User talk:DRosenbach/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Erythrocytes in marsupials

Hi, I just saw your edit to red blood cell about erythrocytes in marsupials. Do you happen to know if all marsupials have nucleated erythrocytes, or only some of them? Would you have access to a reference? Thanks and cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Help me

{{helpme}} Is it possible to block my userpage from editing from unknown users? I was recently vandalized and I can't imagine appreciating any input from an unknown user. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see WP:RPP. There usually needs to be rather lengthy history of vanadlism before protection will be used. I hope that helps. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree there usually needs to be a lengthier history of vandalism, however, in this case, the vandalism was outrageous, aggregious, and simply should not be tolerated. I've protected your userpage and user talk page for 1 month from being edited by new and anonymous (IP) users. Hope that helps. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

Dear DRosenbach, I saw the very recent vandalism on your userpage and to say I was disgusted would be an understatement. I wanted to drop you a note of support and say you're have the right to feel outraged. Perhaps I can assist you in filing a notice with the IT department and school administration registered to the IP address? I worked in university IT (doing networking and sysadmin) for many years and have dealt with this type of complaint before. I have watchlisted your userpage to help combat any further vandalism. By the way, I was in Ohr Somayach when you were in OJ. (resigned)Bstone (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Bstones assessment here, and find it to be shameful that it took 4 hours for that change to be reverted and that you had to even go to a noticeboard to get help. This should have been handled much quicker and shouldn't have been fixed by you but instead by someone looking out for you (I said as much on ANI). My apologies to you, kind editor, on behalf of the rest of us. For what it's worth, I've watchlisted your page (and hope others have too) to keep that garbage out of wikipedia. By the way, Tzipporah is a beautiful little girl, and as the father of a 2 year old boy myself, I know how proud you must be! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I find the actual vandalism outrageous. It being present for 4 hours and no one noticing it really frustrating, tho the edits are easily missed and looked over in "recent changes". I do a lot of recent changed patrolling and I often ignore userspace edits, tho I perhaps should pay special attention when an IP is editing a userspage. Bstone (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

IP info for 134.88.190.217

host 134.88.190.217 217.190.88.134.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer h018f86e4681.res.umassd.edu 

  Administrative Contact: 
  Joyce Rosinha 
  System Access & Security Manager 
  University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 
  Computing & Information Technology Services 
  285 Old Westport Road 
  North Dartmouth  MA 02747-2300 
  UNITED STATES 
  (508) 999-8528 
  abuse@umassd.edu

Bstone (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Prophecy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.. You removed material on the Islamic view of prophecy on grounds that it was inconsistent with the Old Testament. First, the new WP:When to cite guideline clarifies that unsourced content should be tagged, not removed, except in BLP and similar situations. Third, The Koran, not the Old Testament, are the Islamic scriptures, so the issue of its consistency with the Old Testament is simply irrelevant to the Islamic view. Finally, the question of whether two religious outlooks are consistent needs to be answered by a reliable source, not an editor's personal interpretation of the Bible. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism

Suggest joining the discussion on the translation of "emunah" on Talk:Orthodox Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note

I feel as though you are on a quest to defend liberalism. I don't know you or your attitude towards God and Judaism, but from your recent edits (or should I say reverts), your priorities seem to...I don't know what to say, and that's mostly because I don't know you. But your presence and your attitude are a major contributor to me deciding to no longer be involved in anything worthwhile when it comes to articles relating to Judaism. I try to me a mevakeish emes (seeker of reality) and you seem to be my obstacle. :( DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think it's great to be a "seeker after truth", as you put it. I think the difficulty here is that the various Wikipedia policies more or less require editors to defer to what authorities say. These policies make narrating articles so as to present what one thinks is true something of a problem. I'll mention that these policies often work in favor of conservative views, and I've often implemented them that way. As to my personal motives, I'm acting here simply as an admin. The rollback button is an administrative tool, and I'm only allowed to use it to deal with issues involving Wikipedia policies, not to slant article content in my preferred way. If you think I've done otherwise when acting in an administrative capacity, you're welcome to take the matter up. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not narrate to present my personal views -- I edited to include the real views. I don't think that Wikipedia policy is against truth. It may be against unverifiable truth, but I cited my additions to the article on prophecy. Nothing I wrote was original research. Rather than paraphrase from a text, I paraphrased from a published audio/video source that professes the Orthodox Jewish approach towards prophecy. Prophecy is a Jewish invention - it is first mentioned in the Old Testament. If everything I wrote in the article is documented and cited as such, and all of the above claims I make are similarly documented, how it is a crime to edit Wikipedia in the fashion in which I did? You place a warning on my talk page! You revert the edits?! For Wikipedia and the admins representing it, truth may not be defendable, but if it's sourced, it seems to still be inferior to sourced falsehood. Wikipedia policy states that unverified material may be removed at any time. The information about prophecy in Islam is both incorrect and unsourced. That is my stance. If someone else thinks it is true, it remains unsourced, and after placing a note to editors on the talk page to that effect and with no subsequent response, I removed the material only to have you replace it. That is not working within the confines of admin duty -- is it? That is what seems to me as perpetuating a liberal agenda. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The particular reason I reverted your edits to Prophecy (see diff) is that you removed a large amount of existing material, including in particuar material on the Islamic view of prophecy which you replaced with a statement that the Islamic view is inconsistent with the Old Testament. I think we can both agree that the Orthodox Jewish view, and consistency with the Bible, are irrelevant to determining what material should appear in a section on Islamic views. I imagine we might also be able to agree that presenting general criticisms of Islam by other faiths, even if sourced, is not an encyclopedic way to present the Islamic view in a general article on a religious subject. It's been your tending to remove or alter existing material that disagrees with you, not your tendency to add material, that's been of concern. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment re Religion

