User talk:DRosenbach/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Your Message
When looking for potential Commons images, I tend to batch stuff, which is why it may appear a group of images got looked at.
I dislike deletionists, and hence the refferal of an image to PUI is usally to seek consensus on how it could be included.
The other edits, as you can probably tell relate to adding information in respect of moving images over to commons or the GFDL->CC-BY-SA migration. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
SDA
I noticed your comment. What's up? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Debridement (dental), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Debridement. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What's your data source for this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - It so other people know where to look Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Mr. M's Complete Denture1.JPG missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
File:IMG 4722.JPG missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)File:IMG 4722.JPG missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)File:IMG 4705.JPG missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Possibly unfree File:Jezz1.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jezz1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
File:IMG 4698.JPG missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)File:Packing cord.jpg missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)File:Semi-precision attachment.jpg missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Orphaned non-free media (File:Wise.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File: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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 04:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
holds
You sure about this? Does the sentence "we hold these truths to be self evident" ring a bell? ;-) -shirulashem(talk) 15:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think "maintain" is preferable in the instance used, which is not the same as the usage found in "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". I don't think it is the identical usage in the 2 instances, but I agree that the usages are similar. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ain hachi nami. (Let me know if you need a translation for that ... it's much more difficult to say that in English). I've often wondered why that particular use of the word in so much more common the yeshiva world than the secular world, so I figured I'd comment on the edit. I'm not at all saying you were wrong. Just goofing around and having a little fun. :) -shirulashem(talk) 16:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. It sort of means that I agree with the facts you've presented, but even so, I maintain my position. I guess you could translate it as "granted ..." -shirulashem(talk) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- We need an article on "Ain hachi nami." Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if Wikipedia is the right place. Maybe Wiktionary. It's just a phrase. -shirulashem(talk) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Misc Desk
Please don't use the Misc Ref Desk to editorialize (WP:RD/MISC#?) when you dislike the direction that a Desk management discussion is taking. I ask you to remove your question there as a courtesy to the other users and participants at that Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was incivil, and I'm not sure where you draw that conclusion. (Before you link to WP:AGF in a comment of yours again, I would strongly encourage you to read and understand WP:AAGF.) I think that the question was a waste of the time and resources of other volunteers, and that it had a whiff of sour grapes about it. The Desk itself isn't an appropriate place for 'insiders' to chat or bicker. If you want to have a discussion about the Ref Desk, then keep it where it belongs — on the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the question - and I demand an unconditional public apology on the RD talk page. An experienced RD'er such as yourself should be aware of how incredibly inappropriate that was. When the consensus is so clearly against you (sixteen to three by my count) - you graciously back down - you do NOT vent your disappointment by so obviously soapboxing on the public-side RD pages in clear violation of our established guidelines. I'm utterly horrified that you'd do that - and my estimation of your value to the Wikipedia RD community has dropped considerably as a result. SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was a flippant act — nothing more. I think don't make a mountain out of a molehill is in order here. Let's not get carried away with the passions of the moment. So — you disagree with the suggestion of the notion of a separate, stand-alone reference desk for religion. So what? Let us keep things in perspective. A joke was a joke. It wasn't anything more. Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Six weeks of working on the RD is hardly "new" (OK, "relatively new"...maybe). But he's also been on Wikipedia in general since mid-2005 and the general principle that discussion stays on the 'Talk:' page and DOES NOT spill over to the public-side pages is one that cannot have escaped him. Anyway - a simple "I'm sorry - I'm (relatively) new here - I didn't know there was a rule about that - I promise I won't do it again." would go a long way to smoothing ruffled feathers. But even new RD members are bound by the guidelines - and the "No soapboxing" rule. If DRosenbach is unaware of our guidelines, he'd better go read them ASAP. SteveBaker (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- August 10 to August 21 is hardly 6 weeks -- to me, that's 11 days. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 22:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Six weeks of working on the RD is hardly "new" (OK, "relatively new"...maybe). But he's also been on Wikipedia in general since mid-2005 and the general principle that discussion stays on the 'Talk:' page and DOES NOT spill over to the public-side pages is one that cannot have escaped him. Anyway - a simple "I'm sorry - I'm (relatively) new here - I didn't know there was a rule about that - I promise I won't do it again." would go a long way to smoothing ruffled feathers. But even new RD members are bound by the guidelines - and the "No soapboxing" rule. If DRosenbach is unaware of our guidelines, he'd better go read them ASAP. SteveBaker (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- SteveBaker -- You are an important person on the Science reference desk. I admire your knowledge. I really do. You seem like an exceptionally smart person. You are knowledgeable about things that I value, specifically science. I have no doubt you are knowledgeable about other things as well. But as I see this latest thing, I see you throwing your weight around. It almost seems bully-like. Bus stop (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry so late in saying welcome!
