User talk:AnonMoos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former talk archived to User talk:AnonMoos/Archive1, by popular request. AnonMoos 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FNORD
Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up!24.176.20.60 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Petrus Alfonsi
The Petrus article seems more comprehensive and includes everything from the Peter one, as far as I can tell. Suppose we just used that one, and copied the list of works from the Peter article to a new "works" section in the petrus one? If that makes sense... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
 |
The article Arabs and antisemitism, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. |
[edit] CB Edits
I know, but you gotta admit that first sentence just ran on and on with 3 changes of subject. Now that sentence about pre-20th Century CBs sounds like a non-sequitur, which I think it is in the opening paragraph. --zabadoh 17:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mona Baker
The Mona Baker case isn't as straightforward as some make it out to be. There are more details in this article: Academic boycotts of Israel. --70.51.230.180 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tetragrammaton
Can you cite that? I've never heard that in my life and I doubt any of the multiple people who worked on the article have heard that either, and they understand Hebrew better than I do. One can argue "Elohim" might be plural, but "Adonai" is not. Remember, no original research. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I said this before and I'll say it again: No original research. If every other Hebrew speaker in the world understands that "Adonai" is either singular or does not fit anywhere into the conjugation system at all, under Wikipedia policies, you are incorrect. Whether you are actually wrong or not is irrelevant--You're writing your own original research into the wiki which violates policy. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In Reply....
Actually, I was upset with the phrase "Open Sesame," so I changed it to "Open Says Me" and left the Popeye-style parsing as you call it in parentheses for those who aren't intelligent enough to know the difference. But thanks again for your misguided assumption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisabee729 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Regarding Ruth
I acknowledge that Ruth is not counted as a saint by the Catholic Church according to the listing I have just searched, which somewhat surprises me, as I am a Catholic and have noted how many other Old Testament personalities are. However, I do note that as included in the article now Ruth is included in at least one calendar of saints. I'm going through the calendars of saints one by one, so I don't yet know how many others she might be on. So, on that basis, I can't answer your question as to how often she is called a saint, because I haven't checked all the calendars yet. Also, like with all the other articles being put in the Saints project, Book of Ruth is going to be added to the project watchlist, so that the rest of the members of the project can also monitor it for changes, vandalism, and what not, as well as, at least potentially, help improve it. Based on the article's talk page, it's the only project so far that can say that. That actually surprises me, because I thought that the Bible project might have already marked it, but evidently they haven't. You are free to remove the banner if you see fit, however. John Carter 16:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- There isn't a single list that I know of to refer to, as the different churches all use their own liturgical calendars. I initially created the Category:Old Testament saints in what I now know was the mistaken idea that most or all of the individuals who are regarded as saints by the Christian churches from the so-called Old Testament would be basically fairly universally included in the calendars of all the Christian churches who keep calendars of saints. I was more than a little surprised to find that the Catholics don't regard Ruth as a saint. She is listed in the Calendar of Saints (Lutheran), which was my basis for including her in that category of individuals from the Old Testament considered saints by the Christian churches. As I don't yet know her status in any of the Orthodox or other churches, I think it might be more than reasonable to change the category, in this case, to Category:Lutheran saints, and maybe later change it to something else if and when I find that she is included in other lists as well. Please let me know what you think of the idea. Sorry for any unnecessary confusion and extra effort this has caused you. John Carter 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Test pages
You know if you want to create a test page all you need to do is create a sub-page on your user page, like this: User:AnonMoos/test_page. It may be easier than using your main user page as a test page. There are also sandboxes available. Bytebear 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tangent on language
| gd-0 | Bha Gàidhlig aig seaneairean agus seanmhairean agam. |
