Archives

1 (Jun-Jul '07) 2 (Jul- '07)

Based on the apparent consensus at WP:AN#Community ban review for user:Bus stop, the community seems to be willing to give you another chance. As a previously uninvolved admin, I'll take the chance of unblocking you. Contingent upon a full apology to the community, you are on at least six months of general probation, during which your behavior will be under scrutiny by User:Durova. During that time you are not to be involved with any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. Please construe this quite broadly, and steer well clear of any articles having to do with this topic. You are unblocked on the expectation that User:Durova will be actively mentoring you. If you have any questions about what you can/cannot do under the terms of your probation, please refer them to her first. So, to sum up:

• You are on general probation for six months. This applies to all articles and pages on Wikipedia. Any problematic behavior will result in a new block, no exceptions.
• You may not edit any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. This should be construed broadly. Should you try to WP:GAME the edges of this ban, you will be blocked again.
• You are to be mentored by User:Durova. If you follow her directions, I foresee no reason why you should not become a stand-up member of the community. Any sign of you not following her directions during your mentorship will result in a block.
• One of your very first edits should be a section on this page, or your user page, consisting of a genuine apology for your previous actions. This will go a long way towards convincing the community of your good faith.

I sincerely hope that you will become a productive member of the community again. I don't like blocking productive users, but I will not hesitate to reinstate your block should any misbehavior arise. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bus stop. Dweller wasn't able to mentor and some of the community wanted a mentor to step forward. If you have someone else in mind who's willing I'll be glad to hand this off to them. Otherwise, wishing you a successful return. Let's mend fences. Best, Durova^Charge! 16:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Durova. I appreciate your help in getting my account unblocked. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the return is successful... you have much to offer the community if only you can stay away from controversy.

I'll come back here and post a link you may or may not find useful to read through, of dialogue between myself and another user I successfully mentored back to being a user in good standing.

Good luck. --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Quite a lot isn't relevant to you, but I think you might find it instructive to read. --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dweller. I appreciate your expressed sentiments. That is kind of you. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To fellow editors

I note that an apology is stipulated, as an unblock condition. I wish to make this statement voluntarily.

I certainly apologize sincerely and wholeheartedly for the very improper language I used towards Durova. What I did reflects poorly on me. Durova's easy and quick acceptance of my apology reflects very well on her, in my humble opinion. I think I can say with confidence that this will never happen again.

I take seriously my wrongheadedness not only in the words I used, but that I could mistake that which is counterproductive for that which is productive. I recognize that I have also gone about various matters in the wrong way previously, and have caused frustration because of this. I apologise to those whose time has been taken up by it.

It is my intention to contribute responsibly and sincerely to Wikipedia, to reach understandings and compromises, and to do whatever else it takes to write a good online encyclopedia. This of course especially refers to those I may disagree with.

Of course I will stay away from the articles and general topics as suggested, for the next 6 months, and I accept mentorship from Durova. I trust that Durova will advise me if my editing in any way goes astray. It is my sincerest intention to work with others, not against others. To err is human, so if I go off course, please let me know.

I don't want any more drama, and would like to simply get back to editing.

Thanks to all.

Bus stop

Do your best...it's good to see you back again...Modernist (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Modernist. See you amidst the paintings and sculptures and various conceptual entities. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it might be worth, and that probably isn't much, I'm happy to see your return as well. Based on the comments of others, you have been a very productive editor in fields about which I personally know little if anything, art and the like, and it's good to see valuable contributors there. Regarding religious/ethnic questions, none of us necessarily know everything, me particularly, and input is always welcome there as well. A recent injury has severely limited my activity of late (not that big a loss, of course), but if by chance you should see any obvious errors or misrepresentations in articles relating to those subjects, feel free to email me or leave me a message and I'll see what can be done, although under the circumstances it might take a while to respond. Good to see you back. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John Carter. I look forward to working well together. I wish you speedy recovery on the medical front. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to say, in light of our last telephone discussion - I'm STUNNED (but happy none the less) to witness the Wikipedia Revival of "Bus Stop". Why - oh, why - oh, why - would you ever want to return to this wicked place after the way you were treated? I hope you realize that the nasty little pack who relentlessly wiki-stalked and provoked you are waiting with baited breath to renew their campaign of harassment against you. I see it didn't take a NY minute for a certain party to leave a phoney baloney message on your talk page - lest you somehow "forget" that he's still there - watching you - waiting - itching to twist your words, push your buttons and trump up some kind of complaint against you.

