us.--Yoshiah ap 21:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yoshia: Yet again you are personalizing the academic discussions and instead performing the "broken wing" fake-injury routine. Stop it. IZAK 03:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You claimed that RK insulted all of Karaites and Karaism in his post. He didn't, and you have yet to show that he did. Stop dancing around the issue. You made an outrageous claim. Period.--Yoshiah ap 03:40, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To Yoshiah: I assumed when he said: "I am philosophically opposed to Karaism, as well as to fundamentalism" that your feelings would be hurt and take it as an insult, what is so onreasonable? I am glad that you are able to tolerate someone's "philosophical opposition" to Karaism and seem to like it so much that you bask in its warm after-glow? Are you also able to accept "Rabbinical opposition" to Karaism in the same way and consider its merits as an acceptable view, without having a fit? Just asking. (P.S. He also happened to lump Karaites with "fundamentalism" so that would put you in the same class as many people very unpopular in the mainstream. You call that a "compliment"? More like a clear back-handed insult if there ever was one....Oh well.) IZAK 03:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I can handle someone being opposed to my beliefs. That, in and of itself, is not insulting. I can and do accept Rabbinical Opposition of Karaism, and when visiting my mother, I attend a local Sephardic Synagogue, and get along perfectly with the Orthodox Jews there, despite our differences. If RK had spewed out language similar to some of the Anti-Jewish Hate Material (IZAK, you left your notes at the last International Jewish Conspiracy meeting, LOL), or some of the Anti-Mormon hate material, then I would have been offended. But, as far as I'm concerned, this is just like Republicans vs. Democrats in America. Of course the two parties are opposed to each other. --Yoshiah ap 22:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• To YOSHIAH: So far most of what you respond here is kinda nice. However I MUST object in the STRONGEST terms about your statement about me, (albeit it jest): "If RK had spewed out language similar to some of the Anti-Jewish Hate Material (IZAK, you left your notes at the last International Jewish Conspiracy meeting, LOL)". Now, YOU may think it is "very funny" and tag on a cute "LOL" to your statement, but how dare you slander someone by innuendo by making such a "joke" in extremely poor taste at my expense. Shame on you Yoshiah, you should now better, and then again I wonder... IZAK 10:00, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • IZAK, if you thought I was tying you to the Anti-Jewish and Anti-Mormon hate materials out there, I apologize. I was just trying to make a joke about the "International Jewish Conspiracy"--Yoshiah ap 21:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi RK. It's been a long time -- welcome back to Wikipedia. I want to ask you to consider toning down your edit summaries a bit (I know I'm not the first to say this, but the number of conflicts has grown as fast the number of users has over the last couple of months, so why provide something for the flamers to latch onto). And I also want to thnak you for working on the Jew article. Many of us gave up due to the sheer volume of information and edits being made to the page, and it's much appreciated. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Other than dealing with MNH (again), everything has been fine here so far. I've worked on 20 or so articles with no problems. RK 03:21, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back! FYI, you might want to take a look at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Check out MNH's arbitration request page again. I've asked you to remove your complaint there. I feel that digging up old complaints, (specifically complaints from before the last arbitration ruling) looks bad. I think that there is plenty of recent evidence to present. We should stick to things he did since he came back after his month long ban.

Cheers! theresa knott 14:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, if you think this will help, I will do so immediately. RK

Thank you. theresa knott 11:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shmuel ibn Tibbon

Hi RK, thanks for introducing Samuel ben Judah ibn Tibbon. I wikified the article and did some more twiddling.
IMHO there are still a lot of pages that have come in from the 1906 Jewish encyclopedia but still need updating and wikifying. I find Nahmanides particularily forbidding.
PS Welcome back. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zionism and Anti-Zionism

I think we need some of your head-kicking interventions at these two articles, where Zw and friends are reopening old arguments. We goyim are doing our best, but you and Danny know these areas much better than I do, and Danny is not inclined to get into arguments these days. Adam 01:07, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Hello, I don't know if you have had a look at AM recently, but I would appreciate your input. See the talk page. (of course if you dont want to, don't feel obliged). theresa knott 10:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Natural Health has been banned again, progress can bemade on this article. RK 13:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

lol

Totally unnecessary, but i just wanted to express my adoration for the fact that you have a Carlin quote followed by a Dante quote. --65.65.114.27 04:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oy

Dear Danny and RK - I am sick of trying to defend Zionism and Anti-Zionism against the fedayeen without any help from people (like you two) who ought to have an interest in defending these articles. So I am taking them off my watchlist and they can sink into the swamp. Regards, Adam 10:20, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK well I will drop by and see how things are progressing. Are you interested in Lyndon LaRouche, by the way? I have been having fun there, too. Adam 22:52, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have been interested in LaRouche ever since I went out on a date with a girl who supported him. We got along famously, until we began discussing him. It turned out that (surprise) she knew nothing about him except what was written in pamplets being distributed by his followers on our campus. She was not familiar with his more original and interesting ideas, such as the Queen of England being a drug-runner, and the idea that it would be economically feasible to mass colonize Mars in the late 1990s. When I mentioned a number of his ideas (I knew more about him at the time, having read some articles on him in a few newspapers) she denied that anything the newspaper's said were true, and then got real angry at me. Kind of sad, because she was nice, cute, and lived in my dorm. Perfect combo. However, her dedication to him was like that of a dedicated Maoist; dear leader could do no wrong. Sometimes I wish I had that kind of following !

