User talk:Infoman99
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
NCSY
Thanks for the heads up on my page about NCSY. But I do not want a three times revert fight. This is one of the cases where I need another person to help and to also bring in an administator. I originaly added lots of stuff, some pro and some con and some neutral but nothing stays. I put see also USY and NIFTY but that keeps getting removed. I also added the very pro "famous people associated with NCSY" Aryeh Kaplan, Pinhas Stopler et al The anon IP (each time a similar number) is only intersted in the "fun stuff" Now what??--Jayrav 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
IP Range Hard Block Unblocking Request
Additional IP range hard block unblocking request
Thank you! Infoman99 (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have forwarded your request to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Unblock. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Infoman99, I'm puzzled by this request, since you already have the IP Block Exempt permission. The block on the proxy is very old; it was placed in February 2006. Please try to edit User:Infoman99/Sandbox and hit the 'Save page' button. If you get an error message when you try this, please copy the entire text of the error message here. You won't be able to edit with the above IP address, only with your registered account Infoman99. (So when you try this, be sure you are logged in). EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, you two. Looks like I had somehow logged out before trying my initial edits. Infoman99 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Schmooz-a-Palooza
A tag has been placed on Schmooz-a-Palooza requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I saw your hang-on tag. I followed the redirect, which did not relate to the article redirected too. Hence the deletion. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- {{db-R3}} (misnomer) would have done if you feel A3 is inappropriate, although in my view the cooment in WP:CSD relating to A3 is not meant to cover redirects which are intrinsically sense-free. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have restored the article and removed the tags. It took quite a lot of time for both of us; please be careful to ensure that redirects make sense. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
College organizations
In {{Organized Jewish life in the United States}}, you list Alpha Epsilon Pi, Sigma Alpha Mu, Zeta Beta Tau, Alpha Epsilon Phi, and Sigma Delta Tau as college organizations. In fact only two of those five (AEPi and AEPhi) are still Jewish organization according to their websites and other sources. The others are only historically Jewish. I'd like to remove ZBT, SAM, and SDT but I wanted to check with you first. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thank you. --Mblumber (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Mblumber, thanks for the heads-up on what you were thinking. I went back and forth on this myself. As you noted, there are several fraternities/sororities that are historically Jewish but currently are not officially so. However, they tend to occupy a treasured place in the mind of the American Jewish community. For an example of this as it relates to Zeta Beta Tau, browse through this Google Books listing. Also, significant portions of the membership of their chapters tend to be Jewish and the organizations are involved in a number of Jewishly-natured activities. (See, for example, this university chapter FAQ page at the "What is the Jewish aspect of ZBT?" question discussing membership and programming, ZBT's own national page on Jewish programming, and a campus Chabad page discussing joint activities with ZBT. There is also this fraternity national official's quote in a college newspaper article: "We remain a largely Jewish organization today, and will always be one."). My feeling is that the presence of significant Jewish membership/involvement, historical official links to the American Jewish community, and a strong fondness in the Jewish community for these organizations' roots are sufficient to place them within the perceived organized American Jewish community. (Although I would definitely welcome more discussion on this.) Thank you again for bringing this up. I also have to say that your note was one of the more polite ones I've encountered on Wikipedia. -- Infoman99 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Way too many discussions end up in argements on here, and it's no fun. So, to your point, I would argue that there are many fraternities that can claim to have historically been focused on Christianity, most notably LXA and AXP which have chosen to open up to everyone. These days few would consider them "christian fraternities". The same applies to SAM and ZBT. Although they do have significant Jewish membership, their current national mission is not a Jewish one. They're fraternities with Jews, not Jewish fraternities. They don't have active partnerships with Chabad and Hillel like AEPi and AEPhi do. We should focus on the current state of affairs, and as such there is only one Jewish fraternity and one Jewish sorority. --Mblumber (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1) What would your feelings be on distinguishing the "currently Jewish" fraternities/sororities from the historical?
- For example, the row could read:
- College Organizations
- Hillel · KOACH · KESHER · KEDMA · Alpha Epsilon Pi · (Historically Jewish: Sigma Alpha Mu · Zeta Beta Tau · Alpha Epsilon Phi · Sigma Delta Tau)
- I think that would relieve the concerns you raised, while also taking into consideration some of the thoughts I mentioned. Or maybe you can think of similar wording that would help clarify the difference?
- I have a whole bunch of other, more complex thoughts about this, but I don't even think I need to bring it up, since this compromise or something similar could resolve it.
- 2) Google searches of both the AEPhi and SDT websites lead to pages noting the Jewish origins of their founders, their support for Jewish philanthropies, and the Jewish community leadership roles of their alumnae. The only difference seems to be AEPhi's mission statement, which mentions in a roundabout way "the vision of [their] Jewish founders." I'm not sure that's enough to distinguish the two. Newspaper articles about their local chapters also vary greatly in this regard. So I think the fate of AEPhi's listing should be the same for SDT. -- Infoman99 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Restoration
Done, but oy!, what a massacre. I had to go back to 17:11, 2 May 2005 for a version that I could be certain didn't include vast blocks of history taken from history sections on the BBG website. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Hi
I'm not sure why you de-alphabetized the newspapers in the template. Can you put them back in order. Or let me know why you changed the order?