Thanks for your note on date formats on the Regnans in Excelsis talk page. Seeing your interest in language, I thought you'd enjoy this userbox from my talk page. The translation: "My grandfathers and grandmothers could speak Gaelic." —OtherDave 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Female wartime crossdresser category
The transsexual and transgender people category is not only for transsexuals, but also for transgender people, who by definition subvert the rules of gender representation, which all these women did. It is essentially an umbrella category for people who were transexual OR transgendered. I personally think that the transgender people and behavior category is poorly named, but I have added it for the sake of inclusiveness. Asarelah 02:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chai
Am Yisirael Chai has been a long time rallying cry as well as a Jewish song. I have edited the article to reflect this (removing the word "ancient"). As for the "Black Hebrews", I could not verify "kai" was their spelling for ??, so I removed it. And even if it was, it shouldn't be included. They are a tiny (hate filled) group with a non-standard transliteration. Epson291 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, and your nonsense about the verb stuff makes no sense. The translation could also be "The people of Israel are still living" it is just a translation. And Israel refers to the Jewish people. (The word Jew just comes from Judea) Epson291 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC) And its not a slogan, thats not the correct term at all. Epson291 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I've seen you've made several edits to the page, I'm not (trying to) attack the work you've done on the page. Epson291 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have readded some of what I orinally wrote on your talk page, you removed it, please do not do it again. I have responded at talk:chai (symbol) as I feel it isn't going to be resolved here in addition to you editing my comments out. Epson291 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zanj
I hear you and Hal are fighting over what the Zanj were. Here's a quote from another article that Hal says is ignorant but I want a second opinion:
According to J. Phillipe Rushton, Arab relations with blacks whom the Muslims had dealt as slave traders for over 1000 years could be summed up as follows:
“ Although the Koran stated that there were no superior and inferior races and therefore no bar to racial intermarriage, in practice this pious doctrine was disregarded. Arabs did not want their daughters to marry even hybridized blacks. The Ethiopians were the most respected, the "Zanj" (Bantu and other Negroid tribes from East and West Africa south of the Sahara) the least respected, with Nubians occupying an intermediate position[1] ”
Judging from the above quote, Zanj seems to mean unhybridized black person or negroid. So the Nubians and Ethiopians were not considered zanj because they were very much hybridized with the Arabs and/or had much exposure to Arab culture.
According to Cavalli-Sforza:
The mixed genetic makeup and use of Afro-Asiatic languages reflect the history of the Ethiopians, who for a long time had close contacts with the Arabs. In and around the earliest Christian times, there was an empire that took in both regions. Its capital was first at Saba (Sheba) in Arabia and later at Axum, in Africa. According to Ethiopian tradition, Makeda, the Queen of Sheba, visited King Solomon and had by him a son, Menelek, founder of the Ethiopian dynasty, which has only recently been overthrown. The Bible tells of these events.[2]
[edit] 8.3
Indeed it is, but I do it with the idea that a person will either understand why I added it or ask me why, in most cases it's obvious the article needs it. In this case it a combination of the overly long intro (especially for the article size) and the odd bolding at the start of directory table. Vicarious 09:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I have added your references where they belong
Pls look at the reference i have added, you can decide to continue adding your reference or start a war. end the war, and leave well be alone. do not delete other editors tags or references, do not add or. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Leave it alone please, i have shown u a jesture of good will and added your ref to the other article, end the war. Notice i have made an extensive contribution to ethnic groups in Africa, it is an area i know very well.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 11:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unity Church
A denomination of 2 million is significant. Granted, I'm biased because I'm one of the 2 million, but it's also the only major Western Christian denomination to embrace mysticism. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The real test is, is the Unity Church more important than the Nestorian churches in the global history of Christianity over the last 2,000 years (not just the English speaking world over the last 200 years)? AnonMoos 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)"
