User talk:Kwork2

Hi Malcolm. I don't suspect you of any particular bias. I just think that the Sephirot are so fundamental to discussions of Kabbalah that it makes sense to link to that article. If that article doesn't represent traditional Kabbalah well then it needs to be improved; but it should not be removed as a link from Kabbalah. Think of it this way: if we de-link Sephirot from Kabbalah and try to turn the Sephirot section of the Kabbalah article into its equivalent, building it up from scratch, then we will end up with two very similar, but different, sources of information on the Sephirot: one the Sephirot article, the other Kabbalah#Sephirot. Rather than make us double our efforts, lets aim for a single source of detailed information on the Sephiroth that is clear and informative, that presents the conventional understandings, and also indicates how some notable unconventional understandings differ. Then we get the best of all worlds.

Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

People object to things all the time. In my experience, if you give solid references for what you write, then they stop arguing, because then they can't really remove what you've written, the best they can do is try to find a similarly well-referenced opposing view.

The things that you can't find solid references for are the things that, sadly, you can't hold out for seeing in a Wikipedia article. I've done a lot of editing of articles relating to Witchcraft and Wicca, and unfortunately I know that there's a whole load of really dodgy information out there, some even coming from supposed academic authorities. I've resigned myself to the fact that in many situations I won't be able to do more than offer alternative views to provide "balance", and in some cases I won't be able to do that, simply because my sources are too obscure or private (or oath-bound) to counteract the popular view. Even still, I've managed to improve some of these articles a great deal, and at least provided signposts to where better information can be found.

I think it's important for our own sanity as editors to know what we can do and what we can't, and don't worry too much about what's out of our control. Fuzzypeg★ 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah images

See User talk:Morgan Leigh. I really shouldn't have replaced the image without discussing it first. (That said, I believe that a version of the image without the highlighted sections would have been better.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

which ray?

Hi Malcolm,

You've said a couple of times that I'm a fourth ray. A long time ago I took a test and it came out actually negative for "active-mental" but very high (equally so) on "idealistic-dedicated" and "will-power." "Love-wisdom," "expressive-artistic," "intellectual-scientific," and "order-organizational" all came out as being close to zero. Isn't "active-mental" the fourth ray? How would you interpret these scores? What are you?

Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ahhh, that makes sense. The earth is supposed to be fourth ray - yes? And, yes, I hope for harmony too. Renee (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Malcolm. I just read her article on the economic forecast -- very interesting. I googled her and found her website...looked a little familiar... :) Thanks again, I continue to believe we are on the same side and share far more than we know. Renee (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I just posted this on Claude's site but I had no idea all of this and this existed. Thought you might be interested. Renee (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep up the good intentions

Malcolm, Regarding your comment:

• Renee your earlier accusations against me were uncivil, and they have instigated a new round of controversy and accusations. I think your intentions have been good, but your approach remains partisan and divisive. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked Claude to take a fresh look at the article to give me a reality check. He is a very independent thinker and if he thought it were fine just the way it was he would have said so. I pointed out there is some ownership going on (and Claude gave examples in his RFC). I had no idea he was going to do an RFC but it can't hurt -- it'll give us all feedback on what's good and what's not.

I really feel like we have turned the corner in our relationship and hope we can continue the expression and action of good will. I know we are all weary of discussing the same things and that when a new person comes on and brings up the same issues it causes frustration. Please, let's continue to work together and not go back to the old patterns. I am committed to that and you will see my edits reflect that. Renee (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure, see this. Renee (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add comment to new RFC focusing on content alone

Hi Malcolm, I archived the old RFC discussion and created a new one focusing on content only. Your previous comments were on users so they are in the archive. Is there anything you'd like to see content-wise on the archive? Do you think the references are vetted properly already? Do you think any section needs to be worked on? needs feedback on? These would be good things to add if you were so inclined. I hope this addresses your concerns. Renee (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page but am pasting the same message here (also, I have your talk page on my watch list so if you respond on your talk page I'll answer there too).

I think he's referring to these sources here. Maybe you can take them one by one and give kindly feedback. On the other hand, if you don't want to you can just watch the article. If no one responds to the RFC then it'll disappear on its own. If no one responds after a week or two, then you can remove it yourself. Renee (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it all noise untl the deletions start  ??

I hope that this is the case. Please explain your position in full. My email is always enabled or you can do it on any talk page. Albion moonlight (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Albion's page for response. (BTW, Albion, I think you meant "I hope this is not the case" above.) Renee (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that

Sorry about not sourcing that right away. As a Yerushalmi in the Kabbalistic Yeshiva world I forget that some of these things are not public knowledge, or at least not the readership of everyone. Also I was trying to stay out of a lot of the controversy that surrounds the "Newer" of the two Yeshivot. Many here in Jerusalem see them as having adopted a radical reinterpretation of many Kabbalistic concepts and inherent in that is a change of custom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavAlkohen (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Elements of controversy

Essentially the basis is this. With a Yeshiva, such as the Mirir, Brisk, or Ponevyzh the name stands for as much if not more than the building. The name signifies a certain ethos and philosophy. If I go to any frum community in the world and say I was trained in Ponevyzh for instance, they would know exactly what they were getting. Now multiple Yeshivot have divided, the Mirer and Porat Yosef, are two great examples of that. However in each instance, the new has continued along the same lines as the Old, and often there is a great amount of interchange between them.

