User talk:Zadil

Welcome!

Hello, Zadil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jon513 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Please review our three-revert rule. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't please me. just give soem reasons before you're destroying any of my contribution, which I took the trouble, to back up in the most complete manner. come clean first and then preach me. OK?Zadil 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given reasons but you're ignoring them. You might want to read our editing policies carefully, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Your edits violate V and NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're being ridiculous. What is unverifiable, when I give FULL references with EXACT QUOTATIONS without adding any comment of my own. Just look again, it was a quotation with an exact reference, and so again each one of my 3-quotations, and there was nothing more. What is your hidden agenda? Zadil 19:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

racism and halakha[edit]

Please hold off on making more changes to the halakha article. I plan on addressing this issue and adding a section within a week. Jon513 17:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck, and I hope you're not trying to just sweep this terribly embarrassing issue under the rug. Anyway, be fair and enjoy editing that article. A Gute Woch!Zadil 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you since you did not bring any sources on the talk page that there was a controversy regarding this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this issue a lot of thought, and I am not really sure if there is anything to write for the following reasons:

As Halakha at this time (that is for the past 2000 year) is unenforceable, all laws related to killing gentiles and the like, are very academic. Perhaps you can say that there was racism 2000 years ago, but even then that is hard to prove. Or perhaps you can says the there would be racism if jew did reign over non-jews but that is even harder to prove
For most law Jews are put to death when a non-Jew isn't, and rarely there are cases when a non-Jew is put to death when a Jew isn't. the general rule is that non-jews have much less laws but if they violate them their punishment is greater (usually death). This one idea explains most of the laws you quoted. Perhaps it should be added to the Gentiles and Jewish law section
As Halakha changes it is hard to say that current Halakha is racists based on statements made 2000 years ago (and may not have even been accepted then!). Perhaps if you can quote the shulkhan aruk then you might have a point
the Halakha article openly says that the laws for Jews and Gentiles are not the same. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. If you believe that non-equality is racism then of course halakha is racist (and perhaps sexist since there is non-equality with men and women). However if you says that racism is a denial of basic human right, you have not shown any such sources.

If you choose to respond please do so on my talk page. Jon513 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

Hi Zadil, if you continue to post these quotes from the Talmud on talk pages, you're likely to be blocked for disruption. You've discussed your position and so far as I can tell, there's a consensus against including that material without scholarly or other reliable sources (and by that I mean sources to interpret the quotes, as opposed to you employing your own interpretation). Given that your edits have been rejected, your continuing to post these quotes is starting to look like trolling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ovadia Yosef[edit]

Yeah, I read that the house of the rabbi denied the claims, but I thought the quote was recorded. Didn't know it was only alleged. I'll definitely add it to the article. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 23:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talmud talk page[edit]

I got your messgae. Removal of others comments (except for archiving purposes) is genrally considerd vandalism [1] or at least poor form unless its a personal attack (even this is contrevrsial), its a fine line to tread but the administrator BorgHunter has alredy beaten me to reverting it. Ive asked a few pepole to watch that ips edits and have asked the ip involved not to do it again. Reverting them removing comment is fine, however i would urge you to be careful of the 3rr (three revert rule), as some admins may not see it as i do. If you have any more questions feel freeto drop another note on my talk page and ill try to help, thanksBenon 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think what was said there was probably said in a bit of a "heat of the moement" stiuation, i would perosnally ignore it. providing your contibuting sourced/cited material via the talk page i cant see a problem. Most articles related to religon on wikipedia tend to be difficult because making them fit the npov is so difficult so pepole tend to get frustrated easier, hope that helps thanks Benon 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh thanks, if you ever have a problem my talk page is always open and im sure borghunter's is as well, happy editing :)Benon 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have your post and im just doing a little background into it and will be abck to post later, thanksBenon 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what dainel davis has said below would pretty much sum up my thoughts on the issue here, it may help if you avoided the page for a couple of days to let everything cool down and give everyone a chance at some relfection, thanks Benon 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talmud[edit]

If you can get wikipedians against censorship to get help we can do this. This is clear censorship. For some reason the Talmud is supposed to be given special treatment and this must be stopped. We have to let legitimate information be shown.

Jerry Jones 09:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Talmud edits[edit]

Whether or not I agree with your assertions regarding the Talmud, as a Wikipedian, your edits (being substantiated by references) are due the basic reversion protections any article should have under NPOV. Bearing that in mind, it is also your responsibility to maintain integrity in those edits- to ensure that they aren't meant to inflame or upset others. Since there obviously is a high level of disagreement over the content of said edits, I would suggest that you look over your posting to see if there is any way that you can try and make it more agreeable to both sides of the issue. I know that sometimes a controversial or a contentious discussion doesn't lend itself to that easily, but it's all of our responsibility to attempt NPOV at all times. Daniel Davis 23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the blanking on the page you referenced, the removal/blanking of another's individual's good faith comments (except in instances where the discussion is being put into an archive) is for the most part treated as vandalism; at the very least, it's regarded as being tactless and purile, unless the content being removed is a personal attack on someone else. BorgHunter seems to be doing a good job of maintaining the integrity of the Talmud pages, so I think you're in the clear to continue good faith edits without having to hover over a page. Just be careful, because in edit conflicts, you're still subject to the 3rr (three revert rule). Cheers, Daniel Davis 23:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive article creation[edit]

Hi Zadil. The next time you disruptively create a nonsense article like that you will be temporarily blocked. Subsequent infractions will incur increasingly longer blocks. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Zadil, I warned you on March 21 against posting any more of those quotes, and I have therefore blocked you temporarily from editing. As Jayjg says above, future disruption will incur longer blocks each time. If you want to discuss the block, you're welcome to contact me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Zadil, I have been an Admin less than a week and I don't want to do anything "controversial." However, by looking at Slimvirgin's talk page, Wisden is dealing with the matter already and hopefully this mess can be sorted out. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

Hello. I don't know whether you've been informed of the accepted usage of user pages, but you may take a look at this policy in light of the recent activity on your user page. Since the material on there does not consist of notable, reliable secondary sources that address the topic of racial discrimination in the Talmud, the said material is inappropriate for the Talmud article (under WP:NOR). If you could theoretically produce notable, reliable secondary sources that address said topic, inclusion of the position of those sources would not violate WP:NOR. The material on your page would not merit inclusion in said article, and is otherwise not related to the purposes of user pages. As per the above policy, it seems that your page is therefore being blanked on the basis that it is "disruptive" and "polemical" (note the editor's objection that this user page is "provocative"). HKT 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, etc.[edit]

Thanks for your message. I don't have the power to grant you any kind of approval. Take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you need help with a user. Let me know if you have any further questions. Andre (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]