- I would say "yes". After all, Jehovah's Witnesses are listed, and they have 6 million. Is 6 million the cutoff? --Scottandrewhutchins 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It has as much right to be there as JW, and it's not taking up additional space since it's on the same line. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unity exists all over the world, and its radio, television, and priont publications increase its awareness. When you cite the time factor, it dates back to the nineteenth century, as do Chrisitan Science, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It has as much right to be there as JW, and it's not taking up additional space since it's on the same line. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would say "yes". After all, Jehovah's Witnesses are listed, and they have 6 million. Is 6 million the cutoff? --Scottandrewhutchins 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding edits to Trefoil knot
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, AnonMoos! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule videophysics\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chai (symbol)
Just wanted to let you know that I had volunteered to mediate this case, but I wanted to find out first if there is still an issue that requires resolution, since the case is kind of old. Cheers - RJASE1 Talk 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now that both parties have agreed to mediation, I've started the discussion here, at least for now. Cheers - RJASE1 Talk 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten the Chai (symbol) case. Just have been a little busy. I will get the RfC drafted on Saturday or Sunday. RJASE1 Talk 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Piran Bay
Hi. Ok, I found some time to explain further why the image needs to be corrected. Please, don't refer to my argumentation as stupid since there are some good reasons and I am not sure if you are fully familiar with the situation. The thing is that the border is not defined, neither on the sea nor on the land. Prior to 1991, Slovenia exercised a full jurisdiction over the whole Bay and the official standpoint of the government is that the border is according to status in 1991. Croatian claim is according to traditional principles but that doesn't mean that it has a better background to claim the territory. Untill the border is not agreed by both sides, saying claimed by one of the countries is therefore POV. So, my suggestion would be (as I see that you are the author of the map):
- If the map illustrates Drnovšek-Račan agreement, the claimed by area should be marked as Slovenian, since this is what the agreement says. And the map can omit the central line.
- If the map just shows the Piran Bay, name the area as disputed territory and omit the corridor, since there is no corridor. So, Italian waters, Slovenian waters, Croatian waters, international waters and disputed area.
- Perhapes the best solution would be to have 3 maps in the article, one with Slovenian and one with Croatia view and one with a compromise solution (but corrected as mentioned in the first paragraph).
I hope you see my point now. Well, personally, this border dispute has been in our media far too long and I am really fed up with it since the only thing it does is it worsens the relations between the two countries. Best regards. --Tone 12:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that an image is badly needed. However, the present image does not correspond to the caption. By the Drnovšek-Račan agreement, the disputed area belongs to Slovenia and should be marked as such. So, as I said before already, possible changes are either to correct the map so it will correspond to the agreement or to put there a map without the corridor, as the corridor is something "invented" by the agreement. So, if the map shows just the geography, name the area as disputed territory and omit the corridor, since there is no corridor. So, Italian waters, Slovenian waters, Croatian waters, international waters and disputed area. I am trying to be objective but I realize it is sometimes hard. So, what do you think about modifying the map? --Tone 16:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure, there is no major problem, it's only my opinion that modifying the captions would be more appropriate. Perhapes we should leave it for a while or ask a third party. --Tone 10:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok, concrete suggestion. Put: Slovenian waters, according to the agreement (or a shorter formulation maybe...). Or, without the corridor and marked Disputed area (and the text below the image without mentioning the agreement.) What do you think? --Tone 10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] the J in Jehoshaphat
