User talk:RK/Archive 7

Epigenetics

Hi RK, you removed a phrase in the epigenetics article: (Removing grossly incorrect claim. There is nothing even remotely Lamarckian about epigenetic data storage.)

This article is presently under the watch of the Epigenome Network NoE Please refer to the NoE webconsulting page FAQs No.4 . You will find a peer reviewed historical statement on the history and relationship of Epigenetics and Darwin‘s famous lamarckist statement on gemmulae. In this understanding, would you reconsider putting back the previous phrase?: Various aspects of the modern understanding of epigenetic inheritance are reminiscent of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's ideas about evolution.??

You're back!

Welcome back, Robert. Could you lend a hand with Jacob Neusner bibliography, which you created a while ago. I think this page should be redirected to Jacob Neusner with only the most important and influential works mentioned there, as JN is not more notable than Einstein and Feynman, and even these people don't have their whole bibliographies on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 10:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RK. JFW | T@lk 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weinberg essay

Hi RK! I found Professor Weinberg's thoughts on Zionism very interesting, but are you sure it's OK to have that essay reproduced verbatim here, in terms of copyright? (I'm asking 'cos I'm a dolt with all this copyright stuff.) RMoloney (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues are always good to take into account. Weinberg's book that I guoted this from is some 200 or so pages long, and the quote is only five paragraphs. A quote of this length, even longer, falls into commonly accepted limits of fair use, including for personal websites or handouts for courses in college. If I were to use a quote of this length in a book published for profit, however, the rules change. Fair use is context dependent. This quote might still should be short enough to qualify as fair use, but in a for-profit context I wouldn't publish without first asking for permission from the author or publisher. RK

Religious Pluralism

Hi RK,

I just wonder where the Concepts sections has gone in the Religious Pluralism Article; it reflected the beginning of a rewrite that some contributurs have agreed to undertake and whose outline can be found on Talk:Religious_Pluralism. Unfortunately, this rewrite project has got into a bit of a slump because the contributors in question, myself included, have been taken up too much in private affairs to pursue it.

My modest proposal would be that, for the time being, all major restructurations of the outline should be coordinated with the outline proposed on the talk page (i.e. if you change something, justify it in the talk page on the outline section); and, in the long run, I would like us to undertake a general overhaul of the article according to some outline that we'd previously have to agree on, the proposal by myself and User:20040304 can be found on the talk page.

I have not yet had the time to read through your edits of the Orthodoxy section, and I won't have until next Friday, but one thing I wonder about is why you gave Orthoxy a special section next to, not under, Christianity.

Kind regards, --Robin.rueth 09:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was an editing error which I just fixed. Thanks for the note, as this is the sort of organizational error that could have caused confusion!. One of my main concerns in editing is organization and flow, as raw info by itself is not enlightening. RK

Here are some links that I used as sources, from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp

Hi again RK,

I was quite surprised about your latest edit of Religious_pluralism which has completely turned over the definition of the article. You may be right in what you wrote, but I think we should somehow agree on a definition of Religious_pluralism as opposed to just deleting and rewriting everything in an article that is in a rewriting process anyway.

So I have placed a "disputed" sign on the Article's page and left a note on the talk page about it. Please read it and please let's try to reach an agreement on this, since I don't have the time for tedious edit wars. Would you be willing to participate in the rewriting process that we've started on the Talk page? --Robin.rueth 13:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel greatly challenged, once again, by your last additions to the RP page. They are intelligent, but somehow I can't agree, so I'll have to find a constructive answer when I'll have time.--Robin.rueth 20:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Role of women in Judaism

Thanks for finding the deleted section on Conservative Judaism in Role of women in Judaism. When I saw the article, there was no subsection, and I added a stub, not knowing that someone had deleted the entire section. Joaquin Murietta 03:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Responsa

Just to let you know.. I really like the Conservative responsa page. Zargulon 22:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Judaism

I've updated the Liberal Judaism article a little. Unless you have any objection (in which case, do let me know on the article talk page), I propose to remove the "disputed" flag tomorrow. -- Jheald 02:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

This is fine by me; I have alerady removed the disputed tag. RK

Please help define Conspiracy theory

Hello RK, I noticed you've recently made additions to the Conspiracy theory article, if you could also help us resolve a definition dispute that would be appreciated, see Talk:Conspiracy theory. zen master T 19:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation, Sockpuppetry