I am really glad that you added the Article rescue squadron template to your user page. I don't know if anyone ever said welcome to the squadron, if not, WELCOME!
Please take a minute to sign your name to our list of 270+ members:
Good news, we are building our first newsletter and should sent out this weekend, keep an eye out for it!
And a warm welcome to the squadron!
Hi, DRosenbach, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||||||
Re: Hey
Er, actually, I think you'll find that I was one of the users who suggested that you were canvassing.
It appeared to be a thinly veiled attempt to raise awareness to the debate. Sorry if that wasn't your intent, but the thing to remember is that even though the RefDesks are organized and presented as a discussion area, they are considered to be a reader-facing service of Wikipedia. (As opposed to discussion area like the Village Pump which is designed for editors not readers.) Reader-facing areas of Wikipedia (such as articles) should not reference internal WP things, except to warn readers that an article might have a factual problem. APL (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- APL, can I ask you why you made this edit? I'm just curious. In that edit you removed the statement of someone somewhat supportive of the notion of the creation of a free-standing Religion reference desk. [1], [2] Bus stop (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c)It's true that the distinction between "Editors" and "Readers" is arbitrary. But it's a matter of intent. An article is designed for people reading and encyclopedia. A Talk page is for people writing one. Obviously, there's nothing stopping a casual reader from reading all the talk pages and policy pages he wants if he wants a "behind the scenes" look at Wikipedia.
- To be clear, I'm not shocked and angered like Steve is. As far as I'm concerned it was a minor faux pas that stopped being an issue as soon as it was deleted. Steve puts a lot of effort into the Ref Desks, It's understandable that he gets a bit upset when people don't take it seriously.APL (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Changing minds
I have the greatest respect for Steve, and you made me laugh. Thanks, DRosenbach! // BL \\ (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Comparative religions
Yes...I know what you're going to say -- strike two! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)
| The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | |||||
Ten Commandments question
Hi. I should point out that the reference desks have a poor track record with regards to questions about judaism/muhammedism/christianity - especially in terms of difference of beliefs. I'm sorry you got more responses accusing you of bad faith rather than attempts to answer the question.
In terms of gentiles and the ten commandments:
- (note I use the term 'old testament' to refer to the books described in Old Testament)
- Christians believe jesus to be an incarnation of god - thus, for them, what he says is literally the 'word of god', and the suggestion of being a false prophet does not apply for them. In places where there are differences jesus's teachings overwrite those in what christians term the 'old testament'. Basically christians believe that the covenent god makes with the jewish people is extended (to a lesser of greater extent) to all people, this belief comes through interpretation of the words of jesus. They also believe jesus to be the 'messiah' prophecised in the old testament - this makes the old testament books important texts for christians - and goes some way to explaining why the parts containing the ten commandments are included.
- Muslims believe jesus to be a true prophet. But don't directly incorporate the ten commandments.
- Some non-christians think the laws extend to them because they live in a christian state, which has adopted those laws. Additionally they probably think it is a good set of rules anyway.
Despite similarities, christians, jews and muslims hold mutually incompatible views - thus it's impossible to create a logically consistent explanation covering all different peoples.
At the end of the day - the views of people are not always able to be transformed in to a single logically consistent viewpoint. This is the case here.