You know, it all makes me wonder.... What type of person inspires such feelings of hatred and anger that someone would attack them - hitting them in the head with a baseball bat? Was this a random attack? Considering the character, in question, I somehow doubt it. He claims his COMPUTER was stolen. If the attacker wasn't sending him a message - perhaps, the universe was. It's a pity you're "friend" apparently still hasn't "gotten" the message that he needs to stop using the Internet, and Wikipedia, more specifically, to harass people. Be careful, where he is concerned.

Drop me an e-mail sometime. I'd love to hear from you. I'm not editing from this account much anymore. If you ever need help, just edit the "BLB" article - it's on my watchlist. You can always find me that way. If I see you make an edit there - I'll know what to do. Best of luck to you, friend!

Hugs, Kisses & a good bottle of Merlot....Cleo123 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cleo. I'm uncorking that merlot now. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I've deleted it as a recreation of the article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Mondro. Ty 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to you too. I hope all continues to go well. Ty 14:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be doing fine, but touching bases now and then can be a good thing. My user talk and email are available, as you know. Saw that one post you made and withdrew a few weeks back. Here's hoping all remains well, and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying hello. Everything is going alright. It's good to be back editing Wiki. I realized that the edits I made were over a minor issue; that's why I deleted them. Thank you again for the various steps you've taken to allow me to edit again. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look notable to me per WP:N or WP:BIO, but not a speedy candidate. Prod, and, failing that, AfD. Ty 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bus stop, thanks for stopping by. I checked the link you mentioned regarding Talk:Jew, but did not find it as vandalism. I've moved the post to the bottom of the page however, as new posts should start at the bottom. Let me know what was your concern with the edits. Jay (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand by "someone forgot us" is that the editor could be talking on behalf of the Swiss Jews. In any case, it is a talk page and you can ask what the editor actually meant. What matters is if the statistics the editor has provided is verifiable and will be useful to the article. It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards ... (see WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments). Jay (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are probably right. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted the vandalism. Thanks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for my assistance too, but by the time I got there it had already been reverted by Malik: thanks. As I am not an administrator, there is nothing beyond this that I can do; but I do invariably revert such nonsense when I see it, and I regularly check "related changes" to my home page to see what has been happening to articles I have been editing. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Tubes of paint, artist's paint PNG.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. It can be deleted. I rather take a better picture anyway. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if anyone else wants to, that would be great too. It's not rocket science. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		It's been a pleasure to see your return. Here's marking three productive months and wishing you many more. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 17:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Durova. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tubes of paint, artist's paint PNG.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is replace the existing {{di-no license...}} tag with the {{GFDL-self}} tag. If I were allowed I'd do it for you I would but I'm not "you". I like the image and it is quite suitable for the article. You can always replace it later but I'd suggest keeping it (for now anyway). Cheers, -hydnjo talk 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've gone and done it! I've pretended to be you by adding {{GFDL-self}} to the image page (and deleted the other thingy). Hoping that that doesn't make me pass Go and go directly to Jail. Oh well, its for a good cause (I think). I love finding excuses to say that that  :-) hydnjo talk 01:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted. I've had another go.[1] Ty 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself. I misread BS's instructions... Ty 04:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, apparently some of us like your image ;-) -hydnjo talk 22:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mixed paint.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bus stop. You have new messages at J.delanoy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 21:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this edit. Thanks for your contributions at the WP:RD :-) -hydnjo (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on the Mondrian page regarding my correct change of date and your incorrect "correction." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.169.83 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry. I really didn't know. I thought it was vandalism. My mistake. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added to your comment on User talk:J.delanoy. Have a nice day. --Sky Attacker (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Interesting. I haven't looked at what's in that toolbar in a long time. It looks like there are a lot of useful things in there. There ought to be a box for thinking outside of the box. I could use that one. Thanks again! Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Bus stop's Day! For your excellent RefDesk contributions, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Bus stop! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

--Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 23:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulataions, man. You've earned it. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start a new section on the talk page and begin by explaining the problem as you perceive it, without your proposed remedy(ies). Keep it simple and short. See if there's consensus that there's actually a problem and if it begins to emerge then start on the solutions. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not a major one. I feel inspired by correct nomenclature. That is a worthy aim in and of itself. I did not notice that some categories of questions were filed under headings that incorrectly identified them. Someone else noticed that. But I noticed the argument concerning that, and to me it seemed very clear -- go with correct subject names. I saw, and I see, no great drawback to increasing the number of areas within the larger reference desk area. But as the number of sub areas increases, I think it can have the effect of making it more difficult for a newcomer to post a question. That is why (one reason) I have agued for putting the sub areas in the background, almost as an afterthought. I really do not want to hinder ready access to the reference desks to anyone. In a funny way all of these things seem densely intertwined. I can understand why no one wants to adopt any changes. First of all the problems are not glaring ones. Secondly the solutions are more design solutions than anything of a more radical nature. Just because one or two people have a vision is no reason why everyone else should come on board. I just thought I'd throw my ideas out there. Maybe eventually some other people will make suggestions that incorporate some of these ideas. But I don't really want to argue for my grand scheme. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offence was meant, but the grammar of a double negative following a negative and a positive was challenging. In any case I have moved the link to the external links section as You Tube is not considered a reliable source to support text. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. They are often removed by bots as copyright is difficult for videos.--Sabrebd (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what happened to your question on the RD, but you might want to scan this. -- kainaw™ 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bus stop, I just realized that it's been well over 6 months since you were unblocked, and you seem to have done quite well, so I think I'm safe in telling you that I'm lifting the restrictions that were placed on you before. I hope you can avoid any trouble in the future. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Aervanath. Thank you also to many other members of the community who have shown good will and support. I appreciate it. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done really well. You and User:TreasuryTag are two examples of how editors can be immensely productive and valuable after a troubled start. It's all down to your attitude, which has been spot-on. I'm tremendously impressed. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Dweller. I appreciate your support. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why, but you haven't seemed to have put the three awards you've got on this page onto your main user page, like most people do. Unfortunately, as your page gets archived, they might not appear on the talk page anymore, so people who don't know you won't see how highly regarded by others you are. And, no, I didn't miscount. This is the third:

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		I myself don't spend a lot of time at the Reference Desks, but I see the amazing amount of work you do there. It's hard enough for some of us to even write stuff in articles about things we already know about, let alone find answers to questions from others about any number of things. Thanks for everything you've done for the project and for those whose questions you've helped answer. John Carter (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I appreciate the sentiments. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see things are going so well for you! Cleo123 (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the truth gets more fictionalized all the time. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion as you know there are certain topics that are best left alone...Modernist (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Dylan's apparent conversion possibly being a false one might be notable. Personally, I don't know enough about him to have an opinion one way or another. But if it is, it might be best to try to raise it at a location where more people not particularly interested in the subject might see it, like, maybe, WP:POVN. Alternately, if you believe that the article as it stands is biased, maybe requesting a featured article review at WP:FAR might be the best way to go. But I do have to think that trying to add to the article itself, without prior discussion on the talk page, might not be a path down the safest of all possible roads. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm getting bogged down in anything. I found these sources. They seem to support non-conversion, for Dylan. So, I am stating it. The information is out there. If consensus is to run and hide, so be it. As a Wikipedian, I can't see suppressing information. I'm all about sharing information, or at least I try to be. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're just lookin' out for you...Modernist (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the word “ethnically” from the phrase “ethnically Jewish” in the lead, with the comment, “revert; do you have a source for "ethnically Jewish" for Einstein?” What is it you want sourced: the fact that his family was of Jewish ancestry or the fact that he was not religious? —teb728 t c 08:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that the phrase “ethnically Jewish” was added to the lead as a compromise consensus after long discussion. The goal of the consensus was to mention his Jewish background very briefly without giving the false impression that he was religious. Before the compromise the lead did not mention his Jewishness. Your change breaks that compromise. As you can see on the talk page, there is already considerable opposition to mentioning his Jewishness there. Notice that the next edit after your revert was to remove it. —teb728 t c 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hear ya. Maybe mention of "Jewishness" shouldn't be in the top portion of the article. Maybe it should be beneath the table of contents. I don't want to get into it, but Jewish is a religion. It includes observant and nonobservant Jews. And all points in between. Sometimes you can split hairs to a degree that you lose sight of the larger, and simpler, picture. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks for defusing the situation at village pump. My own tone came across as more aggressive that I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry I did that. Tell you the truth, even though it's a conversation worth having, the jury is still out as to whether this particular thread will not get derailed into the realm of speculation by ... one of its three current contributors.  :)

Peace. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you. It has been interesting so far. What you said was perfectly appropriate, because it was getting a little contentious, and I guess I was contributing to its contentiousness. Nothing out of the ordinary — par for the course. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, but I'm cool -- I'm not against a suggestion that I made. I'm the one under attack here, and perhaps your mountain/molehill analogy would be more apropos for those who would like to see me blocked from RD edits. Thanks for your moral support, though. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		In appreciation of our personal Détente, both general and specific. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you fixed my mess on the RefDesk talk page. Thanks. That's, like, the third or fourth time I've done that. I feel like a jerk each time. I'm not sure why I didn't get an e/c warning.