I have blocked you for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on Chabad Lubavitch article, where you made 4 reverts within a 24 hour period from this account and as User:66.155.200.129. The use of sockpuppets to evade the 3RR rule is strongly frowned upon, and if I find you are doing it again I will impose a longer block. Regards, Nandesuka 22:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Moritz Cantor

Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Moritz Cantor. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to created them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other places you learnt the information that you added to Moritz Cantor? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 16:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for reminding me. RK

Chabad Lubavitch

I hope you have noticed that I'm trying to mediate your debate with Eliezer. I have reworded some disputed material, asked him to provide sources for some of his bolder assertions, and he has started adding to the non-controversy part of the article.

I am very concerned about your inflammatory language. What you call "censorship" was in fact the removal of original research, and I am removing some of your insertions until you can provide adequate references for them.

Please collaborate on this article. I'm not choosing sides, but I want this edit war to end with only winners. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any original research on my part. Eliezer simply removes quotes from rabbis who are anti-messianic. In contrast, please see my new note about Eliezer clear original research. While Rabbi Schneerson clearly admits to developing new beliefs, which you admit are controverial within Orthodoxy, it is Eliezer who keeps rewriting Schneerson's belief as mainstream Chassidic thought. (Which logically coild only be true if Schneerson himself lied about his own beliefs not having any Chasidic sources!)

Nonetheless, f you want any particular reference, I am happy to provide it, and if you think that any particular claim I made amnounts to original research, please specific and I will be happy to remove it or rephrase it. Unfortunately, Eliezer is absolutely refusing to be as cooperative, and keeps inserting original research into the tzadik article "proving" that Eliezer's messianic beliefs about the nature of a rebbe are the same as what all other Orthodox Jews believe...despite the fact that no other Orthodox Jewish groups have such a position. In fact, please see the previous archive on the Chabad article: I and others repeatedly asked Eliezer to provide sources that other Orthodox Jews agreed that R. Schneeron's beliefs about the nature of the rebbe were traditional and accepted, and Eliezer refused time and again. His inability to bring forth any sources to back up his position marks his own edits as original research. RK 21:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer should indeed not have changed that paragraph to reflect that all Hasidim believe this. But I want a source from you about who actually found this philosophical tenet a problem. Otherwise, it does not belong in the article.

All the Orthodox rabbis you quote are there without source support. WP:CITE is the new black, and I will remove unsourced material from Eliezer and yourself until a source can be procured. Really. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS I think we can carry on the discussion on Talk:Chabad Lubavitch.

Chabad

RK, I'm really tied up in real life right now, so I don't have much time to look at this, but I will try to get back to it. Sorry I can't be more help right now. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's Ok, I know from busy! The last few months have been terribly busy beyond my expectations, but at least I love my job. (I just wish that it paid more.) In any case, JFW set me straight with his to-the-gut and simultaneously funny comment about WP:Cite being "the new black". It forced me to research the quotes that I had come upon previously. I keep forgetting that if I demand others to provide a source, then I have to as well. JFW's comment was well taken and productive, to wit:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Chabad_Lubvaitch/Sources_1

favor

RK, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation on the Jewish conception/its meaning and importance for Judaism you think necessary? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and monotheism

RK, I saw your comment on God and Gender. The reason that Hinduism is perceived as polytheistic because most Hindus follow the Smarta school, which follows Advaita philosophy. All forms of God are merely different aspects of Brahman, the impersonal Absolute which can never be defined. This school is an inclusive monotheistic school unlike an exclusive monotheistic school. (please see the monotheism article.

Thank you.

Raj2004 02:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Weinberg

The link back to you User: space is not the best. Maybe Wikisource? -- Fplay 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest

You may be interested in taking a look at Talk:Intelligent_design/Marshills_NPOV_objections - there is a straw poll about whether the ID article is POV, as it allegedly contains too much criticism of ID and is not sympathetic enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