I'm not attempting to defend the christian viewpoint - it's clearly an interpretation (that wouldn't "stand up in court" so to speak) - nevertheless once people get an idea into their head, it's very difficult to remove it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
response
1. I have a permanent IP address (provided the router isn't reset) - thus you could say my handle is User:83.100.250.79 Also I actually have a user name User:happyUR - I tend not to sign in, mostly because I am too lazy to do so. I usually only use the above name when I have to, such as creating new articles etc. Also I tend to forget passwords, the above is actually my fourth account - which is another reason why I try not to get too attached to them.
2. (I'll respond to things done in the name of christianity in a separate section). There isn't an easy answer to this that satisfies all viewpoints. Christians take jesus to be an incarnation of god as a matter of faith (specifically as describe in the opening paragraph of that article), in general they don't attempt to justify this belief in any logical or scientific manner. As for the revelation of god to the jewish people on mount sinai - I am certain that christian teaching accepts this as being true, but as I mentioned before, the teachings of jesus are interpreted to extend the special relationship of god with the jewish people to now include all people.
I believe that the dogma is that although the miracle of jesus being resurrected is taken as a sign of his holyness, it is not to be interpretated as evidence of that holyness (which again is a matter of faith), and that's reinforced by the doctrine of accepting both the new and old testaments as absolute fact, rather than as a possibly inaccurate historical source.
You should be able to confirm all the above in conversation with a priest - ie that any problems with circular arguments about jesus's holyness (or otherwise) are side-stepped by assuming a priori that jesus is an incarnation of god. It is basically impossible to get a christian to move away from this a priori assumption.
b. As for the various atrocities and so on done in the name of christianity - personally I blame the roman empire which adopted christianity as a state religion, and from which all later european kingdoms derived it eg the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of France, the various kingdoms in Spain. Although there were genuinely well intentioned people in the church, the organisation was strongly tied to the state, and often would have been used simply as a flag of convenience for what ever territorial conquest the heads of state had in mind. In addition, the church acted as connecting force (similar to a loose federation) amongst european states - so even though those states in general warred with each other, when a larger threat appeared to them they would unite under a common cause (christianity) to attack other powers - usually large states in the near east.
In my view this process actually has little to do with christianity, (and is a well known source of hand wringing and moral doubt amongst many modern day christians) - I would imagine that if the romans had stuck with their pantheon of greek and phoenician gods we would now be saying "how can greek culture be described as civilised when it has led to so many wars in it's name". It's also suggested that the nature of christianity as a splinter type group from a mainstream religion actually inflamed the problem - in that its monolithic nature made it far more suitable to papal decrees calling for crusades and the like than would the much more flexible and accepting polytheistic religions it replaced.
It's possible that the same brutality would have occured anyway in the absence of a christian faith. For example look at what the romans did to Carthage.
I certainly understand your point about the "Christian viewpoint that generated and that can possibly justify hundreds of years of past atrocities against..." it's worth noting that the actual teaching is general peaceful even pacifist. Most of the worst actions done in the name of christianity are due to papal bulls (also List of papal bulls) I'm sorry don't have background to fully answer that question - however I would suggest two lines of enquiry:
1. Analysis of the papacy as inheritors of the leadership of the roman empire - with individual european states representing a sort of union or federation (that often fought amongst themselves), replacing the roman provinces that preceded them.