Anon, you never did answer my question about where the J came from in other Hebrew names which contain Gods name, Names such as Jehoshaphat. If through the course of time the name meaning "YHWH is salvation" came to be pronounced as "Jehoshaphat" then that is enough evidence of how the tetragrammaton may be pronounced as "Jehovah". since it is a simple matter of pronunciation ie. Michael is Migel, Paul is Pablo, John is Juan (you follow?) then there can be no arguement against pronouncing the name as Jehovah. But to say one is wrong for doing so,is wrong.(I personally believe that opposition to pronouncing Gods name in any of it's various forms is opposition to people calling on the name of God, which is...we don't need to go there,right? I would not fight against pronouncing Gods name.) I don't dispute your knowledge of language. Please though,leave your personal opinions out of your editing and let the articles be edited objectively by others, then you will be better off. You tend to use words like "most" and "the Majority of" instead of "Many" which seems to be supporting your own view that your beliefs are correct,you yourself being in the majority. How many mondern linguists are there? where are the stats? the interviews? have all modern linguists taken a poll on this? where is the evidence that most of these educated people are saying this? if this information is not available then it is only your opinion saying that most of the modern scholars blah,blah,blah. And your points on my talk page about your anonymous name and such, you kinda lost me "dude" Kljenni 16:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I told you how the name Jehovah came into being Kljenni 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Indiana 8.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indiana 8.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chai
Find a reference for you claim it is spelt kai by the "Black Hebrews", I cannot, or I will remove it. I have asked you before.Epson291 05:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Yeshu" vs. "Yeshua" [of Nazareth]
Greetings, AnonMoos! I've added a few more questions about your response to this query on the Humanities Reference Desk, April 20 (3.12). Would appreciate if you'd answer there. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Further: I've amended my response there to clarify that it was based strictly on contemporary usage. Please note that it might have been instructive in yours, had you linked to the pages on Yeshua and Yeshu—the existence of which I only discovered afterwards. -- Deborahjay 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] okay, so,
Explain to me quickly why this is "obvious vandalism" and I should not block you for WP:3RR. Go ahead and reply here. ··coelacan 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The article Rafida has been protected due to edit warring. However if you suspect the user was a sockpuppet and should be blocked please let me know, so that the article is not unnecessarily locked. – Riana ऋ 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tetragrammaton again
There's another proposal at Talk:Tetragrammaton to move all the content about Jehovah from that article and Yahweh to its own article. Given your past interest, you may want to comment. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Piran Bay image
Hi! I'd just like to ask you to change the name of Capodistria on your map to Koper, to keep it in accordance with Wikipedia's naming. edolen1 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR noticeboard
3RR case for you is closed as no violation, as reversion of sockpuppets vandalism is protected as an exemption from the 3RR. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png
Good point. I suppose it wouldn't be of much use to English-language projects like Wiktionary, Wikiversity, or WikiSource either. I suppose I was going through my edit history and sorting images into those that were empty descriptions pages for Commons images and those that were under the right license for Commons, but without paying enough attention. Sorry about the oversight. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Thanks for visiting my talk page. I replied there. Geometry guy 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Elohim
Please provide source(s) for that claim. Also, please sign your comments. Perspicacite 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pluralis maiestatis would be Latin, not Biblical Hebrew and it's majestatis not maiestatis. It's great that you have ascertained the extent of my knowledge regarding other languages, but in order to back up your claim please provide sources. Perspicacite 00:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
From The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions by Brandon Toropov and Luke Buckles, page 369[1]:
"Despite the –im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God, is grammatically singular, regularly taking singular predicate forms in the Hebrew Bible. The word elohim likely had an origin in a plural grammatical form, because, when the Hebrew Bible uses elohim not in reference to God, it takes plural forms (e.g. Exodus 20:3). Some scholars interpret the –im ending as an expression of majesty (pluralis majestatis) or excellence (pluralis excellentiae), expressing high dignity or greatness: compare with the similar use of plurals of ba’al (master) and adon (lord)."
Farther down that same page we have an extended explanation of what I added to the Islam section: "The singular, Eloah, is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in Job, 41 times). The same divine name is found in Arabic (ilah) and Aramaic (elah)."
