User talk:DRosenbach/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Criticism of Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism

Hi! I notice you've been presenting criticisms of Conservative and Reform Judaism from an Orthodox perspective. The difficulty with your comments is that you haven't supplied any sources for the views you present, so there's no way for an outsider to verify if what you say is true. It shouldn't be too difficult to find sources for your views. Avi Shafran for example has frequently criticized these groups in strong terms and a simple internet search should turn up some quotes. If you come in with appropriate sources, I can can support your effort to have critical viewpoints fairly presented. But if you continue to come in without good sources, I'll have no choice but to support the folks who want to remove what you have to say from the articles and talk pages, and if it comes to it I may even have to step in and block. Please do some homework and come in with quotes and sources. I'd also suggest keeping the focus on what the article should say, and not using the talk pages to simply repeat the viewpoint. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to stress the importance of civility, suggest not saying things like "you are posting falsehoods" as you did on Talk:Conservative Judaism. Need to give you this civility warning -- With regards to your comments on Talk:Conservative Judaism: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I responded to your comments on my talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to do this, but I had to take a small item you wrote out -- it's discussed on Talk:Conservative Judaism. The problem was that the source you used didn't cover the specific claim you made, and people are somewhat sensitive about these things where criticism is involved. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Orthodox Judaism

I know there have been some virulently anti-Orthodox people and writings in the last couple of centuries. I wouldn't infer anything from a lack of a criticism section in Wikipedia. For example, Reform Judaism didn't have one until just recently, and Reconstructionist Judaism still doesn't. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nkras

I'm not familiar with the case, but I'll look into it. It's very likely the reason for the ban involves much more than simply getting into a disagreement with other editors. I'll find out what. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The discussion of the ban, here, involves accusations of sockpuppets and similar. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nkras. A sockpuppet is a fake account that a user creates to influence discussions on edits, article deletions, and similar, effectively stuffing the ballot box and creating the appearance of more support for ones position than there is. It isn't being on the losing side in a discussion that's a problem. It's attempting to manipulate the discussion unfairly. Does this help? Best, --Shirahadasha 14:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nkras

He was not blocked for his edits on Conservative Judaism, but rather on Marriage and related talk pages and noticeboards. Please refer to here, here, and here. —Kurykh 03:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Shalom to you

We are participating. Our oldest is heading to high school. See you then. As per your question on Kossar's - I did not make that entry on the Satmar, and I am hard pressed to edit my business' site on my own Juda S. Engelmayer 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your template

Hi, I deleted it :) Just so you know it, you can use {{db-author}} to request a deletion. Mose people answering helpme requests are not administrators. If you need further help, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page or to put {{helpme}} followed by your question on this page. -- lucasbfr talk 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Complaint

Hi, DRosenbach thank you for making a complaint, regarding Halaby I reverted what i thought was vandalism, but now it appears that i was wrong and that I have been to harsh on him. I will issue an apology to him immediately stating that i was in the wrong and that it will not happen again. Thanks again for bringing this matter to my attention! I do not mean to bite newcomers as we were all new once, but i was a bit heavy handed so too speak.

If you are happy with the response, please change the yes or no feature to represent what you feel, under the Resolved? section.

Best regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an apology to Halaby, thank you again. Resolved. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually on some things i quite agree with you, i have gone over-the-top - a lot. But i don't intend to enforce wikipedia like some sort of police. Over the next coming days i will rethink and redesign and make my user space less complicated. Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

POV of anatomy/physiology articles

Great catch! I responded on the article talk page. - Dozenist talk 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

You may want to follow the activites of User:Agha Nader. Seems not to like my POV on some items and has been trawling my edits in an attempt to discredit me. Take a look. Juda S. Engelmayer 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perio template