RFC

Check out WP:RFC/Simonides ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mishna

Hi RK. Thanks for pulling Obadiah ben Abraham from 1906, and even more thanks for wikifying it! As for Mishnah, I saw you removed rishonim and acharonim. I do believe these terms deserve to be used, and I'm itching to write up the relevant pages (but lack material and time).
Is there any way to identify the 1906 pages on Wikipedia that still require wikification? I've recently refactored the 1906 content out of kohen, because it made the article forbiddingly long and messy (it's now in kohen/1906 awaiting a rewrite). Any ideas? JFW | T@lk 12:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have beeb trying to avoid using the term rishonim and acharonim in articles, because most readers of these articles won't have any idea what they mean. Since they refer to the great rabbis of certain historical eras, I have been describing the rishonim as the rabbis of the later medieval period, and the achronim as the rabbis of the last 300 years.

I don't know of any systematic way of identifying which pages on Wikipedia contain unwikified material from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. As I come across them, I update them. I suspect that few unwikified pages exist. I have brought over a dozen articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia (including the Kohen article); each of them (with the exception of the Kohen article) I edited, tried to NPOV, and Wikified. The Kohen article is a big job, and I didn't want to screw it up, so I added more new information to the main Kohen article and left the older version alone.

Today I spend a half-hour on editing the Kohen/1906 material. It is getting better, but still needs more work. RK 14:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian view of the peace process

In response to your message on my talk page, I made my position quite clear in my email response to you: I am taking a neutral position and protected the page to stop an edit war, I have no opinion on its content. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok. RK

NPOV of "Gentile"

I'd like to ask you to avoid using the term "Gentile" as a NPOV term except with its NPOV pan-cultural pan-religious definition. If you mean "non-Jew" or "non-Samaritan", be clear what you mean. See this trail for a more lengthy existing discussion on use of the term "Gentile" in Wikipedia articles. - Gilgamesh 03:04, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

Ok. RK

Hasdai Crescas

Hi RK, you can use a template to indicate a disambiguation page. Use {{disambig}}.

Thanks for adding Joseph Albo and Hasdai Crescas. I'm trying to write up some more contemporary Jewish authorities (e.g. Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler and Meir Simcha of Dvinsk). How would you feel about a Wikipedia:WikiProject for the Judaism articles? JFW | T@lk 21:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. RK

Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

As you have been involved in the debate before, I though you might be interested in knowing that it has heated up again. Jayjg 23:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I haven't encountered Simonides before, so I don't know much about him. He doesn't seem much worse than most of the other Zionophobes here. But I am puzzled at Zero's behaviour, since in the past I found him quite reasonable. Now he seems to have become completely obstructionist. Adam 14:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey RK, could you please drop me an email when you have a minute (you'll find the address at my h. page)? Thx. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello. Simonides has requested mediation concerning, amongst others, the following articles, some of which you may have been involved with: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Modern anti-Semitism, PLO, Hamas, and Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Would you agree to discuss these issues with Simonides with the help of a mediator? If so, please respond at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or on my talk page. If there are any mediators you would rather not handle this case, please say so. There is a list of them at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee.

Angela, member of the Mediation Committee, 05:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Israel Shahak article

Hi RK, I have made a bunch of specific statements regarding your text on talk:Israel Shahak. I would rather we find a way to improve this article so we don't have to leave it protected. Please, either

• respond to my comments with specifics in a reasonable amount of time so we can get working on the article again
• declare that you aren't interested in responding or editing the article further, so we can unprotect it and work on it without an edit war, or
• join me in mediation (which I haven't requested, but would go along with if you don't find either of the other two options palatable).

Thank you, DanKeshet 18:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RK, thank you for editing the talk:Israel Shahak page. However, based on your edits there. I frankly do not think we are making any progress toward improving that article. Do you feel that we might be able to make more progress if we brought in a third-party mediator? DanKeshet 00:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zionism

The change you reverted was not "ridiculous" and has nothing to do with a basis besides Bible conspiracy theories, but and with actual, legitimate archaeological disputes. Please actually read my comments on the talk page, they clarify my intent here. --Wclark 16:30, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

More to the point, there are legitimate complaints regarding the historical accuracy of various biblical claims (such as the controversial but still widely accepted evidence that the city of Jerusalem did not exist in 1000 BCE, King Solomon actually ruled elsewhere, etc.) How about this instead: the location commonly accepted by biblical scholars and archaeologists as the site of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. I'm mostly looking to end dispute on this matter in as fair a way as possible, while still representing the prevailing POV as being the prevailing POV. Simply asserting that Palestine is the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel is unfair to opposing views (no matter how much you, or I, may disagree with those views).