With the Beit El in the Old city you have a re-built building that Rabbi Getz, amidst mild controvery took the name of "Beit El" for his Yeshiva, however, he was trained under Ovadiah Hedayah, the Rosh Yeshiva that moved the Yeshiva from the Old City to the New City after the 1948 war, and his son and Rosh Yeshiva at the time Shmuel Hedayah helped, so it wasn't such a big deal. However R' Getz was Rosh Yeshiva for only five days before his untimely death. Then came R' Avichai. I am not sure how he became Rosh Yeshiva, as there are no supporting documents for his claims of him being named the heir, and many of R' Getz's students deny his claims. R' Avichai immediatly dismissed all but one of R' Getz's original students from the Yeshiva, as well as severed all ties with other Kabbalistic yeshivot. He began taking non-religious and non-married students. He also embarked on a radical re-interpretation of the Kabbalah rejecting all of the major Kabbalists after the Rashash, stating "they didn't understand Kabbalah, so their words are unreliable." That is a really bold claim to make about the like of R' Yehuda Patiya and others. All of this to this point is reason to cause controversy over the use of the name of "Beit El" In addition to the fact that there is the original with the original lineage which have documents supporting their claim that the one in the Old city was to be subordinate to the original. However what really blows it, so that the one in the Old City has little respect, amongst other Yeshivot, and are really looked down upon by other Kabbalistic Yeshivot is that, while Kabbalah has long been tolerant of differing interpretations of the key texts, Kabbalists have never looked fondly on someone saying that their approach is the only way, and that all others are wrong, which is the purported opinion of R' Avichai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavAlkohen (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

I do not think the entire template is necessary, but Category:Antisemitism should remain at the bottom, which it currently does. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

K. Paul Johnson

Hi Malcolm. Sorry for the delay in replying. I don't have any information other than what I orginally wrote for the page. Best wishes M Alan Kazlev (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be rude...

Not to be rude, but I really don't appreciate you saying those things about my wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah); on somebody elses talk page. I have no problem with you trying to get people over to your project, but saying that type of thing is really unnecessary. If you continue to do that I'm going to take it up with an administrator. By the way: That doesn't reflect too well on Wikiproject Judaism. Lighthead ^þ 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the main point that I have to make is that you seem to have skewed views about Wikiproject Kabbalah. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to censor you, it's just that I think you should say things a certain way so as not to seem prejudiced against other wikiproject's. I'm sure you know this but, Kabbalah is a legitimate field of study. And if you don't respect that then you don't respect a lot of people out there involved with it. To tell you the truth, I felt kind of mad at myself when you said that I was censoring you. Because that was the last way I wanted to come off. But just keep in mind that I'm definitely not trying to attack you :). I also wanted to add that the group may not be as active as you like because it is still fairly new so... Lighthead ^þ 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the guy's user page, he says that he is a Sofer, a Mohel, and a Shochet. He is also, it seems, still studying Kabbalah in a Jerusalem yeshiva. Considering all that, and that he is new to Wikipedia, what is so terrible about my giving him the information I did? If you do not like what I said, I am sorry....but I see nothing wrong with what I wrote.

What it comes down to, for me, is this:

• I say what I think is right.
• If an administrator finds what I say unacceptable, I get blocked from editing, and I go into wiki-exile. I can live with that.

Salve. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what, if you think that what you wrote is fine, that's all that matters to me... Lighthead ^þ 0:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guide to referencing

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

Images

Tell me what images you want to use and the copyright status of a) the thing in the image b) the photographer of the image. If it's a 2-D artwork, the photographer does not have any copyright. Can you get permission to upload even a low-res image under GFDL. See User_talk:VAwebteam#GFDL - the Victoria and Albert museum has released low res images under GFDL. It gives permission for anyone to use that image, even commercially, but you can limit the GFDL licence to the particular low res file, as opposed to the image itself, as I understand it. Ty 16:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded the two images under "fair use". Click on the images to see the image page and hence the rationale provided. Clicking the edit button will show you the underlying code for templates used. These two images are justified, but fair use images must be kept to a minimum, and no more than this will be reasonable in such a short article. There is room for considerable expansion. I have also formatted the ref. Please read the ref guide, so you can do this properly and keep up the standard of presentation. Again, clicking the edit button on the article will reveal the underlying code which generates the required result. Ty 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a steep learning curve and you're doing well. WP:BOLD. Ty 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism project

So far as I can tell, no one really expressed any "objections" to the creation of a WikiProject regarding antisemitism, it's just that the members of the Judaism project have explicitly stated that antisemitic content which is not clearly related to Jewish religion is outside the scope of that project. There are certain technical issues, such as the exact scope of such a project, but they can be worked out later. If I were you, I'd post a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals outlining what you figure the group would do and see how many interested parties you have join. You'd also want to post messages on the talk pages of relevant articles and groups about the existence of the proposal, to try to garner support from them.
There are problems with WikiProjects with very limited scope or members, as they tend to be deleted or merged somewhere comparatively near down the line. Personally, I still think that the group would function best as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, as it is a fairly clear "descendant" project to that one, but that's just one opinion. But I don't think anyone would stand in the way of your at least making a proposal for such a group. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor assistance/Requests