Hello. Thanks for leaving a note on my Talk page. I'm afraid even now I'm not quite sure of the protocol - I've answered your question on my own Talk page, hoping that's okay. Cheers - Shrivenzale (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked:
"And what do you have to say about the Old Testament?"
I suspect some of the Old Testament - primarily Genesis, with its tales of serpents and temptation - to originate in Babylonian/Sumerian mythology. Much of the rest I think is metaphor and parable (which isn't to say that none of it's 'literally' true; but I can't know one way or the other). I don't consider it an entirely true historical account, although I recognise the actual function of mythology and acknowledge the OT as such (I'm not of the modern rather binary view that something is either literally true and thus good, or it's false and thus deceitful). - Shrivenzale (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note II

On your most recent note -- Not especially, but you do tend to edit a number of the articles on my watch list. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Notability of Hyman Goldin

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hyman Goldin, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hyman Goldin seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hyman Goldin, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Aaron soloveichik o.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aaron soloveichik o.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wise.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wise.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. BJBot (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mordechai Suchard

A tag has been placed on Mordechai Suchard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ged UK (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mordechai Suchard

I have nominated Mordechai Suchard, 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/Mordechai Suchard. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ged UK (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your post that I just saw at User talk:Ged UK: The article won't be speedy deleted, which is the good news. (I declined the request). The article is however up for deletion at the link provided above. The debate will be open for a minimum of 5 days, where the community will judge whether Rabbi Suchard merits an individual article or not. Any improvements that you can make in the next five days (especially sourcing), will greatly increase the chances that the article stays. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, DRosenbach, just a quick note - you may or not be aware, but it's generally frowned upon to ask other editors to comment on an AFD discussion if the editors were not involved in the writing of the articles. I noticed that you've recently asked a couple of editors to comment at the two AFDs, editors that I believe you feel will perhaps agree with you. Although I know your intentions are good, I wouldn't want the AFD to be skewed by a trumped up accusation of not following our canvassing guideline. I would recommend that you let the AFDs play out without "notifying" any other editors of the discussion, the debates seem to be going well at the moment. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you -- I deliberately asked them to comment without specifying any flavor for their comments, and I haven't contacted them otherwise, nor do I even know who they are. I felt that to few people commenting would play poorly against the onslaught -- but the point is well taken and I wholeheartedly accept your comment/criticism. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Rietti

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Rietti, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rietti. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? IZAK (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

31 hours ago

I dont want your whole life story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballtime (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

i find that offensive that u said i entered a boxing ring with a hand gun and shot the opponent and won. First of all i box and when u accuse a boxer of cheating its like saying ur gonna kill my family. And secondly i sell guns and i would never shot an opponent without good reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballtime (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mordechai Becher

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mordechai Becher, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Becher. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? IZAK (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello DRosenbach. I am curious as to why you chose to merge this article into Gateways prior to the termination of the discussion. Ultimately I chose to close the debate as a merge, but to go ahead and do so on your own - especially since you were a participant in the discussion - appears a little unusual. Did you have a specific reason for choosing to do this? Thanks, Shereth 16:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nafka mina

Thank you very much for your edits to this article; they were very illuminating.