Would you mind responding to these points on the talk page for Zionism, in the section under "compromise"? Thanks, --Wclark 17:20, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

The opposing views are a lunatic minority. Even most Arab and Muslim historians and scholars don't hold by them. Check with User:Mustafa on this topic. Actually, Mustafa seems outraged that these ideas are mentioned in the Bible conspiracy theory article. He believes the entire idea is out of the mainstream even among Arabs who really don't like Israel. This idea really belongs in the same category as those who believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and doesn't merit inclusion in the opening paragraphs. RK 17:40, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be more to it than just what's mentioned on the Bible conspiracy theory page, though (such as the issues regarding the Kingdom actually ruled by Solomon, when the Kingdom of Israel was actually founded in its presumed location and whether it or its predecessor originally existed elsewhere and was moved). Those aspects are definitely more mainstream, and so there is some basis for questioning the relationship between the historical Kingdom of Israel and its current location. Minus the "lunatic" part, your first two sentences seem like a good start to me. I'm mostly interested in taking the wind out of the sails of some of those making edits with questionable motives (and pacifying those who feel they've been wrongly accused of having questionable motives).

Would you object to moving this entire thread over to the talk page for Zionism (or I can do it if you approve)? I'd really rather keep the discussion all in one place. --Wclark 17:51, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are talking about. That's all valid. There are geunine real historical disputes over what happened in the land of Israel. For a number of good reasons, the Biblical history is no longer automatically accepted as totally factual. (Some people claim that it is all a complete fiction, but I don't but that either.) If you look at The Bible and history you will see a synopsis of this issue that I have no problem with. Anything you want to rewrite along these lines is fine by me. RK 21:46, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Thanks for accepting the request for mediation with Simonides. Are there any mediators which you would object to handling this case? Angela. 22:08, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone that Jayjg and SLR agree with is also fine by me. RK

IZAK

RK, as you've mentioned earlier on the Wikiproject, IZAK's intimidation tactics and an entire lack of tolerance for conflicting viewpoints is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Recentely, he has absolutely lashed out on Gilgamesh - see User_talk:Gilgamesh#Re_Category:Israel_geography - for attempting to create a NPOV Category of the name of "Israel-Palestine Geography" (While it may not be correct, it is an honest attempt). I suggest that if he continues such scare tactics he be suggested for Moderator Intervention. However, I don't know how to do that. How would one go about doing that?--Josiah 10:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Gilgamesh was doing ok. We were communicating back and forth on the issue regarding placing ALL of Israel's cities within a new category called "Israel-Palestine". Should Tel Aviv and Haifa now be part of an imaginary non-existent entity called "Israel-Palestine"? After I had spent days categorizing over 150 articles for Category:Israel geography, Gilgamesh, WITHOUT consultation or discussion quickly flipped it over into his own newly created category of Category:Israel-Palestine Geography. None of my concerns stopped Gilgamesh for a second, and we even managed to have some sort of meeting of the minds in the end (I am hoping that others will see the problem with what he has done, for my part I have done the sorting and searching of articles just so that the category should come about...in any case, see Gilgamesh's compliments to me for my work in that regard), so I cannot fathom why Josiah feels the need to take up as his defense attorney, beyond just nuisance value, but now he seems to think that instead of working on the contents of articles, he should be acting like "Big Brother" on Wikipedia. What a shame and waste of time that is. IZAK 10:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, just because I respect you as another user doesn't mean you haven't been horribly derrogatory towards me. I'm willing to work and cooperate with you in peace; I do not appreciate horribly obscene accusations of cultural genocide nor metaphors to mass-murder. That is ḥuẓpah. - Gilgamesh 10:39, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh, my MIcrosft browser cannot pick up those Hebrew fonts/letters of yours so I cannot read the full texts (on all those pages with Hebrew words either, pity as it makes Wikipedia look so messy). I think it is CHUTZPAH to arbitrarily take the bulk of the towns and cities in Israel and put them in into an "Israel-Palestine" (entity that does not exist) category without discussion at all. Is that nice? You are not as weak or as fragile as you make it appear here. IZAK 10:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Comparing a person to a murderer is *not* "communicating back and forth". It is outright harassment and you know it.--Josiah 10:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What nonsense are you making up! You are confusing metaphors of speech with something ominous in your mind. Again, all I see here again that you have nothing of substance to say at all on a real subject, just pestering is no substitute for some work instead of just heckling. IZAK 10:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Metaphor or not, comparing someone to a murderer in any manner is improper nettiquette, and more importantly it is Lashon Hara.--Josiah 10:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mediation with User:DanKeshet and User:Zero0000