So, thanks for fixing it quickly. APL (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion on the RD talk page, I thought to pop over and read your user page and talk page. After reading this talk page, my opinion of you went from "just another RD guy" to "a great RD guy." I'm assuming you are rather young (at least younger than I am). However, you are obviously wise beyond your years. You may have heard it enough already, but I thought another compliment wouldn't hurt. -- kainaw™ 21:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, kainaw. That's kindness to excess. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just trolling dude. Vespine (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've crossed through my probably improper comment. I apologize to you and others. It was improper of me to butt in that way. Bus stop (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed the title of a question from "Question" to "Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Hacking, legality, private_website". I agree that the title needed to be changed to be more clear and applaud you for doing so. However, it's a good idea to leave the original name of the question, as the original poster may search for that term. Therefore, something like "Question (Hacking, legality, private_website)" solves both problems. StuRat (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, OK, I will keep that in mind. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the revert. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for starting the article. I did some work on it, adding references and a list of artists. One thing that I thought it could use was more specificity about the sorts of art produced - for instance I found info about tiles produced by Joyce Kozloff but it could use references to other artists' works. Thanks,--Larrybob (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope to get back to it. I hope you and others flesh it out. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bus stop, was looking into something that might fall within your area of interest. Would you check out this proposal? Several months ago I restored the photograph and nominated it for featured picture; it nearly passed. Recently another editor has identified the synagogue. There isn't any article yet for that synagogue. If there were it would enhance the encyclopedic value of the image. Am working on a re-edit of the image. Would you perhaps be interested in helping to start an article for it? Best regards, Durova³¹⁸ 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, Thank you for asking. The photograph is great. I like the expressions on the people's faces. But a quick search turns up little on the synagogue. This is the best name and address I can get for it: "Congregation Emunath Israel" "236 W 23rd St, New York, NY, 10011 " I'll keep on looking, but I am not sure there is enough for an article. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concept of dual-covenant theology comes from the modernist branch of Judaism ... at least that's the impression I get from reading about interfaith conferences where prominent liberal rabbis participate. The traditional Christian concept of dual-covenant refers to converted Jews and converted Gentiles, so it doesn't necessarily include non-converted Jews or non-converted Gentiles. The essential point that Paul is making in the New Testament is that the Church forms one people, which can include people of many cultural or ethnic backgrounds. ADM (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed un-sourced material. Bring a source or please leave it out. I believe it is misinformation. Please don't foist it on the reader. Wikipedia uses sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting source here that talks about a 19th century rabbi who used similar terminology to what is now known as dual-covenant theology. Incidentally, the article is written with the help of Leon Klenicki, a noted liberal rabbi who contributed significantly to interfaith relations between Christians and Jews. [2] ADM (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on the article's Talk page about the term "assimilated Jew".

The OR is in the final sentences you added: "These are all normal and standard terms of description for Jews who are not particularly religious. All have slightly different meaning, but they are somewhat similar." — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary would provide each term's definition. These terms are hardly a mystery to anyone. These are commonly used terms.

As far as "assimilated" is concerned, your comment on the Talk page as well as Benjil's comment on the Talk page both convey the notion of a term that suggests a movement away from religious observance, which is consistent, I think, with my comment that the terms have "slightly different meaning, but they are somewhat similar." I can only assume you feel "assimilated" suggests too little movement in the direction away from strict religious observance to warrant being grouped with the others. Benjil merely says that "assimilated" is usually used in the context of marriage.

Of course these terms are not identical. But I think they are all useful terms for expressing degrees and shades of nonobservance. It probably would not have occurred to me to collect these terms together were it not for the article's insistence on the use of only one term — ethnic Jew — to designate Jews who are not particularly religiously observant. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For superlative talk page lurking, and for being a good sport about the subject. :) Durova319 02:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Durova. Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw the discussion on the talk page of the above article. I don't know a bloody thing about what y'all are talking about there, so should probably stay out of it, but if there is any topic which might be really relevant to the ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard, this might be it. And it might be possible that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups might have some useful input as well, although I'm not really sure how active that project is. But, if the discussion continues very long, it might be useful to have some editors who deal primarily with the general ethnicity topic involved as well as what might be called "ethnic" Jews, whatever that means. And, to echo Durova above, thanks for the continuing good work. I wish I could get some of the editors involved in some of the more contested new religious movements to live up to the standard of conduct you're setting. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BusS, I took part in the discussion on "Who is a Jew" Talk page and I took the side of ThuranX becuase I don't think that "Ethnicall Jew" is flawed or incorrect term. I also don't think that your own research on the use of this term in wide media can support your position. However, I'm willing to changh my mind if you explain exactly what you think to be wrong in this term aside for its not being widely used.--Gilisa (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to this article when some more people contribute activity to it. I don't want to make it seem that the article has to reflect my ideas. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bus, It's fine that the article will reflect your idea if it's right idea, I'm really willing to hear. Best