Also, I don't know that I will get to them anytime soon, but some other Jewish papers that may be worthy of a wiki article are:
- The Jewish News in Michigan
- B'nai Brith Messenger and Sentinel in Chicago
- Hadassah Magazine
- B'nai Brith's National Jewish Monthly
- Midstream (magazine)
- Judaism (magazine)
- Tradition (magazine)
- Jewish Spectator
- The Jewish Bulletin of Northern California
- Hi Epeefleche -
- First, thanks for your additions of Jewish Sports Review and New Jersey Jewish News to the media category on the template (and the other newspapers added recently).
- Here's the long explanation for why the template isn't in a simple alphabetical order. Overall, I designed the template as an aid to those seeking to understand the spectrum of major Jewish entities in the United States and the ways they are interconnected. As an interpretive guide, the template is not merely a rote listing, but offers nuance and an inherent sense of relative status among the entitites. For example:
- the religious denominational bodies are listed in terms of popularly perceived observance level/halachic strictness
- the youth groups are listed in both terms of length of history, membership numbers, and long-term connections to the community (BBYO first, Young Judaea last) but also observance levels of their parent bodies (NCSY, then USY/Kadima, then NFTY)
- the policy organizations/Federal liaisons are in a mixed list that emphasizes their official standing (Conference of Presidents is the official umbrella political body for Federal purposes and is listed first), roots (JCPA oversees the JCRCs and they are grouped together), purposes (NJDC and RJC grouped together because of same mission of reaching out to Jews on behalf of the political parties -- and near the end of the list because of their recent origins), and connection in popular thought (the two AJCs are frequently confused and are subject of regular merger talks but are grouped near the beginning because of their long histories).
- In other words, ask a typical, somewhat-active member of the American Jewish community to name X number of organizations that do Z task, and this list should roughly mirror the real-life answer you'll get and the ways that people mentally group together these entities.
- Until about 20 years ago, newspapers were strongly tied to particular geographic areas. The geography greatly affected their readership numbers (e.g., Philadelphia having a greater overall/Jewish population than, say, Memphis). It also factored into their competitiveness with any other papers in their cities and the positions they staked out. This should be reflected in the category. Likewise, the relative importance, standing, readership, and history of newspapers within a geographic area should be reflected.
- The New York area papers have enjoyed the greatest readership, impact, and length of history of the Jewish papers. (Clearly due to the Jewish population in the area, its density, and its centrality in US Jewish life and trends.) Within the NY papers, I would guess that the official voice of the UJA-Federation, the Jewish Week, has a greater readership than the Forward -- although the Forward has arguably had a greater political role/impact in its lifespan. The relative newcomer, the NY Jewish Press, apparently has a fairly large subscriber base because of its focus on NY Haredi issues.
- In general, an east-to-west listing of the major city Jewish newspapers (with Boston after NY) seems to naturally take into account a mix of age/historical readership totals/size of current Jewish population in city. Hard subscriber numbers are difficult to find for many of these publications, so these rough estimates would seem to be good stand-bys.
- The two non-city-specific papers, Hamodia and Yated Ne'eman, are grouped together last because of their unique non-geographic focus.
- I welcome your input, especially in terms of relative status of the papers in the cities and if you know of hard numbers on current/historical total readership for the papers, or other (scholarly or not) analyses that rank the papers in terms of importance.
- Again, I appreciate your additions and any thoughts you might have.
- Infoman99 (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks. Nice work on the template. You can respond here, btw, without need for a talkback -- I will watch you page till we have finished our conversation.
- I will limit my conversation mainly to the media, though I expect some of my comments could apply as well to the others.
- First, as this is an encyclopedia, I believe any listing should have a NPOV rationale that -- if one accepts the rationale -- all agree on, and that is (to use a wiki word) " verifiable". To stray outside those bounds on any list on wikipedia introduces the possibility that the editor's point of view (a no-no as a guiding force on wiki) may direct the order in the list. And that the editor's list may rely on "original research" -- another no-no.
- Alpha order would appear to me to be the most NPOV. It was also appear to be the most logical. Other lists commonly follow that format. Another editor looking at the list can easily determine how it is ordered. A subsequent editor can easily determine where a new insert would slide in. There is zero ambiguity.
- Your listing method, in contrast, lacks many of these characteristics. It does not suggest to the new editor coming upon it what order it follows. The specific order is open to debate -- some New Yorkers would put the Forward way ahead of the Jewish Press, while others would do the opposite without question. It requires one to wade through the entire list to see if a paper you are looking for is there.
- There are -- if one could find them, other indicia that would be non-ambiguous as well as alpha order. The year of first publication (though readers would not know that was the criteria, unless you listed it, and I think it less helpful than alpha order). The readership numbers (same).
- As to wiki standards in this regard, please see this guideline. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for 3rd Opinion
Many thanks for your 3rd opinion at talk:Western Betrayal, it was very thorough and obviously you spent time on it. Your time and work are appreciated. Leidseplein (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