Funny how religious scholars agree with my "nonsense." Perspicacite 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your recent addition of Documentary Hypothesis to the article Elohim is possibly warranted, however I note that the article Documentary Hypothesis itself, as are most of the academic commentators, fail to acknowledge that the entire premise of the Wellhausen proposal is based on the simple assumption that a God can not be known by different names at the same time. Given that Moses was known by more then four names, this also not being mentioned in the article on Moses, it seems that the entire hypothesis is questionable on logical grounds.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wingdings
If it did receive a great deal of media attention (which would need a verifiable source), then perhaps a brief mention in the introduction is worthwhile (maybe something along the lines of "The typeface gained considerable media attention following the September 11, 2001 attacks when numerous apocryphal stories arose alleging that certain combinations of characters would produce apparently portentous series of glyphs."). However, since the string "Q33" is not in any way related to the attacks, I feel that it is not worth including a full section on it. That said, if a verifiable source can be found for the claim that Microsoft altered the typeface (such that "NYC" can be read as "I love New York") then this may also be worth including. As it was, the section was not encyclopaedic. I hope my reasoning behind the removal is now clearer? Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I did read it. At least one third of that which I deleted was related to 9/11. The rest was equally worthy of deletion. However, as I have already stated that I will not 'interfere' any more, and as you seem to have some particularly strong desire for that section to remain (meaning that my messages have been rather more pleasant than yours, IMO) I think this correspondence can be considered closed. I'd also note that I wouldn't support your claim that the majority of 'non-type-geeks' wouldn't have heard of it otherwise. It was reasonably well known for reasons other than that: primarily that it's a daft typeface. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Masih edit
My apologies for that incorrect edit. I'll update the Typo list later today to ignore Masih. Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gorean article links
My apologies for the intial short answer, twas late here and did think that directing you to the guidelines would be sufficient. However, as the guidelines can be TL;DR I'll reproduce two of the guidelines which I think warrant the removal of that link
from WP:EL
2 - Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". - note that last bit - "unverifiable research"
11 - Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
it may not be a blog (mind you, all these sorts of pages look the same to me!) but it is someones personal page.
Hope this helps! --The internet is serious business 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
p.s. so we can avoid a possible edit war why don't we both look for better links? after all, what is wikipedia if we don't help each other to contribute? Hit me up at my talk page (I promise a better answer this time!)The internet is serious business 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit Summary on Arab
Can you please clarify your statement on my talk page that "The term "Semitic peoples" is acceptable to be included in the article, but the term "Semite" itself is not acceptable when referring to a modern context (as opposed to ancient history)..." What is calling someone a "Semite" a problem? Thank you. --Lanternix 16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re
Yeah, sorry about that. There's quite a few instances of that and I usually pick up on them, my attention must have wandered. —Xezbeth 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amazons
Please read the National Geographic's research carefully as it states clearly "Blonde Amazon Warrior Women"
- User:Turquoiseeyes 19
- 36, July 4, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Elise_Sutton_FemDom_Loving_Female_Authority-bookcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Elise_Sutton_FemDom_Loving_Female_Authority-bookcover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of circle topics
Dude! Read the edit prior to my first edit of that page. Your statement is erroneous. I simply reworded the list introduction to reflect what was and is. The textual introduction was false. If you feel so inclined, it would be appropriate to extract all mathematical items and create a new list rather than delete wisdom and work won through diligence.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Friendly advice from an outsider
I don't know what your dispute is about nor on which side of it I am, but I do notice it's got a bit too heated at points. Just hold your right arm over your left and say to yourself "Calm, calm, calm" (works for me). Sam Blacketer 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PR on Community sanction noticeboard
considering this response (see edit summary) you've received from said user, you might be interested in presenting some information into this noticeboard case. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flag of the United States
Thanks for removing that anachronistic Malaysia reference. I'd removed it earlier, but decided not to get in an edit war with someone who insisted on keeping it there. Glad to see it gone! :) Popkultur 18:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PNG transparency Javascript "fix" option?
How do I turn off the PNG transparency Javascript code, which I strongly suspect is contributing to slower loading of pages with inline images, and significantly increasing the frequency of browser crashes on my system? I'm currently using "Classic" skin. I was told that you might know something about this. Thanks. AnonMoos 05:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Currently, the only way to solve the decreased speed issue (short of upgrading hardware) is to either upgrade to Internet Explorer version 7 or use a different browser such as Mozilla Firefox. Both of these are free downloads. If the new code is actually making your browser crash then I suspect there is something wrong with your computer because no one else has reported increased browser crashes as a direct result of the JavaScript workaround. However, on pages with a large number of PNG images, the workaround may cause your browser to temporarily freeze while the JavaScript code is working.