2. Consideration of christianity as a splinter religion, and the propensity of non-mainstream (and non-native) splinter groups to be susceptible to extremism and excess, specifically being separated from it's natural jewish background (A bit like a teenage party at someone else's house where everything gets trashed - hope that analogy makes sense)
So I'm suggesting a combination of two factors - one - christiantity as a flag of convenience for political acts, and - two - it's natural susceptability to having it's true nature perverted, being an adopted religion.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also
Don't give up on the humanties desk, there are some very good helpers there, especially for history type questions. Unfortunately the desk does have a very poor record in dealing with potentially contentious cross religion issues (when the religion is abrahamic), in my opinion some editors 'knee-jerk' into interpreting questions in the worst possible light.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Luther
Thanks for that link - I read with some amusement that Luther's change of heart towards the jews seems to have coincided with "..an epic bout of diarrhea brought on by his consumption of Kosher food". It's amazing the grudges some people will bear ;)
- 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey DRosenbach, I hope you're well. I've tried to write more detail for you. I hope this helps. Just get back to me if I've not managed to explain myself properly. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Pi
I see the discussion in the forum where you posted this was quiet for more than 24 hours before I posted this, so I'm putting it here too. See:
- Computing π
- Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula
- Numerical approximations of π
- Chronology of computation of π
- Leibniz formula for pi
- Liu Hui's π algorithm
- Proof that π is irrational
- Proof that π is transcendental
- Gauss–Legendre algorithm
- Software for calculating π
- Viète's formula
- Wallis product
- Borwein's algorithm
- List of topics related to π
Michael Hardy (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi 83.... again, your last question
After some thought I have to admit I don't yet have an answer. However I can tell you I primarily know about the basics of christianity due to living in a christian centred country, lessons in religious education at school etc..
Best Wishes.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I didn't think my biography would be that interesting! My name's Jon, I live in Hull (UK).83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hull
I wish it were, the avon is a lovely river, suitable for boating and picnics, the river hull is a muddy brackish tidal river, with a visibility of nil (it looks like hot chocolate naturally, without any added pollution) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
more I don't really do much - that is to say I haven't got a job, and don't have much luck trying to get one. In fact my life lacks a lot of 'concrete' stuff like that - which is sort of why I don't say much on my user page. You could say it is an accurate description of me in that respect ?!83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Shalom
Dear DRosenbach, I hope you didn't take it bad my recent comment here. Sorry for the sharp form of my post, but the point is that the RefDesk is not the place for such claims of faith (of any faith). As to the claim about Revelation, the usual argument that "3M people witnessed God speak to them" , or that "it is reported in a text inspired by God", of course is not an evidence in support of the claim, but is part of the claim itself: a claim with no scientific evidence. On the other hand, from a religious point of view, one doesn't need any scientific evidence at all. Note that I've always aknowledged the right of everybody of having religious feelings. But having a faith, do not allow you to make other people aknowledge as true what you feel true. You certainly know how hideous the Chistian church has been through centuries under this respect; and of course they were convinced to be right, and that they were even following God's will: for instance, after Agostinus, they interpreted the parable of the Great Banquet (Lc 14:15-24) as God's justification to forcing people to convert. Wouldn't it be better if everybody recalled to precede any religious statement with the obvious "I personally believe, and as human being could be wrong, that &c.." (that God did this/ that he allowed me that/ that he wants us to do that/ that one must behave this way / that this is a sin, according to God's sensibility, or God's standards of decency, &c.).
Checking your preceeding posts, I see that you have a kind of mixed attitude in these topics: there is interesting doctrinal information from you, and here and there there's a kind of disposition to start religious quarrels (Jesus revelation is of lower quality than Moses's; the Ten Commandments are copyright material and gentiles should not be entitled to follow them,...). C'mon, don't you find it is a bit childish? Excuse me if you feel offended; as I told you I really do not mean to. I am sure that you will grow up in your faith and reach a mature and tolerant position, as several wonderful religious persons of your faith that I had the chance of meeting.--pma (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
movies
Two movies I found enlightening:
- The Architecture of Doom
- Power of One
However, in my neighborhood street gangs are also aware of the Power of One and like high school kids that "gang" intimidate everyone.