HI, While you were gone JFW who is mediating the differences that you and I had advised me that I should remove that paragraph. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have confused him. I indeed did give JFW all the sources that he asked for. I also cited David Berger's book, which I have read, and which is available from many libraries and bookstores. In contrast, you still have not brought forth a single source which proves that all, most or even some of Orthodox Judaism views Rabbi Schneerson's innovative new teachings as identical with traditional Jewish thought on this issue, or even as compatible. Instead, you use original research to "prove" that Schneerson's new theology is in line with traditional Jewish principles of faith. Your own theology (and mine) is irrelevant. The point is that you so far cannot back up your claim. I have brought forth multiple Orthodox sources, but you have brought none. Instead, you only bring forth quotes from people who had written on this issue decades or centuries before Schneeron was even born! You don't seem to get it. Just because you feel as if Schneerson's new teaching are compatible with the old doesn't prove that other Orthodox Jews feel this way. In fact, the many citations I have brought forth prove that many other Orthodox Jews disagree with you. My edit of this article merely quotes the Rebbe's own words, and points out that people disagree on his teachings. That is the very essence of NPOV. In contrast, your edit of this article hides the entire issue, which is totally unjustifiable. RK 22:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Robert, I asked for a good source supporting the paragraph on the relationship between God, the Rebbe and his Followers. This was not provided. The whole issue can only be covered if there is proper NPOV, and as you had gone on a Wikibreak I was quite confident this would not be forthcoming. If you can provide sources that criticise Chabad for reinterpreting the role of a Rebbe/Tzadik then we can talk. If it's Berger, please include page numbers (you must have the book). Eliezer has provided substantial source material that suggests Chabad did not try to reinvent the concept but bases it on Chassidic teachings. Both views need to be covered according to WP:NPOV. Fact. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth are you doing a blanket revert after Eliezer has offered serious support for each change he made? Do you realise this is not constructive? What makes you think adding more Orthodox critics will make the article any better? Isn't that quite analogous to listing all the condemnations of Pearl Harbor by name? (Note a variant of Godwin's law!) JFW | T@lk 00:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talking about is that you are not providing citations for the orphaned section, but instead are piling on more Orthodox critics. It's enough now. JFW | T@lk 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested protection[1], as with the return of RK the page has turned into an edit warring battlefield again. Lovely. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, what in the world has gotten in to you? You repeatedly asked me, in private e-mail and public notes, to provide a citation for the statements in the article. In response, I did so, and indeed brought forth multiple citations with quotes for every aspect of the controversy. For instance, in regards to the new theology about how a Chasid should view a rebbe as being like God, I brought forth four citations, one from the late Rebbe himself, one from David Berger, one from Chaim Kellner, and one from Boruch Clinton. Yet you respond with a mass of reverts, then ask for "protection" of the article, and also deny that I ever gave these citations? (Citations which you yourself demanded?) I cannot recognize the man I know from your commenst in the last hour. What on Earth is going on? This isn't about your level of comfort with Orthodox Judaism's views of this new aspect of Chabad theology. This is about providing sources for claims. RK 01:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in the sandstorm of cross-reverts I did not notice that you have provided sources in the paragraph that was still unsourced. Sorry about that. Now let's discuss the other changes on Talk:Chabad Lubavitch. We can have this article unprotected in no-time but please work together with Eliezer. JFW | T@lk 01:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad Lubavitch

Hi RK, thanks for your note. I can't get involved in the content dispute because I protected the page following a request on WP:RFPP, and didn't even read the version I protected except to check that the last contributor was a known editor. Sorry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite

This FAC is being opposed by a POV pusher who has consistantly tried to downplay Jewish contributions to history (while simultaneously shrugging off or sweeping under the rug Muslim atrocities against Jews and others, see, e.g., al-Andalus and Banu Qurayza). Please review the article when you are able and weigh in on the FAC page as you feel appropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aish HaTorah

RK: Would you care to review the Aish HaTorah article please? Thanks. IZAK 08:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good quote

I quoted you on the Talk:Philosophy page. Very good. Dbuckner 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hrs and the 12 month period reset for breaking your parole as stated by the Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies, as it pertains to personal attacks parole, and revert limitations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 96 hours (four days) and the 12 month period reset for breaking your personal attack parole. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_RK for details. When you return, please refrain from further attacks, and I strongly urge you to refrain from having any contact with Eliezer. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to me

Hi RK. I'm not sure I understand your post to me. As far as I know you are still editing under Arbitration Committee restrictions; are you saying you were not aware of them? Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! --evrik 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week

Hi RK, I've created an Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. I'd love to see your comments, improvements, amendations and nominations, preferably all on the discussion or the actual page there. Many thanks, Nesher 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzadik

Thanks for the note. I've been thinking for a while about comprehensively fixing the article, but I don't know when I'll get around to it. Unfortunately, it's a big job. Cheers, HKT 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note to me: I suggest you take this up with the Authorities. Good luck. If you need my support, please use the "email this user" function on my talk page and I'll do what I can. Good luck, -- Nahum 08:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unified field theory

Well, I can see how the difference between a grand unified theory and a unified field theory is confusing. Typically, physicists talk of "unification" as a general principle, and GUTs, as in grand unified theories. Nobody uses "unified field theory", even though it's a perfectly good term. The reason is the ambiguity I'll describe below.