Hello. In case you missed it, there is a question about your preferences for a mediator on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 15:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RK, I'm sure you, like me, want to get this mediation started. I have expressed my preferences re: a mediator on the page Sannse linked to. You haven't yet expressed a preference. Please do so, else indicate if you'd rather the committee choose. I'd like to get this process started. Thank you. DanKeshet 18:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for providing references

First of all, thank you for finally posting references. I appreciate that. I would like to know why you removed my last post in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4784853&oldid=4784796 edit]. I can agree that the discussion got off topic, but I do not see how my last post was off topic and your claiming that: "The above nutcase is simply harassing me [...] due to his personal dislike of me, or a dislike or [sic] non-Orthodox points of view." was on topic. With that said, thank you for providing references. 153.90.199.52 16:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from Atheism

"Many practicing Jews are atheists". Doesn't sound right to me. Mkmcconn — 01:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ancient Israel

I would welcome your comment on the discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Israel. Are you an expert on this subject? Also, I am looking for better source material on Lyndon LaRouche than Dennis King's book so I can wage war with the LaRouchies more effectively. Do you have any sources? Adam 03:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi RK, if you have no objection to Cimon avaro being the mediation between yourself, Dan, and Zero, please can you say so at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Thank you. Angela, member of the Mediation Committee, 19:15, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Why thank you, that was very kind. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Re: Simonides & Philosophy Brouhaha

RK, I am not particularly interested in involving myself in the escalating histrionics. What began as a spirited contrast of civilizations has devolved into an ego war with little substance. The third paragraph you left in my mailbox is preaching to the choir. Thank you for your clarifications of analytic philosophy. I will respect your edit. Lucidish 18:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Neutrality has agreed to mediate between you, Zero, and DanKeshet in lieu of Cimon avaro, who seems to have disappeared. Because of the inherent difficulty of the case, we have also asked Moink to help out. Please let me know if this is acceptable to you? Danny 01:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. RK

As you talk page is linked to Simonides perhapse you would like to help with the disambiguation of the page as I am not qualified to do so. Philip Baird Shearer 10:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hi RK Would you be willing to enter mediation regarding our Relationship between segments of Judaism dispute? I've also asked this on the Talk: page there. Jayjg 04:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. RK 14:45, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Pneumatology and Logos

A while ago you added a section to the Pneumatology article with the heading "Pneumatology of Philo". While the content is very interesting, it seems to deal almost exclusively with Philo's ideas concerning the Logos. Would it be more appropriate to the Logos article? Wesley 16:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it would be better moved to the Logos article. RK

RK, Jayjg is not under discussion for banning. The only one discussing it is you, which can only mean that you are talking to yourself. Please stop these personal attacks at once, and please stop littering the Recent Changes page with your personal vendettas and temper tantrums. The only policy being violated is Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and you are the one violating it. 03:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeshu article

Are you still interested in cleaning up the Yeshu article? Jayjg 14:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little intimidated by the thought of directly merging this mess of related articles. I'd rather take a more passive role, and let you merge them as you see fit. I would help protect the new article from outside interference. (i.e. people who want to try and split up a unified article back into half-a-dozen separate articles, the very mess we want to get out of!) Also, I would try to help in organization, formatting, sources, etc. RK 16:54, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust

Dear RK, as long promised, I have written a completely new Holocaust article. I am showing the draft to you, Danny, Jayjg and John Kenney, since you are all both knowledgeable and (usually) sensible. I will not attempt to replace the present illiterate mess with my new version until I get comments and some degree of support from all of you. If and when you all approve of it, I also want a commitment from all of you to protect it when I install it. Hope this finds you well, Adam 12:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will take an in-depth look at it. I really like the way that you have split the article onto two parts; this will help avoid useless arguments. The main article, on the Holocaust itself, and the second article User:Adam Carr/Drafts2 on the history of the word itself, a history of its etymology. RK 16:57, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Igor

I banned Igor when he tried for the second time to insert the National Vanguard link. He'll be gone for 24h. JFW | T@lk 08:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Shabbos

Lol. Thanks for fixing my CAPITALIZATION :) Jewbacca 00:38, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration case

RK - I'd like to hear your response to the allegations made against you in your arbitration case. You have not responded with a statement, nor have you presented any evidence. Thus, it makes judgeing your side of the case difficult. The case will move ahead regardless of whether or not you present your side of the case, so not doing so can only hurt you. →Raul654 03:40, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

I am still hoping to get detailed comments from you on the proposed new Holocaust article. Adam 04:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine article