- Please let me know if this answers your question. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I really don't feel like downloading a 50 megabyte Microsoft monolithic update (which will probably end up causing more problems than it solves on my particular system), especially when the problem could be much more easily solved at your end. Your alleged "fix" is not C language code deeply integrated into the infrastructure of the underlying Wikimedia software -- it's superficial Javascript, which serves a purely cosmetic purpose (adding no real significant functionality). Since it's really mere cosmetic fluff (not essential to the basic functioning of Wikipedia), and since it degrades the Wikipedia browsing experience for many people, it's really incumbent on you to add an customization option that allows people to turn off this alleged "feature". Thank you for acting reasonably in this matter. AnonMoos 17:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If we offered an option to turn off the workaround, then people would just turn it off and then complain that they couldn't view some of the transparent PNG and SVG images correctly. If you're adverse to downloading a 14.8 MB update from Microsoft (which will, incidentally, significantly improve the security and performance of your computer), then why not download Firefox? Firefox is only 5.7 MB and can be easily removed if you decide you hate it.
- Now, while upgrading is really the best option here, I will take another look at the JavaScript code to see if I can improve its efficiency/performance. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- OK, looking at the JavaScript code again, I do see a couple of ways to improve performance. Please be patient; hopefully I'll have an optimized version of the code implemented within 24 hours. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] please go ahead and move "Israel's Nuclear Monopoly"
Your right. Israel's Nuclear Monopoly should be moved to Israel and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I don't know how to do that. Can you do it for me? I'm still a newbie:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.6.99 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks a lot
Thanks for polishing up with your copy editing. It's great to have such help. Kind regards from the Alps. ;-) --Nemissimo 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categories in Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel
Just to let you know, I've begun a discussion on the right categories for this article on its talk page: Talk:Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel. Your input would be appreciated. -- Lincolnite 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the help at the Humanities desk
... on the Max Shulman story, "Love Is A Fallacy". Unimaginative Username 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mater lectionis
Don't call me "dude" firstly. Vav is the most prevalent way to call it in English today, and I and others are not trying to "impose modern Israeli names" [sic], I can see perhaps from your edits you think either A), Hebrew only exits 2000 years ago in the Bible, B), Hebrew only exists for a small subset of non-Jewish Academics or C), Hebrew isn't a modern thriving language today, with far more speakers then said people calling it my what are now archaic English names for Hebrew letters. Epson291 11:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PIJ emblem.png
You are welcome. I'm always glad to find someone interested in the academic side of these things. I noticed that there is a dispute above with a user I know. Perhaps I could help? TewfikTalk 03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heart
Sorry about that. Technically, "HEAVY BLACK HEART" is more correct, but if there's a usability issue I'll leave it alone. Superm401 - Talk 01:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chastity
Why would somebody who is serious about chastity not prefer an arranged marriage in favor of courtship? Jpritikin 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Guelphs
I just didn't revert far enough. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey!