Hey, I've seen the work you have done on the endo and perio templates, and they look good. I wanted to ask you about the breaks you have re-inserted into the perio template. It really looks like a lot of wasted space on my monitor, and I would suspect the same sort of thing happens on a variety of different monitors under different settings. I had removed the breaks previously for that reason. Is there any particular reason you want the breaks in? The breaks currently create a disjointed appearance because they seem "sudden" without any apparent reason. As a result, it may be best to have no breaks in the templates. - Dozenist talk 00:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, DR, I noticed on your userpage that you have three userboxes (diamonds, pickles, and the steak place) which act as an advertisement on your userpage. Could you please take these userboxes off of your page, since it is a violation of this policy. Thanks. Miranda 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the userboxes in question and they appear to be blatant advertising, so I removed them. You can mention things you like on your userpage, just don't make it into blatant ads. Zocky | picture popups 12:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw Miranda's question about this on IRC, but I don't do things because people tell me to, I do them because I personally think they're the right thing to do. 3 of your userboxes were obvious ads (it doesn't really matter if you link to an article or to their website - an ad is an ad). Wikipedia doesn't do ads. Zocky | picture popups 12:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh, last time I used the "they do it too, so it's ok" angle, I was probably in elementary school. But seriously, if other users have ads on their userpages, they should be removed too. It's simply not what userpages are for. Zocky | picture popups 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, I don't have the time and energy to deal either with all spammy userboxes or with your accusations of powermongering. Please go through my contribs and find some basis for an accusation like that, or take it back. And let me repeat: the fact that other people than you are spamming means neither that you can spam nor that their spam has to be dealt with before yours. Zocky | picture popups 13:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
On a reflection, this conversation started off on the wrong foot, so I should probably provide a better explanation of what happened. There's an unclear line between "expressing one's preferences", which is something that's obviously OK, and "advertising", which is obviously not allowed. Many factors seem to be involved - like books or movies vs. cars, related vs. unrelated to wikipedia, text vs. a shiny box, internal vs. external links, etc. When Miranda asked about this in the channel, I looked at your page and concluded that your userboxes came in heavily on the side of advertising, particularly the one about diamonds. She edited your talk page in the meantime, independently of my edit.
Also, I looked at other userboxes you linked. Some of them are unused, some are about computer games which are more like books than like cars, so I'm not really sure about them. OTOH, the Coca-Cola ones are blatant ads, and I'll go remove them now. But in general, please understand that there are simply so many things that need to be fixed that it's impossible to do them all at once, and that like you, other editors are just volunteers who do this in their free time. Zocky | picture popups 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I've had some things come up in real life and been on a bit of a Wikibreak for more than a week. Has this issue been resolved? Please drop me a line. --Shirahadasha 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bridging" the divide

My subheading was clever, eh???!!! Yeah, the pun is absolutely horrible. But about the crown and bridge articles, there are some major changes that need to occur, but then again there are so many articles about dentistry that need work.... we could easily get overwhelmed. For example, the crown article needs a rewrite as explained on the talk page. For the article to get a mention on Slashdot about its prose is not a good sign. So, that article needs a major copy-edit. The bridge article is actually not that bad currently. It warrants a clean-up tag because there are aspects such as organization, pictures, and the lead looks way too long for the article length. But all those things would not be too difficult to do. So do not let any frustration get to you!!!! The vast information you added to those two articles is really important and very helpful, and I still think the topics are best separated into different articles. You are doing excellent work with the templates, and I think that will make it even more intuitive for readers to see the associations between all the articles.

For the few of us dental editors, it would help to let each other know when we are working on a huge project. That way, we can collaborate more, and that eases some of the pressure on each of us. If there is a really good article to work on, I can place it as our Current Collaboration. Hmmm. I am thinking perhaps the best place for each other about our major projects to be WT:DENT. There are so few of us that we our post may not bring a flood of help, but as you can I have been trying to help any way I can on the templates you have been creating. Again, do not get frustrated! You have been doing some great work. - Dozenist talk 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here. - Dozenist talk 13:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Four (Indian Snakes)

Hi, you added info on American Big Four snakes to the Indian snakes article. I have moved it to an article of its own. I have also given a link on the disambiguation page. Please provide at least one reference for this stub. Regards, AshLin 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scroll box

Please do not wrap references in the {{scroll box}} templates. See the talk page of the template for more information on why this should not be done, but it basically messes things up in any number of ways. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

YU photos

User:Scaligera recently posted a couple of images on various YU-related pages, four of which he uploaded himself. I quickly recognized at least one of them from the YU website, so I asked him what the deal was. He responded that he was from such and such department at YU and he was authorized to license and upload the images - that's all. If you're thinking about contacting him to ask him to give free licenses to more images, I wouldn't count on it - his email is not activated and he hasn't edited since then. What's more, I looked at the contact page for his department and there is nobody with the name Scaligera (assuming it's his name). You can try someone else from the list of email addresses if you're interested in pursuing this further.--DLandTALK 23:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pearson_v._Chung

