« first day (435 days earlier)      last day (4247 days later) » 

12:35 AM
@msh210 WP = Wikipedia?
12:53 AM
@msh210 FTR, I added the WP link because there wasn't any context before that.
Q: July 2012 Moderator Election: Town Hall Chat

Grace NoteIn connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation. Participation is completely voluntary. I have worked with the can...

1 hour later…
2:19 AM
Today, for the five thousandth time, a question on Mi Yodeya got its first upvoted answer.
@IsaacMoses Your not counting one's that were subsequently deleted.
ie the stat is a metzius not a maaseh.
(and yes, I'm apparently a party-pooper :) )
2:45 AM
@DoubleAA Today, for the five thousandth time, a question on Mi Yodeya got an answer who's community-acknowledged value endures until today.
Mi Yodeya has
Five thousand questions answered,
With answers we like.
@DoubleAA 8^P
3:02 AM
@IsaacMoses Nice!
Just a reminder, Town Hall Chat is in about 50 minutes~
@GraceNote Oh thanks, I was thinking it was in 1:50 minutes!
@DoubleAA No problem
@DoubleAA Oops, good catch then!
1 hour later…
4:33 AM
in Judaism Town Hall Chat, 31 secs ago, by Monica Cellio
@TimStone I see our most-active users in meta a fair bit, but not the newer users as much. The (new) community bulletin board seems like a good way to draw broader attention to specific posts and I hope the mods do (and will) talk about which meta posts to highlight. It's just as important on meta as on main to welcome new users when they show up so they'll return.
^^^ "Welcome to Meta!" Great idea!
5:14 AM
@IsaacMoses or @MonicaCellio Care to update this?
Q: Welcoming new users

Isaac MosesSince the beginning of mi.yodeya 1.0, I've made it my practice to welcome new users. I'd like to make it clear that while I'm happy to continue doing this whenever I get the opportunity, anyone else who wants to is more than welcome to also do it (as some have). Here's the pattern I usually foll...

Whew! That was grueling. :D
And by that I mean that those were some good questions.
in Judaism Town Hall Chat, 17 mins ago, by Double AA
Whew! I just realized how intensely focused on my computer I've been for the last hour.
@DoubleAA Yep. I think I got all of them...
@HodofHod I didn't answer my own. I'm not really sure why not, it just felt weird.
@DoubleAA I know how you mean, but I think your thoughts on the matter are still worth recording for the record.
5:26 AM
@HodofHod Ya, well they might have been creative questions but I don't think they were controversial, considering you all gave pretty much the same answer IIRC. So not much benefit for the record.
5:43 AM
Q: What are the assumptions made (in relation to jewish law) when one uses this site?

shachnaA lot of these little things (I have a really long typed out list if anyone wants me to post it) have left me rather confused as to what this site assumes in relation to the asker's understanding/knowledge of Judaism and what (if any) confines one should stick to when answering? Meaning that if ...

@DoubleAA There are small differences though. @msh210 does seem to be giving some very different (but still excellent) answers now.
6:12 AM
@AdamMosheh Yes.
Could you imagine if that's what Parasha Chat was like? I don't think I'd be able to handle it!
@HodofHod Thanks... I think.
6:24 AM
@msh210 :D Meant as a complete complement!
5 hours later…
11:04 AM
posted on July 19, 2012 by joshwaxman

by aliyah rishon (Bemidbar 33:1) sheni (33:11) shelishi (33:50) revii (34:16) chamishi (35:1) shishi (35:9) shevii (36:1) maftir (36:11) haftara (Yirmeyahu 2:4), with Mahari Kara and Malbim by perek perek 33 ; perek 34 ; perek 35 ; perek 36 meforshim Geonim (589-1038) R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry: Arabic translation of Torah,  here at Temanim.org. Thi