--Gilisa (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		For an exemplary communication at 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC). Ty 10:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tyrenius. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please have a look at my edit comments here, here and here? Thanks and cheers. DVdm (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All assertions are taken from the same reference: "Einstein and religion: physics and theology," by Max Jammer. The various assertions I make are separated by no more than a few sentences in that source. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put the page right then? Your reference goes to page 42. The quoted sentence is not there. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. The references span about six pages in that book. I think it is correctly linked now. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I had stopped searching too soon. I have "fancified" the refs a bit. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my post? The concept I posted needs to be explored scientifically. By deleting it in a knee-jerk reaction, you close the doors to this scientific discussion. --98.236.11.20 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem to need the exploration that you say it needed, but go ahead and reinstate it. I will refrain this time from reverting. Perhaps others will find merit where I didn't. Bus stop (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned already in her early life section.--Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks, Gilisa. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You welcome!--Gilisa (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't sEem to know that ALL people came from Africa (original home of s sapiens) and THEN turned white. So why doesn't this happn. It is a serious question u can elaborate on it if u want I'm typig from a mobile phone, that's why thr phrasing is terse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.217 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this inquiry because I felt it was not a serious inquiry. But if I'm mistaken please your question back. I apologize for the inconvenience I've caused you. Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though you may well be acting in good faith, only one of two things can be true here. 1) You have no real idea what antisemitism is or 2) for lulz or other reasons, you wish to see antisemitic posts on talk pages. If the answer is 1) please don't edit in areas relating to that subject. If 2)... well, I prefer not to contemplate that eventuality. Really, please do not feed this troll. IronDuke 03:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Feeding," in this instance, would involve engaging potentially objectionable topics in discussion. I did not do that. My dialogue was concerned with identities based on varying IP addresses. It was off-topic. It wasn't "feeding." Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for not restoring the post -- and that's what I meant by "feeding," in this instance, replacing the anon's post. Though the anon did a very nice job of slapping a patina of reasonableness on his remarks, they were flat out antisemitic. I don't mean that they flirted with crossing the line, or that they set off alarm bells, I mean that they were virulently antisemitic. And I should make clear: I am not now nor have I called this user an antisemite; I would have no way of knowing that. Though unlikely, this could well be a misguided user conducting a breaching experiment. The motives for this user do not interest me. IronDuke 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bus stop. Does this one go up the hill to enlightenment? I'll have a ticket for one please. I refer you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke#Despatch_for_the_self-appointed_Wikipedia_censor It appears that the poster above's modus operandi is deleting what doesn't fit on his 4:3 horizon. I leave it to you to make your own conclusions. Thanks --86.180.47.30 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bus Stop, I have left a message for Sir Myles indicating that his criticisms are harsh and constructive. With his criticisms in mind, I am esxaming how to move certain aspects of my contribution to other, perhaps more relevant, Wiki entries. In the same vein, I am also going to correct wome of Sir Myles' editorial criticisms - he's correct to point them out.

As you can see from the change log, I am presently iterating through the sections, updating Jewish tribes of Arabia so that I can excise the details about these tribes from Jewish Philosophy.