Thank you for your 3rd opinion on this article. The main issue at the time I requested such was the placement of "Great American Pants Suit" as a bolded alternate title in the lede; I don't believe this coinage to be widespread and universal enough to be cited as an alternate title. However, a compromise seems to have formed around mentioning this phrase in the article but not in the first sentence as a bolded item. As regards my Editor Review, I'm not sure what exactly you find "deplorable" about my conduct. As soon as this conflict started to get heated, I requested a fresh set of eyes, took a break to cool off, and came back with a compromise which seems to be accepted by my fellow editors. I would be interested in knowing which part of my response was "deplorable". Ryanjunk 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if you've got the wrong idea of it. I've nothing against the Washington Post, and find Rush Limbaugh to be the deplorable one. My only question regarding the source was that it was one editorial writer for one newspaper, and that this was perhaps not sufficient to establish an alternate title for an article. I've nothing against newspapers, editorials or the Washington Post specifically. My issue was simply that one editorialist's clever headline was not enough to merit an alternate article title. That's all. I just feel that the bolded items in the first sentence should be universally accepted names for the subject. We would not say in the Michael Jackson article "Michael Jackson, or Wacko Jacko" as the first sentence. We may mention this terrible nickname in the article, because sources can be found for it, but it does not belong in the lead sentence because it is not a universally accepted alternate name. In the case of this article, I do not mean to argue that the Washington Post is anything less than a fine newspaper (I myself have also never read it, but if Rush Limbaugh hates it, it must be good). I simply mean to say that this title is not universal. In this discussion it's been mentioned several times that this term has been found 2600 times on Google. There are 895,000 Google hits which do not include the phrase "Great American Pants Suit". So I moved it out of lead sentence. And by the way, I knew the meaning of the word "deplorable" from the start, and in your haste to belittle me by defining it you misspelled "aweful". If you wish to take part in giving "3rd Opinions" as an unofficial part of Dispute Resolution, I hope in future you will assume good faith. Ryanjunk 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In my user_talk, you say "in the heat of an argument, it is difficult to look at things objectively. That's what 3rd opinions are for, and that's all that I did, and I justify my opinions and edits thusly." On my editor review, you say "but [I] have just gotten caught up in this and can't take an objective look at it anymore." I do not find calling another editor "deplorable" and "aweful" to be particularly civil. Nor do I see how I could have handled the situation any differently, in that I followed dispute resolution and ultimately ended up crafting a compromise which has seemingly been accepted by all interested parties. Taking a step back, asking for a fresh set of eyes, and trying to achieve compromise do not, to me, seem to be "overly aggressive" steps, as you accuse me of. None of this is helping get an encyclopedia written, but I do find myself at a loss for words as to where this incivility came from. It seems like perhaps you ascribed political motives to me which are absent (cf. your comment about my sharing opinions with Rush Limbaugh, which is patently false). At any rate, your insinuation that I am unaware of the definition of "deplorable", or that I can't recognize a reliable source ("It's also not an obscure source, like something out of the Irish-Antarctica Exploratory Base Monthly Gazzette") do not seem to back up your statement that you are assuming good faith and certainly do not seem very civil. Ryanjunk 13:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek

What's wrong with the one that I have. FrankWilliams 12:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RPD

It isn't me who decides what RPD predominantly stands for: it's a matter of common usage on wikipedia. If you check the links to RPD, you'll see that there are many pages that link there. They are all concerned with the RPD machine gun. Replacing the redirect with a link to DAB page is clearly unwelcome. For more information see WP:D:

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top.

Raoulduke47 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

3O

Please see my response to your query here. Thank you. Joie de Vivre°

I know this sort of thing is frustrating

I'm going through a similar, and more vociferous, argument over at List of Harry Potter parodies. But there are two reasons I deleted that section. One, as Harry Potter is an article about the books, it wasn't really the place for a list. At the rate that list was expanding, it would have comprised every single alliterative name in the entire series by the end of the week, too much for a single subsection. If you wanted to you could create a separate article called List of alliterative phrases in Harry Potter, but to put such a list in the middle of a bigger article was distracting. Second, that section didn't do anything except list those names. It didn't make any kind of point or express a theme or discuss a more general issue. In an article like Harry Potter, lists like that aren't constructive. Finally, if you were going to discuss alliteration, you should also discuss all the other literary games Rowling plays as well, such as puns (sometimes in multiple languages), classical allusions and wordplay. The problem is that there hasn't been a lot of detailed analysis done on this aspect of her work, and so finding secondary sources to back up such research is hard. I would love to mention, for instance, that "Maxime" is French for "principle", which plays on "principal" (she is, of course, a principal) and also derived from the Latin "Maxima", which means "biggest feminine one". In fact I did include it on her page, but it was taken down, because, of course, no one else has noticed this, and therefore it is original research. Serendipodous 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

List of alliterative phrases in Harry Potter

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of alliterative phrases in Harry Potter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.