2 hours later…
1:22 PM
I downvoted this question because it is unclear and confusing. Are you referring to a specific verse in Malachai? is the tithing aspect and the paying full price aspect the same thing, or two different things brought by the same prophet? Please clarify your statement. Quoting chapter and verse would be most helpful. I will change my vote when the question is clarified. — Menachem Sep 2 '11 at 22:53
There's a particular usage of the word bring which I've seen only on this site. It intrigues me.
I've seen it usually with regards to the writings of the Rabbis. So-and-so brings this argument/opinion. I assumed it meant that So-and-so referenced such-and-such an argument from other sources. This is the first time I've seen this sense of bring applied to the Biblical text itself, and apparently it doesn't mean that.
Apparently bring means "talk about, discuss" or perhaps "bring up".
Am I on the right lines at all?
1:57 PM
@TRiG That's the usage I'm familiar with. I see it in Jewish contexts in general (not just Mi Yodeya) and not elsewhere. I don't know the background.
2:15 PM
@TRiG Thank you for pointing that out! I'm guessing it's a Yiddish construct which was brought into Jewish jargon in English (It wouldn't be the first time that happened). It's funny because I wouldn't have noticed it, but now that you point it out I realize that it probably isn't good English :)
@DoubleAA I'm reviewing the transcript now (last night I could barely keep up with posts directed at me; I wasn't reading others' answers much), and I'm seeing some differences in philosophy that should possibly be brought up on meta. (Not acting until I'm done reading, though.)
@MonicaCellio Always feel free to ask!
@MonicaCellio (I haven't read back through it all yet, but just "on one foot" was this one of my responses that was unwittingly particularly controversial or are you just pinging me because I'm here?)
2:36 PM
@DoubleAA I'm pinging you because I'm replying to your comment that we all seemed to mostly agree. It wasn't a personal ping. That said, one of the differences I just noticed is that in the question about a Conservative answer, you (and @HodofHod) would delete while I would try to improve, and I'd like to have a broader discussion about handling such cases.
@MonicaCellio An excellent discussion to have. (BTW If you follow the comment back farther you'll see I was saying we mostly all agreed in the answers to the two questions I asked, not all the questions.) I was presenting what I thought current policy is like (I might be mistaken) but I am definitely open to changing that if we have some consensus.
@DoubleAA Oh! I missed the context of your comment here and thought it was more general. Sorry. I do think we (broad we, not two-of-us we) should talk about what to do with pluralistic posts; it doesn't come up much but when it does I think we can uphold our site policies while accepting a broader base of answers. I've seen this problem on Biblical Hermeneutics and I've been pushing for people to state their assumptions up front; it's too soon to evaluate but it seems to be working. (cont)
I think we can tolerate answers of the form "from the perspective of Conservative Judaism" or "from the perspective of Breslev" or the like if they are supported and not just assertions (like in Isaac's example).
2:55 PM
@MonicaCellio I can definitely hear what you are saying, and I'm going to refrain from further discussion here in chat. See you on meta :)
@DoubleAA Agreed; I didn't mean to have the discussion here, only explain what I wanted to discuss.
3:35 PM
@TRiG You can (and should, since "bring" is nonstandard) usually substitute "cite".
@MonicaCellio And I thought the example answer (in the town hall) was fine as was.
@msh210 I just saw that, yes. I'm glad you were able to participate even if a bit late. I hope @SethJ can come in too.
@MonicaCellio Me, too. I also hope people don't penalize him unduly (vote-wise) if he can't. I mean, I understand voting for someone whose views you know over someone whose views you don't, of course, but I hope people don't refrain from voting for him just for the fact, itself, that he did not participate in the chat: things happen and people can't.
@AdamMosheh, re: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11304/… There were just 2 "pets" questions this morning and other pet questions (like this) were already tagged "animals", so I removed "pets" from the two and proposed a synonym. That's why I rolled back your retag.
3:54 PM
@msh210 Nothing wrong with non-standard usage as long as it does not impede communication. Anyway, it appears that it is, in fact, standard within this particular community. The site is full of it.
@msh210 Before you go make more Shabbat tags, remember that you are currently outvoted here meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/a/1157/759 . I know it's not official yet, but perhaps we should discuss more before you make another tag. — Double AA 1 min ago
@DoubleAA Actually what inspired my creating was @MonicaCellio's answer there:
> If we want to sub-divide questions about Shabbat, this doesn't appear to be an effective way to do it. People will just go to the 341 and miss the 13 and 2 that motivated this question.
I figure, divide the tag into reasonable chunks.
(Besides which, questions about Friday are arguably not even about Shabas.)
@msh210 Do you know how many q's will get that tag? ish.
Plus, it's very easy to re-merge back into (not that that means I should make tags contra community opinion, of course).
@DoubleAA I was going through the questions when you interrupted me with that comment. :-) Dunno.
@msh210 It is certainly undoable. I just think since this is one of our biggest tags, we should plan before hand and not rely on trial and error.
I chose erev Shabas as a first break-off because it seems possibly least like of all the possible topics.
4:04 PM
@msh210 I'm not saying your ideas were faulty. Just that "we should plan before hand and not rely on trial and error."
IMO you should present a breakup scheme in that meta post and see what people say.
There might be different ways of doing things that you didn't think of, especially if we get a feel for how many are in each category.
I realize this is much more work, and I don't mean to shove it all on you.
Perhaps if you start something (a CW answer?) others will join in ideas.
^^^^^^^^ IMHO
@DoubleAA Fair enough.
@All You are all welcome to help :) Pick a possible subcategory and get an estimation for how many questions currently tagged will be tagged by your new tag. Then post your information to the relevant meta post. Using this data we can best decide what to do with the tag.
@DoubleAA No, I'm making a new post.
@msh210 Even better.
4:20 PM
A: Merge all Shabbat tags

msh210Monica Cellio's answer seems to have the support of the community (judging by votes). To summarize it, we should split shabbat into multiple tags, link from the former to each of the latter (and vice versa I assume), and (and this is where it differs from msh210's answer) require the shabbat tag ...