Is that what you meant by iterative? Your comments are welcomed. Jimharlow99 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep on taking down my addition to the Yeshivish Jews post. I am new to wiki but I think the addition of the subcategory of "Harry" is warrented. I would provide references but unfortunaltey I have not yet leanred how. If you like a cursory search on google for "Yeshivish Harry" will provide several references for this phenomenon. I would like to discuss this further, as this section certainly warrents inclusion in the general article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcashmoney (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I was unfamiliar with it. But a source is necessary for including material in articles. Please try looking into information found here and here. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for gettting back to me. For now I have reinstated my changed but I will try to learn how to post references ASAP. Many of the minutia in this category, as in common in many small social phenomena, are difficult to document as they are often known only to true insiders. I have provided what I feel is a true reflection and description of the community. So long as wiki is willing to dedicate a page to "Yeshivish Jews", I think it is neccesary to include both its "Noteable members" and sociological byproducts (i.e. Harry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcashmoney (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably soon revert your most recent edit. Those are assertions that are unsourced. Consider looking over this. I don't know where you are finding the material that you are putting into the article. Also, please continue this discussion on the Yeshivish Jews Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let this discussion continure here where others who share our particular interest in writing the the Yeshivish Jews article are more likely to find this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bus Stop! I very much appreciate your help with the Yeshivish Jews article, especially the way you dealt with that somewhat persistant new editor. The article, though far from complete or encyclopedic, has a special place in my heart because it was one of my first articles I significantly contributed to. I had a few things I wanted to ask you though. First, the lead sentence, which was admittedly somewhat convoluted, was an attempt to portray the Yeshivish phenomenon as something somewhat more complex than just describing an alumnus of a Yeshiva. As it stands currently, it seems that once someone attends a Yeshiva, he is labeled Yeshivish; that is simply not the case, at least not in the most common sense of the word. Additionally, women can be described as yeshivish, as can families, communities, etc... even though it isn't the prior attendence of a Yeshiva that is being described. Also, the word "ideology" was the closest I could find to describe that there is a common range of Hashkafa among Yeshivish Jews. I am not changing it back now, but I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter, and if you have any other suggested wording. Thanks. Keyed In (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I think you have greatly improved the lead to better encompass the various aspects of Yeshivish. It is clearly a difficult subject to describe, but I think it's getting there. I also like your choice of worldview/ideology, because I think it really is a bit of both.

My only question is the sentence which now reads "Additionally, many Yeshivish Jews do not attend secular colleges for unmarried men," which you probably intended to say "Additionally, many Yeshivish men do not attend secular colleges." But are you opposed to saying that there is somewhat of an opposition to the whole college idea? I know that it isn't necessarily unanimous, but I think it should be mentioned.

Thanks again for all of your improvements. I very much value your opinion on this subject. Keyed In (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also what do you think about User:Dcashmoney's section "Notable Members of the Yeshivish Community"? I think it is difficult to point to any limited number of notable figures...what do you think? Keyed In (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie -- I did this. You can build on that, depending on how detailed you'd like to go, but that seems like an extremely reliable site. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, I'd like to note that it's not only fish blood that is permissible, but insect blood (of the kosher insects) as well -- this is not just a goofy point; it is explicitly mentioned along with fish blood in the Mishnah as the blood of the seven liquids that make food items susceptible to impurity.

And is blood the only non-kosher food item whose reason for being forbidden is mentioned in the Torah? I assume you refer to the Written Torah, and not the Oral Torah. I do not think so, nor do I think such a distinction is perhaps even worthy of mention. All non-kosher land and sea animals are explicitly excluded because they lack the requisite signs, either cloven hooves/rumination or fins/scales. In Lev 19:7, pigul is said to be prohibited because it is rejected. Creeping creatures are prohibited in Lev 11:42, because they are an abomination. While one can argue that these explanations are ambiguous in their meaning, one can say with equivalent incredulity that "souls are contained in blood" is just as, if not more so, ambiguous. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop -- I was embroiled in an argument a month or so ago on the ref desk regarding religion (Jewish view on Christianity, to be specific). I ended up in a big mess with a bunch of editors (SteveBaker, APL, etc.) and I stepped away just in time to save myself from being completely ostracized by the ref desk sub-community of Wikipedia. I figured that it was more important to me to have that specific cohort value my opinion and welcome me in discussion than to have my question answered. I didn't intend to troll or to upset anyone, but it seems apparent (couched phrase -- it's probably a fundamental property of beliefs, in general) that person A takes tremendous offense to person B speaking about a conviction of theirs in relative terms. So for me, as a Jew, to speak of Christianity as though it's completely false and inviting others to provide sources and evidence for it -- that really ticks people off. It happens, though, that I did receive what I thought was a [[User_talk:DRosenbach/Archive_7#Ten_Commandments_question calm, collected response from an individual on my talk-page]. It's often difficult for people to respond calmly and with objectivity when they are in a public forum, and I think that had something to do with it.

It seems as though you are embroiled -- not in anything specific, because I see all of what you are doing in a single, panoramic-sort of perspective -- in a general issue of what is most likely a product of a numerous things which make Wikipedia great for certain things but not for other things -- these things relate to Judaism in specific:

• Judaism has a concept of shivim panim latorah -- there are "seventy faces of Torah," in that there are many, many different ways to explain things, and no interpretation is incorrect, assuming all interpretations follow the rules of interpretation provided by the Torah itself.
• Wikipedia policy is that articles need not necessarily represent truth, just verifiability.