There is currently a debate going on regarding whether or not it should be deleted. You might want to give your opinion and/or vote here: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine Jayjg 20:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Adminship

Would you be adverse to me putting your name up for an adminship vote? You seem to have the requisite number of edits and whatnot. Is there any reason why you would not accept adminship? --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 03:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I know that there are a number of outspoken Wikipedians who are not enamored of me, and I fear that an application may cause stress. I thus am hesitant to apply. I am not opposed to the idea; it would be a useful way to do some positive work on topics I usually do not work on (I know the primary rule of administrators: never use one's Admin power to take control or end debate on an article that you yourself are editing!) Let me think about it. RK 21:06, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I know that there are a number of outspoken Wikipedians who are not enamored of me. Heh, you and me both, it seems. I am a real faecal agitator sometimes. I even noticed that on RickK's user page he says at the top that he is not you. I really don't know much of you so I dunno, I was just going to put you up because of your number of edits. ---The Sunborn

Talk G_d

Please see Talk:God#Recent_edit_by_RK. Sam [Spade] 13:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ban

As per the arbcom ruling, you are banned for four months. Snowspinner 04:22, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

RK, I'll explain in a little more detail. The findings of the AC, and the consequences to you, are laid out at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK. The findings generally were that your comments had crossed the line in the areas of personal attacks and legal threats, and that appropriate consequences were to ban you from Wikipedia for 4 months and from editing Judaism-related articles for one year. I want to emphasize to you that it is not an easy thing to ban a contributor here, especially a contributor who has, in many ways, done very good work. However it was the decision of the AC that your very good work in many areas was not enough to excuse your reactions to other editors -- while I cannot speak for them, I do know that it is my hope (and the hope of others) that you will return in 4 months to continue making your excellent contributions in fields such as biology. I bear you no personal ill will (certainly you never did anything remotely unkind to me personally), and I apologize once again for my insensitivity and lack of forethought in applying the block without first notifying you and allowing you the chance to set things in order on your user page. I hope you will forgive me. Regardless of whether you return, thank you for what you positively contributed for Wikipedia over your many months here as a contributor. Jwrosenzweig 22:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikimeetup

invitation sent via email...

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• 172, RK is currently (and unfortunately) banned from Wikipedia. --Josiah 03:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:23, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Quotes on user page

An heroic collection colletion of quotes. Sean3000 14:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Except the Dante quote is a common false attribution! -- Perey 14:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Madagascar Plan

Can you please take a look at Madagascar Plan? The author's submissions to Talk:Holocaust make me wary.AndyL 03:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RK is currently away from wp. He will be able to answer you in one month. SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi RK

This is in answer of your email to me. It is quite normal that you were still blocked, since the arbcom decision was done on the 15th, so valid till the 14th probably. So, while your time is nearly over, it will be over tomorrow rather than today, so just in a few hours.

I unblocked you a few hours in advance, mostly because you were blocked quite quickly, without time to straighten your affairs here.

I'd say that it is okay by me that you edit (clean) your user page and talk page today, but please wait tomorrow before editing articles (in case some people might find it problematic).

I must really thank you for taking the 4 months away so well, in particular commenting with much civility on the mailing lists. I appreciated. I hope that you can rejoin the community in peace (which will be an effort of all).

SweetLittleFluffyThing 15:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

New discussions and edits

Topics I will soon edit: Abraham Joshua Heschel, Conservative responsa, Mishneh Torah, Blood libel,

Also, for those interested, please see my new comment at Talk:XY_sex-determination_system. I think we need to remove two of the redirects, and allow Wikipedia to develop one article on the X chromosome, and one article on the Y chromosome. What do you think? RK 22:36, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

RK,

I've killed the redirects and put up short stubs for the X and Y chromosomes, plus a list of of things that should and could be covered in the articles on their talk pages. I'd appreciate help with expanding the articles, the Y chromosome in particular has potential to become a very interesting article. I'm always finding gaps in wiki's genetics coverage, some more like dosage compensation, and x-inactivation arise from this --nixie 00:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're back!

Praise Anthere, you're back! As you seem to plan some biology work as well, this is probably going to be quite enjoyable. What are your plans with Mishneh Torah?

I agree that the title XY sex-determination system does not cover the content and that X chromosome and Y chromosome deserve to be seperate pages.