71.100.5.63 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Notability
Dale, you can't use google hits that direct to Wikipedia or to social networking sites as any kind of notability badge. Your comment that you are "finally the first (as well as the second to tenth) Google hit for" your own name is a self-fulfilling prophecy. ~~Dr Dec (Talk)~~ 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- While Dr Dec of course is right in that google hits to Wikipedia by themselves do not make you a notable person, they sure are a good argument for editing using your full name, if notability is what you want to achieve. Not very long ago, User:SteveBaker, who is a prolific editor, especially at the science desk, told us that his numerous (and always well-informed) edits had been noticed, and had impressed, his future employer. --NorwegianBlue talk 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am indeed familiar with Steve and second your nomination! And along the same lines, I've included my wiki account name on my CV while applying for perio programs and even got into substantial discussions about it with some directors. I say we be friends from now on, fellow Python. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Friendship
Friendship very much appreciated. Regarding usernames, I realize that I'm not practicing what I preach, editing under my obscure, pythonesque username. The reason is that I come from a small country, and already hold a senior position, and need to protect my privacy. My real-world name is as far as I know world-wide unique. My primary reason for engaging in Wikipedia, is that it is a weird blend of worldwide anarchy and democracy that actually works (well, a benevolent dictatorship really, but as long as the dictator is benevolent...). What this project has achieved in very few years is absolutely astounding. I've followed your posts on the refdesks the last couple of months, and have noticed that you have been able to keep cool, and continue a thread when respondents have been less than courteous. Impressive. Happy editing. --NorwegianBlue talk 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you could take a look at what I am saying here, and check to see if what I am saying is correct. I think it is. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:FurcationInvolvement.JPG
A tag has been placed on File:FurcationInvolvement.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Rrburke(talk) 02:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
interruption
This is not the place to argue the Israel-Palestine conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. However you have interrupted my suggestion to move to email so I will post it here.
- Not reference to user name, but to sir name. However, this discussion should continue by other medium than the reference desk, perhaps by email. Muslim communities exist peacefully in the US and do not seek dominance by force of other religious communities due to separation of church and state and a more powerful and dominant state which tolerates various religious belief but not all religious practice. China has found a way to allow the existence of Capitalism in a Communist state. To permit peace in the region and worldwide will require a balance that only statehood for Palestine can provide in the presence of statehood for Israel. The sane world recognizes this. Both the House of Peace and the House of the Sword recognize this. Israel can give up statehood to separate church and state or acknowledge statehood for Palestine to achieve peace. Otherwise Israel risks becoming the victim of the House of the Sword with much of the rest of the world in tow. Be reasonable. You can not have your cake and eat it too. 71.100.5.245 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.5.245 (talk)
- I don't know if it's that English is not your first language or something else, but I find your syntax largely wobbly and uneven -- you jump from point to point without any direct flow.
- I am familiar with American Muslims who are surprisingly completely unfamiliar with anything I've written about. Much like assimilated Jews, assimilated Muslims apparently lack both a connection to traditional Islamic teachings and a drive to fulfill their unknown fanatic teachings. This explains your reported discrepancies. Israel risks relatively nothing by defending itself, because in absence of said defense, it will be devastatingly eliminated. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) My English is a form of "approach" language. "Approach" language is a language used with strangers in lieu of an establish form of mutual communication which minimizes misunderstandings. Language translators may call it something different. They use is to transition between intended meaning of clients so as to minimize confrontation, etc. It is what one would expect to be used with any first contact with alien persons or creatures and is currently used with sea mammals of rare contact. More to the discussion... Do a keyword search on "rules" in the language of your choice and you will see the same fear of Jewish dominance as a goal if not an order from God in Genesis. Israel has the right to defend itself, no question. But I ask why abuse this right by failing to acknowledge the right of the Palestinian people to have statehood as well? I say better statehood for the Palestinian people than random acts of violence against targets all over the world? You know, some people believe that Hitler was an agent of the Jews intent on destroying Germany and the German people at any expense including Jews. What you and Israel need to realize is that in the presence of defense or not Israel will be physically destroyed if even a single Jew places him or herself above the rights of any other person regardless of race, religion or creed. History has proven this to be the case, time and time again. Even though intellectually Jews may be heads above they can not treat other people like they are anything other than equal. If I beat my dog soon I will not be able to share the same space with him without his being securely tied. He will be a threat to everyone