These two things are at tremendous opposition to one another, and I'll explain why. Rabbi Mordechai Becher of Gateways (who is a personal mentor of mine, in some respect) tells a great story of how a Conservative rabbi approached him at a rabbis meeting once with a real desire to understand why his view -- the Conservative view -- cannot be acceptable to an Orthodox Jew who necessarily subscribes to the idea of shivim panim latorah. Rabbi Becher responded with the following example:

Two champion boxers meet at a tournament in Vegas with much anticipation among the fans as to the outcome of such a match-up. The two boxers enter the ring, and after circling for some time and a few punches thrown, one of the boxers draws out a knife and stabs his opponent in the right chest. With the impaled knife remaining in his chest, the other boxer falls to the ground, while the first boxer lifts his arms, demanding cheers from the crowd. "I won -- he's down and he ain't coming up!" shouts the boxer who brandished the knife.

Why doesn't the crowd cheer? How come this boxer doesn't get the ridiculous gold belt, and why is he arrested shortly thereafter? Because, in boxing, the boxers agree to rules of engagement. Much like in any argument or dispute, the arguers or disputers need to agree on a heck of a lot more than they disagree on -- for starters, they need to agree on what can and cannot be used as ammunition. So, Rabbi Becher explained to this Conservative rabbi, Orthodox Judaism rejects arguments brought by the Conservative movement because the Conservative movement essentially cheats. When two rabbis, like Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and the Chazon Ish argue on the nature or the prohibition of using electricity on shabbat, they need to first agree that:

1. There is a God
2. That God revealed himself to man
3. That, in revealing himself to man, God made his will known to man
4. That man was given the Torah
5. That the Torah commands man
6. That one of these commandments is to keep the Sabbath
7. That the Sabbath includes 39 categories of forbidden activities
8. etc.

The list goes on and on and on and on and on...and it's really only at the very end that they come up with opposing views (the former asserts that electricity is rabbinically forbidden, while the latter holds that it is biblically prohibited). Important for my point to you is that they must both agree on which sources one may utilize. They both agree that only Torah sources can be used, including and pretty much limited to the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, the rabbinic commentaries, including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam + Ramban, etc., the Shulchan Aruch, etc. I mean, you get my point, I hope. If the Chazon Ish would quote Richard Feynman, who is says was involved in an argument with some yeshiva boys on an airplane once about the nature of electricity, it is as if the Chazon Ish pulled out a knife at a boxing match. He automatically loses the argument, because he breached the boundaries of legitimate source material.

When people write things on Wikipedia, all they need to do is quote from a notable and verifiable source. OK, so no blogs and no MySpace. But pretty much anything else is allowed. That certainly doesn't hold water in Judaism, but Wikipedia is not Judaism. It doesn't claim to be.

I began on Wikipedia in the hopes of dedicating myself to advancing Judaism-related articles. That hope died away quickly. I learned the hard way that the majority of Wikipedia users editing Judaism-related articles were not playing by the rules outlined above by Rabbi Becher. Not playing by Rabbi Becher's rules may be their prerogative from a politically correct, pluralistic view of the world, but certainly not from Judaism's perspective. Almost each editor brings a knife to the boxing match, and there is nothing I can do about it, because the referee at the match is just as surprised as the knife-wielding opponent that I have any problem whatsoever with this new way of boxing.

Now, I do not know you -- I do not even pretend to know you. You may consider yourself as part of one "denomination" or "branch" of Judaism or no branch -- I cannot know, because I do not know you. But I am not here to judge you. But Judaism as it has been practiced since it's establishment by national revelation at Sinai asserts that there are no branches of Judaism. Pluralism is a falsehood and there cannot be different strokes for different folks when it comes to adherence to law as dictated by God or the sages within whom he has provided the power to mandate rabbinic regulations in order to protect the biblical laws. You or others may contest this -- I cannot stop you or others from thinking what you may, and as you can probably attest to yourself, such people are quite the majority here on Wikipedia. So I edit and start articles relating to Judaism that have very little meaning or relevance to the non-observant or liberal minded Jew. But long ago I decided that I'd stick with dentistry, which is much less controversial. I think it might be time you do the same -- you will not be able to win when other editors bring knives to your boxing match.