I must warn you that John Gohde is back and pretty much ******. I have already received a typical blast of rudeness when I offered my help in recovering his cherished infoboxes. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its good to hear from you, and I hope you find my small additions today to be of some use. RK

Hi, Robert. Though we have had our differences, I am also glad to see you back. Thanks for sticking with us, through good times and bad. I am sincerely happy to hear that you will be joining us again. Danny 00:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Danny, it is good to be back, and good to hear from you. I look forward to working with you on any articles. RK 23:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back!! 172 03:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, 172, long time no see. Good to hear from you. RK 23:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, RK -- thank you for respecting the community's decision despite disagreeing with it. I think it a very clear demonstration of the fact that, regardless of what people may say about their interactions with you in the past, you are a user who values this project and who plans to continue doing good work here. I want to apologize once again for the confusion I created in applying the block on your account in October, and I hope that I can work cooperatively with you on an article at some point in the future. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 21:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The past is in the past, I am sure that everything is cool. I am sure we'll work well together. RK 23:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

You are violating the AC ruling that "RK is banned from editing articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for one year". You had better stop before someone starts applying the prescribed penalties. --Zero 01:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zero, what the hell are you talking about? I have never heard of any such ban, ever. And I do not know any of the people working on the Judaism oriented articles who would even ask for such a thing. RK 18:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back,RK. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jay! Good to back, and I look forward to working with you. I have been doing limited work since, I got back - I just took a four day Wiki-break, only to come back when Wiki was down due to server problems. I've been on for over an hour today, and got very little done, except in the Chabad article. Maybe tomorrow the serve will be more compliant. RK 14:25, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Banned again for no reason?!

This is really sick. Simonides and Zero instigated four out of nine Admins to ban me from editing all Judaism articles for a full year. Worse, they did so on th every articles on which I and others have the most success cooperating!

Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles.

It is a gross violation of Sysop and Admin power to create rules that apply to only one person, and to no one else. By definition, when Wikipedia Admins engage in such behaviour, they are violating their own mandate, and thei "rulings" have no authority and are not binding.

1. I am not involved in any flame wars. So why the year long ban? Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when they were NOT in a flame war.

2. I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars. So why the ban? Not a single Wikipedia was ever given a ban when they were not in revert for edit wars.

3. The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago! So why the ban?

Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to an issue. It seems that some Admins are enraged that our system actually worked, and parties peacefully worked out their differences. What kind of hateful people think that such a positive result is grounds for a year long ban?

4. I repeatedly take week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks to let things cool down and allow

other people to have their say without any problem. So why the ban?

5. I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. So why the ban?

6. I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary. So why the ban? The action to ban me was taken behind my back, without informing me, and proceeded based on false assumptions - and potentially deliberate lies.

I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this very issue previously; they were all unable to come up with even a single instance of this ever happening. Ever. The entire ban is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should not allow four people with a vendetta to wreck our whole system.

We are unfortunately dealing with a small number of people abusing their Admin power out of some sort of personal vendetta. If it happens to one person, it will happen to others. What steps should we take next to initiate disciplinary action against them for these serious violations?

Robert

If you were an admin, your previous behavior would, I hope, lead to you losing your administrator privileges (as it should with other rogue admins like Jayjg). But as a simple user, a years ban seems excessive and unjust. - XED.talk 21:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Danny and various other users have protested to the arbcomm for this very lengthy and quite unnecessary ban. While arguments on Judaism articles often became heated in a truly Talmudic way, there was never flaming in the full sense of the word, nor did Robert revert and neither did he troll in any particular way. The only way to overturn the Arbcom ruling is by appealing to the present arbcom (the members of which are quite sensible) and emailing Jimbo again if necessary. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this the right place to do so? Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

JFW, you must be an alien from a parallel universe. --Zero 22:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First me, and now I see personal attacks against JFW? Pathetic. RK 22:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

1) I'd advise you to put it here instead Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

2) Calling someone an alien from parallel universe is a flowery way of saying "your preception of events is radically different from mine". I very much doubt that Zero meant it as an attack. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration Committe has decided to hear your appeal. Please present any formal evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Evidence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:07, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Robert you state above that "The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago!". Can you provide any evidence to back that claim up? Maybe a talk page where you have come to an amicable compromise with other editors who you disagree with?

Of course: Please see the list of diffs I added on the RFA page, and the articles they point to. On a related note, I call your attention to the six points I made on the Request for Arbitration page. I made these points four months ago, and I now make them again - and so far not a single person has disagreed with them. No one has been unable to come up with a single example of anyone getting a significant ban in this situation. Not a single person. That alone speaks volumes! RK

Thanks for adding the diffs, we will take a look at them. But I am confused on one point. You said above to Zero that "Zero, what the hell are you talking about? I have never heard of any such ban, ever." and now you are saying to me that you made these points 4 months ago. So it would appear that you were aware of the ban asfter all?

No, people still miss my point. I was aware of a four month ban. Not a year-long ban. RK 18:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

In the original RFAr there is evidence of you having called people antisemites or other nasty names, called for people to be banned, accused people of being liars and vandals. Have you apologised to any of these people?