4:30 PM
@DoubleAA All right, I've got work to do. No time now to count questions on various topics.
5:14 PM
@MonicaCellio In my personal opinion, I think the site can and should be able to handle such answers, (obviously provided that such opinions are clearly demarcated, much as most of the orthodox ones are now.) However, my answer reflected my understanding of what current site policy is.
@HodofHod Thanks for the explanation. My read of current policy (just one person's opinion, of course) is that this would ba a fuzzy case; this isn't the "what are some fun places I can drive to on Shabbat" situation that ISTR was given in one of the meta posts as clearly beyond the pale (I agree). When I get some time I'm planning to bring it up on meta, using @IsaacMoses 's question from last night as a starting point.
@MonicaCellio Please do! :D One think that I am sure about, is that if such an answer were posted today, I would discuss it with the other mods before coming to a conclusion. (I think I may edit the above into my answer.)
@HodofHod Sounds good to me. Last night we were all (I think) answering "what would you (singular) do", but ultimately the question will be "what will you (plural) do".
@DoubleAA Done. My wording is a little klunky; please feel free to improve.
@MonicaCellio I agree.
5:36 PM
@MonicaCellio Very true. One of the things that I like about the current moderators is that many (most) of the grayer things are discussed before action is taken.
6:02 PM
@HodofHod I agree.
2 hours later…
8:13 PM
@MonicaCellio Good point.
@MonicaCellio Nice!
@HodofHod Yes.
@msh210 As we have just done :D
@HodofHod Quite.
8:28 PM
@msh210 done. I feel like my explanation of pilegesh is lacking, though. If you can improve it please do!
8:41 PM
@HodofHod looks okay to me
8:53 PM
@msh210 Usually cite makes sense, but in the specific example I quoted above, it doesn't, which is what confused me.
9:13 PM
@TRiG It seems to work there.
9:32 PM
@AdamMosheh - Perhaps we could use this^ for our site.
in The Library, 2 days ago, by swasheck
votes per view ... up per view ... down per view
in The Library, 2 days ago, by swasheck
(That got cut off. More sites are in the comparison. Click the "2 days ago" link to see.)
@msh210 - What is all that?
@AdamMosheh "an American live-action, sketch comedy-variety show that aired on the Nickelodeon cable television network" according to Wikipedia. Never heard of it, myself.
@msh210 No, I was talking about this.
@AdamMosheh Oh. You linked to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_That.
@AdamMosheh It's site names followed by three numbers for each site: votes per pageview, upvotes per pageview, and downvotes per pageview.
9:37 PM
@msh210 - Yes, because I was in a jovial mood.
@msh210 Therefore...
@AdamMosheh dunno. But someone posted it in another room and I thought someonehere might be interested, so I re-posted it.
@msh210 It means that we are the most active. It's good news, don't you think?
@AdamMosheh Most active in terms of votes per pageview (second to Islam). Is that good news? Perhaps. I'd think SE would want more views from people who can't vote (the general populace, who see more ads). I'd think we users would also want more views from people who can't vote (the general populace, who come across our questions and answers). Why do you think it's good news?
@msh210 Indeed you are correct that it is not the best, but it is not bad either, since it reflects that our users like to use their voting power and actively participate in determining whose answers are most reputable.
@AdamMosheh Yeah. A measure to look at is logged-in users' pageviews vs. un-logged-in users' pageviews. I don't have those data.
9:53 PM
@msh210 I really think it would be great if we could track all data of all users who come here. Kind of like Google Analytics, that kind of thing, based on IP addresses. If we could know where users are located, how often they visit, all these things. I know that the information exists, and I think it would be good to know who is active even if we don't see them posting a lot of questions or answers. Also, it would be good to know where potential new users are visiting us from.
@AdamMosheh I've no doubt that SE does this to the extent they have a use for.
@AdamMosheh There is a small amount of information available to moderators. Maybe you'll see it soon. :-) The mods are not allowed to share any details of that small amount of information with the other site users, but are allowed to share generalities. If you have any such questions, ask one of the site mods (here, I guess).
Why the downvotes? — Adam Mosheh 41 secs ago

« first day (435 days earlier)      last day (4247 days later) »