Again, if I've offended you, it was unintentional. I mean no insult to you or your faith, whatever it is. I am not judging you -- that is God's job, not mine. I am here in this world to promote unity and truth and peace, but I thought you could benefit from the analogies and stories above because it seems to me that you are in the same predicament that I once was. We can speak more about this if you'd like -- you know how to contact me. But if I were you, I'd stick to the ref desk, where your witty comments and side remarks inevitably make me smile if not giggle and you are thought of, at least as far as I can see, as an integral and important part of the question-answering machine that is the ref desk. But when others are permitted to quote anything as a source and utilize ingenuine source material that is held to the same level of authoritativeness as the Mishna, your only hope of winning an argument is if there is no argument because you are writing about something like the chumrah of the Ohr Zarua regarding keeping an additional period of onah prior to the half day already kept by a woman expecting her period -- I mean, something that is really sooooo foreign to anyone who does not maintain only the highest respect for Torah-true Judaism that how would they argue? Why would they argue? They have absolutely no clue what you are talking about! Or like my article on toch k'dei dibur -- it's not like I'm asserting that driving is not allowed on shabbat, and someone who drives is coming to demand I respect their POV and add that it's merely an Orthodox perspective of sabbath observance that prohibits driving.

OK -- I've written a megillah here. I hope what I've written helps you a bit, serves as a source of direction change for you, and serves to protect you from future battles you will not win -- you cannot win. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this as my saying I won't help you if you insist on helping out on Jewish-related topics. I'm just in a bit of a rush now to get ready for shabbat, so I'll respond to your prayer in Hebrew issue when I can. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- perhaps something like this would work for Marx. Follow the wiki-linked asterisk following her religious affiliation as listed in her upper right disaply box. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you (in a now-deleted message here on your talk page) to stop harrassing Jayjg, specifically on his talk page.

You did stop that, but this morning made this comment on Talk:Judaism.

That comment is over the line on our policy against personal attacks. In combination with your previous behavior, you're pushing way past what is acceptable user conduct in discussions with other users here.

We know you are frustrated with Jayjg. Wikipedia requires that all users, at all times, treat each other with respect and in civil, adult terms. This shows up in WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS. This applies even (and especially) when you are extremely frustrated with other users.

Please keep content disputes focused on content. If you believe Jayjg's violated policy ask for help on ANI again. If you continue to launch attacks such as those of the last couple of days, you will violate policy to the extent of being subject to being blocked to stop it. I hope that you can stop pushing it and refocus on the article content.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert -- OK, I have taken your advice. I am trying to proceed cautiously, with propriety. Thank you for posting this here. I would appreciate it if you would keep me posted if anything untoward on my part comes to your attention. I'm trying to do this the Wikipedia way. Even after several years I don't think I quite have the hang of it. Thank you again. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an outstanding reponse by a party in a heated situation. Good luck resolving the differences. Focusing on the issues, rather than the parties involved, will be key to emerging with consensus. Well done. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Collect#Mediation_on_Judaism Debresser (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, is there some reason you are posting this here? It is very nice that you are giving a barnstar to Collect. But why am I being notified? Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, the surrounding context had to do with some hypothetical enhanced eavesdropping capabilities against (in this case) Muslims, and, perhaps, some concern that this might not be appreciated by those eavesdropped upon. To say "Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear" is to say, "you don't have to worry about us eavesdropping on you if you have nothing to hide (and you don't have anything to hide, do you?)". If I were the hypothetical eavesdroppee, and the person making the comment were serious, I'd be quite offended. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is no secret that there is a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan. The OP needed to be made to understand that the fanciful language used was outside of permitted reference desk parameters. There is a problem that should be addressed before persecuting one regular reference desk editor. That problem is the issue of how to respond to postings that seem problematic. My initial suggestion is a few back and forth questions to establish what wants answering, and whether a given scope of question can be addressed. That is the first and most important order of business, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I hope this year is happy, healthy and successful for you, as we start this new decade..here is an old favorite of mine - [3]...Modernist (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And from me too. Ty. Ty 02:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with an infinite universe? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see on your user page that you're a painter. If you have any abstract paintings relating to subjects I write about like Kitchen cabinet or Handyman or Allegheny College or Citizenship in the United States or Criticism of American foreign policy, please let me know if they're on Wikimedia, I'd like to put your artwork in my articles. I'm trying to get people to read my articles but often they're kind of boring, and visually appealing images adds a lot. I put Modernist's Gauguin in Philosophy of Spinoza. I admire creative people. I've tried to be creative but I really don't quite have it. What is your philosophy of painting? I've done Julian Hatton and Maeve Harris but I'm looking for more artists to write about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]