I've just read what Serendipodous wrote above, DRosenbach, and I hope you understand I'm not a deletionists that goes around searching for Harry Potter articles. (In fact, I'm a very active member of the HP WikiProject.) However, I don't think that listing alliterative names and phrases from the books merits an article, though perhaps one line of mention with notable examples (the founders, Snape, McGonagall, and a few more) in a potential "writing style" section of Harry Potter and/or J. K. Rowling would make sense. It is frustrating, because the contemporary nature of the books makes for difficulty in finding scholarly sources to back up what we're trying to say, but hopefully some day in the near future somebody will write about the literary puns which Rowling is a master at. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject jurisdiction

Well, no one really "decides", I guess, but all topics related to a wikiproject is fair game. The dog wikiproject may not consider mouth to be within the scope of their wikiproject, but I noticed they consider snout to be. And frequently, a single article has many wikiprojects associated. I would not consider it to be a problem if there a large number of associated wikiprojects. Yes, I realize that some wikiproject tags are very "loosely" associated with the article, but I cannot think of some great harm for the wikiproject tag to be on the article talkpage. There are just some arguments not worth fighting. - Dozenist talk 10:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] --Ronz 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


The Presidents (song)

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I've marked the article for copyright violation because of the song lyrics. Also, you (or someone) will need to explain why the song is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, as it might get deleted anyway on those grounds, even without including the song lyrics. Sorry about the inconveniences, but I figured it was better to mark it and discuss it than just delete it on sight. Nerwen 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

dental radiography

Gday. sorry I didn't get back to you about the dental radiography page. Looks ok now ;) From memory i think i merged a couple of radiography articles and added some info my self. But I think my main goal was just to make a skeleton for the article. Keep up the good work ;) Bouncingmolar 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Gothiscandza

I saw that you took a very forceful side in the dispute on Gothiscandza suggesting that those who think differently from you and User:Pieter Kuiper should be blocked[2]. Could you please respond to Briangott's post about the questionability of a Nordicist map from the early 20th century in the article. There is no explanation in either the article or in the discussion as to how racist theories relate to the concept of Gothiscandza.--Berig 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bob Grant is back!

Your 770 user box needs some exciting upgrade the Zeide of all talk radio is back in his home, please replace him in your user box so i can copy it on my user page as well. Also if u can help me write up the biography of a YU alumni [3] i would greatly appreciate it he seems a very interesting character, my interest in him may be from the Hasidic POV but u can contribute the Modern Orthodox POV. Like this it will be in the end a Balanced NPOV. Thanks and have a Happy Healthy and Sweet New Year!.--יודל 13:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Drosenbach

A tag has been placed on Drosenbach, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a user page from the main/article space. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Shlock Rock

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Shlock Rock, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bruxism

Hi, could you just have a quick look over the article Bruxism? What's good/bad/missing. Possible improvements? Any suggestions? THX! --Cyrus Grisham 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:J.D.Bleich.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:J.D.Bleich.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Agüeybaná 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements on your user page

I removed two user boxes on your user page due to Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:UP#NOT. I hope you understand.--Agha Nader (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Ziprin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ziprin.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. OsamaK (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As written above, vilt.net isn't enough source..--OsamaK (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Scaling and root planing

Man, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Right now, I am a little hesitant to completely remove the reference to the Cochrane Collaboration, as (unless I am mistaken) is a well-respected source, but I am disappointed that we cannot access the article for free. Also, I believe we would be able to emphasize in the article that (despite what the Cochrane Database may say) scaling and root planing is believed to reduce periodontal disease by the relevant specialists. If you agree, I think we would be able to find several references to support such a statement in the article. Several reliable reference would help make sure to anyone who checks us that we are not just making this up or are somehow trying to insert a personal/minority view on the subject. - Dozenist talk 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Short translation help wanted

Hi, I am a german dentist de:Benutzer:RosarioVanTulpe. I can't find the english word for de:Modellgussprothese (Chrom-Cobald-Molybden). (a modell cast denture???). Stefan --84.137.43.98 (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and help. "cast partial" is the best description I am looking for. I'm categorising a little bit the denture pictures on Commons. Stefan --84.137.15.99 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for taking the time to review the Joe Klein article. I was afraid that I had started an edit war, but it turned out that my fears were unfounded. It was agreed to place a "current event" tag in the article.