except those who give him kindness and he learns to trust. Perhaps the Muslims will not include dirty nukes to prevent the remains of Israel from being habitable. We are still surveying Chernobyl to see how much damage was done. I say forge a new future and let the past be the past or Israel my render itself incapable of self defense against the entire world. When your body grows old so will your ability to remember and I hope it will not be too late then. You and Israel must not treat the Palestinians and others as dogs but as equals even if they are not or they will surely win. 71.100.5.245 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is no halachic directive to dominate the world, in direct contrast to Islam, which does possess a directive to dominate the world. Judaism may have some directives which either fall or may be interpreted to fall within a similar realm, such as the directive to be an or la'goyim (a "light unto the nations," i.e. spreading monotheism) or the destruction of all members of the nation of Amalek. But as the former is a peaceful endeavor and the latter is all but antiquated in function, Judaism is no threat, and fears are unfounded. Your premise that statehood will quench the Arab destructive desire is flawed. Muslims seek to dominate, and they will not rest until reaching their goal. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) My English is a form of "approach" language. "Approach" language is a language used with strangers in lieu of an establish form of mutual communication which minimizes misunderstandings. Language translators may call it something different. They use is to transition between intended meaning of clients so as to minimize confrontation, etc. It is what one would expect to be used with any first contact with alien persons or creatures and is currently used with sea mammals of rare contact. More to the discussion... Do a keyword search on "rules" in the language of your choice and you will see the same fear of Jewish dominance as a goal if not an order from God in Genesis. Israel has the right to defend itself, no question. But I ask why abuse this right by failing to acknowledge the right of the Palestinian people to have statehood as well? I say better statehood for the Palestinian people than random acts of violence against targets all over the world? You know, some people believe that Hitler was an agent of the Jews intent on destroying Germany and the German people at any expense including Jews. What you and Israel need to realize is that in the presence of defense or not Israel will be physically destroyed if even a single Jew places him or herself above the rights of any other person regardless of race, religion or creed. History has proven this to be the case, time and time again. Even though intellectually Jews may be heads above they can not treat other people like they are anything other than equal. If I beat my dog soon I will not be able to share the same space with him without his being securely tied. He will be a threat to everyone except those who give him kindness and he learns to trust. Perhaps the Muslims will not include dirty nukes to prevent the remains of Israel from being habitable. We are still surveying Chernobyl to see how much damage was done. I say forge a new future and let the past be the past or Israel my render itself incapable of self defense against the entire world. When your body grows old so will your ability to remember and I hope it will not be too late then. You and Israel must not treat the Palestinians and others as dogs but as equals even if they are not or they will surely win. 71.100.5.245 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
shoulders
I gave a bit more detail for you at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Shoulder_problems. -- Flyguy649 talk 02:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of We Have a Strong Desire
The article We Have a Strong Desire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not pass notability for songs.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joe407 (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.
|
The Refdesk barnstar
Your answer was exactly what I needed, you deserve this. ♠The Ace of Spades(talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hi
Thanks for the welcome. Idaho | 51 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be able to edit a lot for a while--I have a lot of work to do. sorry Idaho | 51 01:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could I bother you to check to see if this edit is completely correct? Anything additional you would add? Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let me ask you another question, or for your input on something else. Could you look at this? I am relying on the information that a source provides, which states that a reason is provided by the Torah for a law concerning kashrus. More to the point, I am accepting at face value that source's contention that this is the only instance in which the Torah provides a reason for a halacha concerning kashrus. An argument is obviously being made (by other editors) that there exists another example of a reason given for a kashrut halacha. But interestingly, they have not found what I consider a good source to support their contention. Any thoughts?
- Oh, by the way, I'm referring to this edit:
- "In the instance of the prohibition on the consumption of blood the Torah does specify a reason, in fact it is the only dietary prohibition for which a reason is specified in the Torah: one is enjoined from eating blood because the soul of the animal is contained within the blood. This only applies to the blood of birds and mammals; it does not apply to the blood of fish.[1]"
- The above is my edit. And my source for it is found here. These are the words that I find there to support my edit:
- "The Torah prohibits consumption of blood. Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14. This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah: we do not eat blood because the life of the animal (literally, the soul of the animal) is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals."