^{From WP:EAR}

Please see the talk pages for the last 7 years (over 3000 threads). Everyone has an agreement to let each page develop on its own lines. I can even remember a discussion about merging them both into KJB Lord. Please don't consider Afd. They start much the same but are very very different in outlook. Chag Samaech and please let thing pass. -- BpEps - t@lk 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Calligraphy

Hello, I answered to you on Talk:Calligraphy#Hebrew calligraphy, byebye Yug 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Abstract expressionism

I'm really not interested in an edit war - so I will assume good faith, but, why delete sculpture from Abstract expressionism? David Smith, Noguchi, Nevelson and even Di Suvero are well documented as being a crucial part of Abstract expressionism - read Irving Sandler, and the article is about an era not only about painting. The Gorky painting that you deleted as you probably know has been disputed before, and in lieu of a more recent image has been agreed upon to remain...However perhaps inadvertantly your last edit wiped out nearly half of the entire article. Including all the references, categories, see also links etc. I've restored it. Please discuss removals on the talk page, thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, I'm adding new text and references concerning the sculpture and the sculptors of the era. You have a valid observation there and I'm adding information. As to the Gorky controversy - I am ambivalent as to whether the picture stays or goes (I prefer it stays) but Gorky was such a crucial figure, so important to the movement that in lieu of a later painting I think it represents his getting away from convention, and with de Kooning (the subject) the reinvention of an absract expressionist figure painting. Thanks, Modernist (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah

Hi. You reverted my edits, and I would like to ask what your reason was--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

nyc

Interesting range of topics you work on! And I see that you live in Brooklyn, so you might be interested in our NYC meetups--next one on Sunday June 1, at Columbia. See the NYC meetups page.DGG (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vase3r 480.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vase3r 480.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you try removing the link to Kabbalahhealing.org website?

Why did you try removing the link to Kabbalahhealing.org website? Did you at least read the articles? The site contains several valuable articles on Kabbalah healing techniques; they are very helpful and scholarly.

What are your credentials? Are you a Rabbi? Do you have articles on Kabbalah published in professional rabbinical journals? I do.

Rabbi Dr. Ephraim C. Trakhtenberg, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakhtenberg (talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link because I saw no significant information about Kabbalah in it, but I did see promotion for the Chabad movement. Wikipedia articles are not for that. Its not that I am unsympathetic with Chabad, and there is already a link to Shaar HaYachud.

Since you are clearly very knowledgeable about Kabbalah, I invite you to consider helping with editing the article, instead of just adding a link -- which does minimal good. The article is in serious need of improvement, as you can easily see by reading it. Also, if you think I have acted unfairly, you can take your argument to the Administrators Notice Board. Or, if you can simply show me where I missed important material in you site, perhaps we can settle this through discussion -- if you put aside your angry assumption that my intention was to harm you, and put aside your feelings of superiority to those who have have less education than you. I have no "credentials", and I am just a simple uneducated worker who is trying to make the Kabbalah article better; and who would appreciate some help from those who are educated. Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although we did rent a space in Chabad synagogue for our workshops, we are not Chabad affiliated organization. We are an independent nonprofit organization: Kabbalah Heritage Institute.

We do make workshops to teach Kabbalah and perhaps you landed on a page which promotes our workshops. There is plenty valuable information on our website regarding Kabbalah healing methods. I can insert a link directly to the page which describes Kabbalah healing methods rather than to a homage http://www.kabbalahhealing.org/kabbalah/spiritualhealing.html Would that be satisfactory resolution?

Regarding editing an article itself on Wikipedia, I am afraid that this will be always disputed as there is no consensus between several schools of Kabbalah regrding numerieus historial and conceptual issues. (Rabbi Dr. Ephraim C. Trakhtenberg, Ph.D. (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

The problem is that the article on your site that the link goes to does promote the healing services that you offer. Wikipedia does not allow such links: WP:SOAP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The text that promoted the services was removed from that page. Please note, all jewish Kabbalah organizations offer Kabbalah related services. Spreading the wisdom of Kabbalah is the main goal of such organizations. (Rabbi Dr. Ephraim C. Trakhtenberg, Ph.D. (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Apologies

I felt that I should contact you to apologise for the strength of my reaction to your comments. I didn't intend any offense, but I can imagine that some might have been taken. I'm in quite an emotional state, I've realised today - I'm in the middle of moving house, city, and job, so it's been a stressful time lately, and I've also been quite upset by my aunt's suicide - which I didn't quite realise had affected me so much until today. It's such a distant relationship, I am surprised by how it's upset me.)

I genuinely didn't take or intend any offense. Regardless of this, though, I went too far in the way I addressed you. My circumstances don't excuse it, but I suppose they do provide mitigating circumstances. TJ (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)