A fully unified field theory would be a theory of everything; however, a theory of everything need not be a field theory (it might be a string theory, for example). On the other hand, even the electroweak interaction is a unified field theory. A GUT is also a unified field theory.

I suggest resolving this issue by turning unified field theory into unification (physics) and extending it to talk about other unifications. Otherwise, theory of everything article should cover the remaining material. Either way, neither should be merged with GUT. -- Xerxes 20:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 1RR

RK, you have been blocked for 72 hours following contravention of the 1RR aspect of your arbitration ruling. I appreciate the reversions were close to 24 hours apart, but you know the rules and you broke them. I appreciate you have a difference of opinion on this issue, but the arbitration ruling stands. Naturally, you are welcome to contact me by email or talk page to discuss this. Regards, Deizio talk 12:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make it clear that I know the rules and that I did not break them. So to effectively falsely accuse me of a crime you admit that I didn't commit (engaging in a revert war, or even reverting an article more than once a day), feels like harassment. You know the facts: that the rules against multiple reverts a day were made to stop revert wars. You also knew that none were occuring here, that I was not making more than one revert a day. It seems to me that you misused your authority as an administrator by refusing to look at the context, and by refusing to even speak to me first. Aren't such actions, taken without warning or discussion, a violation of the principles upon which such rules were made in the first place? You seem to admit that I was banned not for breaking a rule, but for not looking closely enough at the clock. Is it any wonder why I spent many months away from Wikipedia, and why I and many other science professionals view Wikipedia with great mistrust? Do I take it that you wish the same treatment be applied to you? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. That's the first rule for anyone with any kind of power, no matter how small it may seem. If you disregard this rule, you are no longer a part of the solution. RK 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Hi RK. You made 2 reversions to the article within a 24 hour period. I don't get where I ever said you didn't break the rules - you clearly did, either through poor or miscalculated timekeeping. Let's not forget you're under ArbCom sanctions here, so I'm sorry you don't agree, but I was just enforcing the ruling. If it makes you feel better I won't personally act on any further alerts about your behaviour. Nice one, Deizio talk 01:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosonic Field

Just a comment. I looked at the definition of Bosonic field and improved it, quite a bit I think. Your comments on that will be much appreciated. I may work on the Fermionic field too.

Cheers, jed1978

Judaism and Evolution

Please see my edits and what I wrote to your comment about your interprations of Rabbinic statements in the Judaism and Evolution article. I have removed alot of your interprations as you cannot make them yourself. --DY1963 01:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have time?

If you are around, perhaps you would like to comment on this: [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish philosophy

Thank you very much for your invitation to join the effort in the Jewish Philosophy article. To me your welcome represents the best of Wikipedia: a user who extends a courteous welcome to all POV (sourced, that is) even when it is different than one's own.

When I made my comment about the insertion of comments into the Judaism:Talk Page, my intention was to defend the integrity of the discussion. However, in retrospect it is possible that no harm was meant, and perhaps responding to your comments and dating the entries would have sufficed. In fact, I don't believe anyone will disagree with an erasure. Again, the welcome is appreciated. Shykee 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)shykee[reply]

Quantum mysticism

Nice addition to the article, good on you Adambrowne666 09:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insertions and interspersions in Talk:Judaism

RK, may I ask a favor of you? when you respond in the middle of a thread, you break up the chronological flow. Perhaps you could quote the passage you are referring to and then post at the end, as is standard wiki practice? It makes it hard to follow and respond to you otherwise. Just a suggestion. Thank you. -- Avi 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Please stop canvassing as it is disturbing people. All you have to do is show how the new movement is notable and then it will be retained. Based on the article at the moment it would be for deletion, but you can change that by showing how this is a well known, notable movement within Judaism. But canvassing is not acceptable.--File Éireann 14:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]