However, I think we also need a short example from the Talmud itself where the phrase is used, similar to the example of "be-mai peligei" that appears in that article. Can you think of one off-hand? The challah example can then stay as an example of its extended use in modern halachic discourse. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Creation of Anim Zemirot, a page I was planning on. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please delete + move

{{help me}} Please help me move Ponevezh yeshiva to Ponevezh Yeshiva -- it's a proper noun and should be capitalized. The article already exists as a redirect, though, and I am unable to delete it. Thanx! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've completed the move, and the "yeshiva" version should now redirect to the "Yeshiva" article. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help - and the star is much appreciated. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Torah 3rd Opinion

Hi, I made a statement here: Talk:Torah#Third_3PO regarding your WP:Third Opinion, in case you miss it. Though I ought to mention it to you directly! Thanks... -Colfer2 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated at same location in response to your note. No prob, the more talk the better! -Colfer2 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, typo in you recent edit, "aslo". I don't want to get into editing there right now or I would correct it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please...

{{helpme}} The following articles are currently misentitled using a lowercase "y" for yeshiva. These schools are named after cities, and the names of the yeshivas are analgous to "Cleveland Yeshiva," which would be similarly inappropriate if named with a lowercase "y". Yehiva is utilized as a proper noun, but all of the "Yeshiva" pages for the following yeshivas currently redirect to "yeshiva" pages. Thank you: Slabodka yeshiva, Telshe yeshiva, Novardok yeshiva, Mir yeshiva (Poland), Volozhin yeshiva, Brisk yeshiva. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind words and encouragement.[1] Vassyana (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Torah intro

Hi, I'm just hoping to continue some copyedits at Torah, and I'm a bit perplexed by this sentence, I imagine it's yours since I think your version of the intro is the one that stands (sorry if I am wrong). What does this mean? "The names Five Books of Moses or Pentateuch, used here as synonyms, not as two distinct options of application, are also applied, predominantly in Christianity." Used where as synonyms? In the article? And what is meant by "options of application?" I'm not being snarky, seriously, just trying to understand the meaning so I can translate it into, you know, English.  :) But since I might not have as deep a religious or academic grasp of the subject as some of the other editors, I don't want to foul it up. Can you clarify? Thanks- Kaisershatner (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply, even though you are right, I basically edited through it before I got your answer. (I am historically a bit impatient on WP) Re: Torah/Law, did you see what I wrote at talk? It's not that I disbelieve it is commonly mistranslated, more that the citation chosen to establish this is unnecessarily critical, "forever a barrier to non-Jews," is a regrettable generalization, IMO. Maybe we can make the point without this particular author's wording? Kaisershatner (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey again. As long as we're overanalyzing, I wanted to make clear that my edit summary "probably too controversial to stand" referred to my changes, not to the characterization of the translation of Torah as Law. I see now my wording was ambiguous. Language can be a slippery thing. I still think the second half of that sentence is gratuitous and potentially offensive, but I will let it percolate a bit. For another thing, it doesn't make sense in the introduction to define what the word doesn't mean (Law) before we define what it does mean (covered liberally in the first subsection) - that's an illogical sentence order. I think my preference would be to keep the first half and cut the second half of the sentence you restored, essentially communicating "Torah has been commonly mistranslated as 'law'"(cite) and "Talmud Torah," "to study Torah," means to excel at all things (cite)," without getting into what Christians are capable or not capable of understanding. Best Kaisershatner (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in case you haven't looked it up yet, the Jewish Encyclopedia is c. 1906. You might find it of interest. Kaisershatner (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note. I included the Jewish Encyclopedia quotation over at the talk page merely because I was surprised that at the time of its writing, the article's author could assert that Pentateuch was used only in Jewish discourse, ie, the direct opposite of what some had been arguing at the talk page. It may be true that the JE had a reformist perspective, I am certainly not qualified to judge, but in my opinion, reading the articles there leaves one with the impression that the authors are well-educated and thorough (it is rife with Talmud citations). It seems to me unlikely that such an assertion about the term Pentateuch would be grossly wrong. However, I'm not really using this citation as an argument in favor of changing the article, so that at least is a moot point - I think it was already clear that the consensus and citations provided prior to mine go against "Pentateuch is a Christian term." I was just struck by the certainty of the JE article's author on this point, even if it reflects the view of the late 19th Century/English speaking/Reformers. In any case, I continue to appreciate your contributions. I am learning so much through this project. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you think you can concisely summarize the conflict you are experiencing, I would be happy to try to help figure it out. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DRosenbach/Archive_3&oldid=1190237466"