- The disagreement boils down to the words, "This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah." I am certain that I have a reliable source for that. I am certain that the above source would be considered reliable. First of all, am I wrong? Second of all, do you know of a reliable source to prove that I (and my source) are incorrect?
- I'm sorry to impose on you. If you get a chance, and you can look into it, I'ld appreciate it. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Blood
OK. Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate your taking the time to evaluate this. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Prayer in Hebrew
I made an edit. I believe it to be correct. Could you check the information I am asserting in that edit, and tell me if it is incorrect, or not quite correct? The edit is found here. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding leaving it alone
DRosenbach, I'm sorry to have tried to drag you into this. It was inconsiderate of me, because there is danger in these discussions. Danger of ostracism.
You make a good point. Or rather Rabbi Becher makes a good point. The conversations get pretty frustrating and as I say dangerous here under Wikipedia rules of engagement.
I recognize that there are no branches of Judaism. I have contradicted my own understanding of Judaism lately in discussions wherein I have referred to "the Orthodox" or "the Reform."
I totally 100% assert that "pluralism is a falsehood." I have contradicted myself on this too. I have simply made compromises in my own thinking, or at least my writing, in order to engage in dialogue in which there appears to be a large support on Wikipedia for the notion that Judaism breaks down into discrete groups. It would almost be an interesting point to make somewhere, supported by sources, that Judaism is not recognized in some quarters as consisting of subgroups reflecting levels of observance, which if we are honest about it, is that it is all about. Orthodox-Conservative-Reform-Humanistic really represents a sliding scale of observance. But I'd better not say that anywhere but on a User Talk page.
It is also an absolute quagmire to write about anything because of the constant need to back-step and sidestep to include all possible "views," and even the "views" of one "branch" subdivide into two camps, all the while uttering the absurd sort of statements as, "according to Orthodox Judaism." And then I am told that "some" Conservative Jews require that wine be kosher and other Conservative Jews do not. Why don't the Conservative subdivide into "Conservative Kosher Winos" and "Conservative Non-Kosher Winos?" (Just kidding)
I thank you for the Rabbi Becher story. That is good. I have listened to a lot of his audio recordings, available online, and he is very interesting. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you. Wondering if you could look at this. It is being considered for deletion. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Ivanka Trump
Hi. What is your source that R Hershel Shachter was on the beis din for Ivanka Trump's gerus? -- Zsero (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure it wasn't Rabbi Herschel Schacter instead? -- Zsero (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I just had a question about this article whisch you created. The text in the article seems to say his name was David rather than Dovid. Should it be moved, or is it correctly placed? Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Your post on eugenics on the hum refernce desk
Originaly I replyed on the refernce desk but then decided that it would fit more here-so here are the posts again.
Air of superiority??Where did you get it from? Sorry DRosenbach, but you already read enough of my posts to understand that my wording and my English as a whole are influent. It's not that I meant to imply you are not aware to the TS or that I didn't notice you mention it first. My entire comment is not about you but about your arguments on Dor Yesharim. Even so, accussing me for arrogance is offensing and far-reaching.--Gilisa (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have read my comment again DRosenbach, and I think that you realy took it too far and that your post is no less than tongue-lashing, there is nothing in my cooment that can make your accustions just. Even so, I prefer to assume misunderstanidng-something you could do yourself.--Gilisa (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? ---kilbad (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for the feedback about the above, brought a smile to my face that someone out there appreciates the work! I cut-and-pasted a few sections from the other periodontal disease wikipedia pages, in particular the signs and symptoms section, as there was no point duplicating the work, I'd rather spend the time getting Cochrane review references. There is still a way to go on the article: I think it needs some "quality" ie grotty mouth clinical photos, a BW serial radiography picture demonstrating horizontal bone loss over a period of years and the worldwide incidence, prevalence and morbidity statistics. Feel free to pitch in if you can! I want to get it up to GA or even FA status if I can: I spend my life treating perio patients so it matters to me!
Incidentally the clinical microbiology link at the end of the further reading section is the single best perio article I have ever read; I reckon that could cover most theoretical-type questions in a perio residency, it may help you out, it certainly opened my eyes to the microbiology side of life!