On another note, I note that you're a fan of the late R. P. Feynman. I, too, am an admirer of his. I remember as a child listening to it being read on the Radio Reader program on the local National Public Radio affiliate. I assume that it is his general books that you read. For my part, my mathematical ineptitude precluded me from even attempting to read his professional books.

I hope that you are enjoying the holiday.

--Nbahn (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of disclaimer at Intelligent design

Thank you for asking me on my talk page as to the reason for the removal of the sentence disclaiming a possibly misleading interpretation of the given statistics. The disclaimer was removed because it attempts, in Wikipedia's voice, to undermine the reader's interpretation of the data as given (whatever that may be), and to foist a particular point of view on the reader instead. Thus while I agree with the spirit of the disclaimer, it is not the task of Wikipedia to crystal ball over the correct interpretation of data.

As for the theological section, it would be more acceptable (to me) if the sources were more representative of theological perspectives as a whole. As it was, the references seemed too limited to be taken as representative. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the disclaimer: It is not my feeling that the polls cited lend any support either way regarding intelligent design. If you feel that they do, then the paragraph itself may suffer from some structural flaws. Another way to disclaim the results may be to give them greater context within the Dover case. On whose behalf were the polls comissioned? Did they figure into the judge's ruling on the case at all? How were the polls used? As it stands, the section points out serious flaws in the polls (low response rate in at least one of them). Were the polls faulted for other reasons? By whom? Silly rabbit (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

About that picture...

I have been just so ridiculous busy that my editing on wikipedia has been on minimal mode recently, but I cannot believe it took this long for me to respond to you. I had to double check to make sure I haven't already responded, but I apparently I hadn't. Well, almost a month later, I think you took an awesome picture (assuming you are talking about this one). Did your camera just zoom that closely or did you have to use a microscope? Anyways, the only thing I was going to mention about photographs in articles is that it may be less overwhelming to shorten/simplify the language in the thumbnail of the picture. Some of the more specific details, such as which tooth it was and which root was involved with the abscess, can be mentioned on the actual image page. Just some thoughts! Happy editing! - Dozenist talk 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


TransGenetic Fish

In order to verify if the newly Transgenetic Fish be kosher are not, I was asked by a Rabbi if I could get him the information "HOW" the genes are introgresed, since not very likely by normal breeding, which cannot cross boundries and there is no predection on the offspring. I know that it is by isolating a specific gen, and that this is done in-vitro called "genetic engineering" but all of this doen's say nothing on the method of introgression.Shoteh (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You very much for your text and explanations. The case is a Trangenetic Atlantic Salmon which has a modified gene introduced from the non-kosher (this is how it is listed at http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fish/#oceanpout) "Pout" in order to make it grow faster.

My question is if the introduction of the foreign gene is done by "sperm in egg" which may make a question about "chosh'shin lezera ha'av", or it is like you explained by a bacteria etc. or injection that may be considered as a regular hormonal injection?

References:

Please Note: If you could access the document which need subscription you may e-mail them to me at shoteh@gmail.com

Thank You very much - Shoteh (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit?

[4]... I believe that there are some Jews which do not advocate for rebuilding Solomon's Temple, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is outright curiousity. I don't know if the doctrine of rebuilding Solomon's Temple is universal among all Jews (Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox) or only held by those who are literalists, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You've confirmed my suspicions. I think what you are saying is that the orthodox owns all of Judaism. While this is a notable perspective (and probably the one that deserves most weight in our article on Bible prophecy), it is, in point-of-fact, a point-of-view with which many others disagree. So I think what we should say is orthodox Judaism rather than Judaism in general. If you disagree, we can post a query at Wikipedia: WikiProject Judaism and see what they say. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dental Sealants

Hello, it has taken me a very long time to figure out how to "identify myself" as I originally did not know how to sign comments, etc. But I am the person with the discussion and question on the Dental Sealant discussion page. thanks.Llcavall (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of King Harold (Shrek)

I have nominated King Harold (Shrek), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Harold (Shrek). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Samuel belkin.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Samuel belkin.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DRosenbach/Archive_2&oldid=1190238329"