Are you under the impression that I alone made remarks about this? Some of the people that I worried about being anti-Semites were identified as making anti-Semitic edits by others as well. Yet none of the others who had similar complaints were banned. Some of the people I criticised openly wrote Nazi propaganda, and I had presented significant amounts of proof for this. In fact, one of these people eventually claimed that we was a Nazi (John Goode, Mr. Natural Health), and one eventually made a public death threat against me (EntmootsOfTrolls.) Contrary to what you may have heard, many of those people were recognized as a problem by many people, not just me, and some were banned. Obviously, I take it, you are not referring to these cases. You would not allow open Nazi statements, actual vandalism, or death threats.

I am not under any impression in particular at the moment. I am currently going through the evidence. it's just that if you have apologised to anyone at any time for a remark made in the heat of the moment it would sensible to put a link on the evidence page so that everyone can easily see it.

Therefore, you are saying that there is someone not in this above group that I was not getting along with (four months ago) and made ad homenim attacks, calling them an anti-Semite or vandals, etc.? If so, I am happy to apologize. RK 20:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

You missunderstand me. I am not trying to prompt you to apologise to anyone. It's just that if you have done so, then it will look good on the evidence page.

What I'm looking for is evidence that you have learned your lesson and are a reformed character. If you can provide any please stick it on the evidence page. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you conflating two different claims. One claim is that I am a bad person who must not be allowed on Wikipedia. I obviously disagree, and I cannot say "Yes, I was hateful, but now I am good". We should not make someone grovel in order to be allowed to edit.

I completely agree.

The (first) claim that was the reason I was given a four month ban, which is now officially over. However, there was a second claim and a second ban: This second claim was that I refused to work with others on the Judaism articles, and that I engaged in non-stop edit warson Judaism articles. The result was that the old Admin Committee barred me for a year from any editing on Judaism-related articles. The problem, of course, is that the claims were not true. Someone took old arguments that had long since been resolved, and falsely presented them as current arguments that could not be resolved. I was shocked to see such tactics.

We are looking into this, any evidence that you can dig up showing that the arguments were resolved prior to the arbitration case starting will be of great help.

You do not need to take my word for it; please see for yourself. Long before the four-month ban occured, I had already had a history of working with many others on all of the Judaism articles, via the WikiProject on Judaism. This effort was (and is) very successful. In fact, every time I created an article I invite others to work on it, which is the opposite of what some people claim. And as you can see, JayJG, JFWolff, Josiah and many others all worked together with me to make some high quality articles. The people doing the editing on these articles don't understand the incredibly severe year-long ban. We ended up working well together for many months...and I was nevertheless banned after doing everything that was asked of me, and producing a high-level of Wiki-cooperation. Please see the diffs I noted on the RFA page for specific examples. RK 20:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's great that you invite people to work on articles with you. What would be even better though is if you could provide us with examples of you and another user initially disagreeing with one another over something and through reasonable discussion coming to an acceptable NPOV solution where everyone is reasonably happy that the article is worded ok. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, start with the article on Judaism and Maimonides. There were serious NPOV and factual disagreements on these, with comments from all parties, yet we came to agreements. RK 18:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

OK I'll take a look. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 07:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The business

RK, you've been away from Wikipedia too long. You're forgetting to sign your talk page comments!

Seriously, I'd love to give evidence in your ArbComm case, but most of my attempts to have your ban shortened were conducted with Danny over IRC. This is not admissible as evidence, I fear. Nonetheless, I think Zero0000 is being ridiculous. I have never heard of Dissident. Who is he/she?

As for Chabad Lubavitch, I have responded on the talk page. My argument is that none of them are open to discussion, so we'll just keep on reverting until we're blue in the face. I do not believe the Rebbe will come back. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re: Abuse by Stirling Newbury

Agreed w.r.t. the RFC. The guy has some sort of point as far as citing sources, but he's completely failing to make it in any sane manner or discuss what exactly he objects to, and I don't have the patience to deal with him without more people capable of actual conversation around. -- nknight 00:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidently my watchlist was lying to me before I posted this. 172 protecting the page has at least caused Stirling to speak more than a sentence at a time. -- nknight 00:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction

The injunction in your case has been enacted; the ban on your editing of Judaism-related articles has been temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:22, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Chabad

Hi RK, I'm having a good discussion with User:Truthaboutchabad on Talk:Chabad Lubavitch. He postulates that the "Rebbe = God" issue is the result of a misunderstanding, and has kindly posted Media:Atzmus.pdf, which contains (Hebrew) quotes that are meant to prove that all Hasidim see a degree of Godly revelation in their Rebbes. Could you review the discussion? Perhaps you can square this with things you have read on the messaging boards. JFW | T@lk 16:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I see that the discusssion on chabad has come to a standstill you mentioned three points which I tried responding to, and I would like to know your current thoughts on it. By the way I switched my name from User:Truthaboutchabad to User:PinchasC--PinchasC 02:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will reply, but probably tomorrow. I have just spent an hour and a half on Wikipedia, and my family duties await me!