Wishing you happy dentistry and good health for both you and your patients, Ashley Payne (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't add links to other editors' posts on the RefDesk
Hi DRosenbach, just wanted to appeal to you, after this edit, not to add links to other editors' posts. It seems clear that your edit was done in good faith, but the rationale for this rule is provided in the Don't edit others' questions or answers section of the RefDesk guidelines, specifically: "Don't add wikilinks to a question or the title; it may unduly suggest to others that the questioner was aware of the Wikipedia articles. Instead, if relevant, just include these links in your response." I hope you can see why this is important: on the RefDesk (and in Talk space), people sign their edits, so the content should be their own (saying you edited theirs does not get around this rule). You can always add content that you sign yourself. Cheers! -- Scray (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at this page with a weird post/dowel drill: looks like a bad idea, no? Ashley Payne (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Drosenbach, I am writing to say thank you for your opinion about this post. Special Regards,--Ali nankali (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Drosenbach, I considered the wikipedia as encyclopaedia available on the Web and we are speaking only about an existing object. All articles related to this post are peer viewed and published in respected journals but in Russian language for both endodontics, prosthodontics. The work is already done and it is finished therefore nothing to promote. Anybody can check the work with the Scientific Board of the National Medical University where the work approved by 13 professors including endodontists and prosthodontists. I appreciate your enthusiasm for improving the wikipedia as a professional; therefore, you need to do what supposed to do. And thank you for coming back to me. Special Regards, Ali--Ali nankali (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- But if no one uses it and no one cares because it's all a big joke, it's not very notable at all. There's probably not a lot of hurdles to having something you wrote being published in a Ukrainian dental journal -- much like there's nothing special about having an article published in a US state Journal of the Academy of General Dentistry. It's basically self promotion for whomever bothered to send in an article. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Holiday
Hi, on a lighter side than most of your discussions. I capitalized two of your changes, they are "proper" names of the festivities, so 'Strength' etc. would be upper-case. Although the article is about a secular event, I couldn't help but smile at the photo. Left it and reduced it a bit, but at some point it should be pulled by someone. Couldn't bring myself to do it now though. That's unless it catches on as a tradition. . .! lol. Good to meet you, Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:PRdentallogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:PRdentallogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Video
Thanks! The video is the best thing I've watched in months. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Q
I'm tired, and probably being stupid, but don't understand. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Richard Feynman?
Hey D I was just reading up on Richard Feynman (i don't know how to spell it) I just wanted to tell you that I think he made an autobiography and he talks about when he worked on the bomb and how he used to pick locks. its really cool you should check it out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idaho51 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Blivet
I just looked at the other names given on the link you gave and put them into search. Simply south (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Hot Chanie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sasank Sleeper (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Hot Chanie
I have nominated Hot Chanie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Chanie. 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yossiea (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Getty Garden.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Getty Garden.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Possibly unfree File:Oralcandi.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oralcandi.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
AfD nomination of The Presidents (song)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Presidents (song). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Presidents (song). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you...
...for the compliment. That was a nice counterpoint to that one user (Belchman or some such) who claimed I don't answer questions and just chit-chat. He's partially right, and mostly wrong. Lately, at least, I've tried to confine responses to questions I have some clue about. Anything to do with words and word origins, especially. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
...for the award, DRosenbach. You were right about "controllable" as ambiguous, so I felt uneasy changing your edit. Now I am relieved you liked the change. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated in the award justification, your modification was able to beautifully capture the critical intent of my edit while providing for brevity and ease of reading -- and in a single word, no less (umm...no more? :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Tone
Your aggressive tone is uncalled for and undermines your comments. --Dweller (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- On reflection, I think I was wrong to say the above and apologise. I'll blame it on being tired, unwell and a little grumpy, but really and truly it's no excuse. Please excuse me. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Reply at RD
Hey, I think I might have answered your question here, but take it with a pinch of salt. Not entirely sure if it's the correct answer you're looking for. Cheers! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 11:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)