Jewish mythology

I am going out of town and won't have time for the next few days. Coincidentally, I am reading a book by Jeffrey Rubenstein (no relation) on Rabbinic stories. I think on myth/folklore we should follow established scholarship, but I just don't know that scholarship. I agree with your assessment of the article, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ma Tovu

Can you give me your comments on Ma Tovu? I created the article a few days ago and several editors have improved on it since then; I'd like to have your input. Neutrality^talk 04:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Offensive Nazi image

RK: Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#March 31 [2] for vote on offensive Nazi propaganda "image" Image:MoneyJews.jpg Thank you. IZAK 09:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. At first I was very offended by the image, but I think that it is important that our article on anti-Semitism offer a few examples of classic European anti-Semitic cartoons, as long as they are described as such. The website of the Anti-Defamation League has a similar gallary of modern day anti-Semitic cartoons that are being published in the Arab press. 15:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Halakhic-Jews-Only has a shot across his bow, too

I only said one thing to User:Halakhic-Jews-Only: "Praised be Hashem, Monarch of the Universe (switches to English from Hebrew, as I know English better) for Reform Judaism, and Amen to that." Rickyrab 21:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) And I meant it, too.

Offensive anti-Israel image for deletion

RK, please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#April 1 [3] to delete Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg [4] This highly offensive anti-Israel "caricature" spoofing Jaws that depicts the POV that Israel is the the aggressive "shark" and that the Palestinians are poor little innocent "victims". This is raw pro-Arab propaganda and unfortunately fits the pattern of User:AladdinSE's insertion of the offensive Image:MoneyJews.jpg taken from the Nazis. Sure looks like it's becoming a "pattern of hate" to me. Thank you. IZAK 07:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit war on NOI article

My interest in this article is stated at the top of the Talk:Nation of Islam page. In that spirit, I have reviewed the edit war going on the Nation of Islam article. I believe that you have documented the items factually and that they are presented in just about as close to a NPOV as you can get on such a controversial subject. I have left a message on User:Fireboy's Talk page as well as a much longer comment on the page Talk:Nation of Islam. Please be sure to be extra careful to cite your sources and avoid deleting the other writer's work (which is of course what he has apparently been doing). We'll see where all this goes. If you are getting any "threats" beyond what I can read in edit comments, or wish to leave me communication, feel free to leave work at User:Vaoverland.

Threats

I want to clarify something. In the message you left on my talk page, if I am reading it correctly, are you saying that you feel that I have threatend you? Vaoverland 17:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, no! I re-wrote something that I originally wrote to Firebug, and mistakenly didn't rephrase some sentences. I have since rewritten my note. Please check my updated note on your Talk page! Sorry about that. RK 17:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Whew! To the best of my knowledge, I have never threatened anyone on WP, nor do I ever intend to. My involvement with the NOI article was almost accidental, and I am not very up on the facts themselves. Regarding threats, I think that you need to retain a record of anything you feel someone should be held accountable for. I will talk witha couple of other admins and get some advise on how this situation could be resolved, or at least, kept from escalating into personal attacks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 18:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Protest method of editing, then proposing deletion

You do not appear to have learned anything from your time away. Editing articles and then proposing to delete them if you cannot steer them your own way is not ethical behaviour. If you edited them, then, that is a sign that you agree that they should exist, is it not? Before proposing any deletions, have a look in the page history and you'll find a very reasonable version as with simple view of ethics and morals - which has now been restored to a balanced version. If it was you editing it anonymously to do damage, then proposing a Wikipedia:ad hominem delete, shame on you. Read m:Young Jacobins for some reasoning as to why this is not a good strategy for an encyclopedia.

People find it difficult to work with you more because of your unethical editing and carping and paraphrasing of others, than because of your idiosyncratic views. Please do attempt to understand that others are doing you a favour by pointing out these behaviours to you as above.

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to you. Remedy #2 of the previous Arbitration case is hereby revoked and replaced with a revert limitation and personal attack parole for the same period. Personal attacks on Wikimedia mailing lists are included in the personal attack parole. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 22:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Understood and accepted. Thanks for taking the time. RK 12:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EntmootsOfTrolls

I'm sorry RK, I don't have any insightful solutions to this problem. EntmootsOfTrolls is banned, absolutely and (excepting a surprise decision by Jimbo) irrevocably. As you know, the problem is purely a technical one of keeping him off the site. At the moment, all we can do is revert him, block him, and refuse to respond to him. Any articles that are clearly by him can be deleted. This applies to any sockpuppet of his we find (with due care to identify these accurately of course). If at any time this conflicts with your revert limitation, then I would suggest a note on WP:AN to ask for help in reverting. Apologies for the slow response to your message -- sannse (talk) 17:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RK, I am pursuing this matter through various channels. Please let me know if I can help with anything specific. I can appreciate the fact that you are following the rules and he isn't. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)