Is this you from Usenet? (If it's not, you'll have no idea what I mean...)FlaviaR (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New extended version of BDSM
Hi AnonMoos, the German featured article BDSM has been translated into Englisch and is now avaible on Wikipedia. It took a while, but finely it was done. ;-)
It would be great if you could be active in the discussion. Knowledge on UK/US specifics is desperately needed. Kind Regards.--Nemissimo (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] North-south divide image reply
Canary islands are dependencies of Spain, considered south. Kingj123 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Permission to change license of images to "Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA"
Since you've edited these images, I need to ask your permission before changing the license. The images:
- Image:wikipedia isometric cube 3.jpg
- Image:wikipedia dimetric cube 3.jpg
- Image:Isometric perspective camera rotations.jpg
Thanks! SharkD (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Imaginitive userfication
User:AnonMoos/Imaginative Sex - have fun. Uncle G suggested some sources at DRV, I think. No need to go back to DRV once its sourced, obviously, just move it in, consensus is pretty clear. Happy new one, Guy (Help!) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] zombietime
Thanks for pointing it out. It makes the writing more difficult, but I'll try to fix it. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hunters of gor.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Hunters of gor.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fatimid
I don't deal in original research and I'm not saying anything contradictory to historical fact. I’m not claiming he did not destroy the church of the holy sepulcher, and in fact he did. However, you have overstepped your boundaries when it comes to establishing historical fact and historical conjecture. All I’m saying is get your facts straight, and do not mix fact with fiction. Secondly do not accuse me of a bias I do not have. Third, I personally have not done any scholarly work but my grandfather has a PhD in subjects concerning Islamic and Arabic history. His thesis was on the Ismaili’s. I have spoken with him about the subject and am aware of all the significant scholarly research. I know what I am talking about and would not intentionally deceive anybody. Now tell me what your qualifications are on the subject. --DRC27 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You have no right to claim that my suggestions for improving the quality of this article is influenced by what you perceive to be my religious tradition; that is very insulting. Furthermore you seem biased in your posts as shown by: "if Hakim had shown more respect for my religion (instead of ordering the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 A.D)…" Someone in such a biased position as you is not even remotely qualified to claim authority over a subject such as this. I am in contact with professors who are experts in the fields of Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Islamic studies. My grandfather for example, being one of those aforementioned professors, received his PhD in Islamic/Near Eastern studies from the University of Michigan with a specialization in Ismaili thought (and since you are so quick to accuse others of biases, which I suspect is a projection of your own flaws, I want to make it clear that neither he nor I are Muslims). I do not need to qualify myself to someone such as yourself seeing as I am more of an authority on the subject anyways. And since u seem to be so interested in this subject, I have been told that a lot of information concerning Al-Hakim has been found in the Genizah documents. The information present there has contradicted a lot of the so called “facts” about Al-Hakim that you mentioned. Since history is not all fact, and contains a lot of speculation and conjecture, I suggest you choose what to believe carefully and avoid forming hasty biased opinions based on shady testimonia. The journal of near eastern studies as well as the encyclopedia of islam, even though reputable in their own right, rely on whatever information is available. With hardly any information available on certain subjects it is not wise to blindly accept certain questionable information, even though it may suit your own personal and sometimes biased purposes. I’m planning an edit of this article to make it more scholarly and less biased. I’m sure you wont mind. --DRC27 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Treaty of Tripoli
I strongly object to your reverting the Treaty of Tripoli article. The new material that I submitted was documented and cited, but you removed it. The fact is, the claims made in the article (and the POV speech which is cited to support it) is contradicted by several published scholars. Also, if you want to argue the religious nature of the Founding Fathers, cite your sources; I certainly cite mine. Pooua (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I never claimed the Founding Fathers were all orthodox Christians (though some were), nor is that relevant to the article on the Treaty of Tripoli. Please stop reverting the entire article. If you have disagreement with a portion of the article, offer your own revision. Pooua (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New antisemitism mediation
You have been listed as a party in the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#New antisemitism. It would be very helpful if you would sign up; not only are you an articulate voice for your position, but I'm not sure if the mediation can go forward without all the listed parties. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're the only one of 18 that hasn't signed up, and I think it's not being accepted for that reason. It doesn't really matter what your views are, picture in, picture out, some other outcome - the fact is, you're an articulate voice on the subject, and would really help matters. Do you think you could re-consider and sign up? Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for mediation accepted
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
[edit] Takbir
You may be an extremely pious Muslim, but if your skills in Arabic linguistics and grammatical analysis are weak, then all the piety in the world won't necessarily help you to usefully edit article "Takbir" (or the related section in the Flag of Iraq article). Furthermore, your idea that what is worshipped in Islam is completely different and separate from what is worshipped in other religions does not appear to be shared by many of your fellow Muslims, who have no hesitation in translating الله into other languages with the word which is normally used to refer to the monotheistic divinity in each language (in English, this word is "God" with a capital G). Not to mention that Arabic-speaking Muslims normally have no problem with Arabic-speaking Christians referring to what they worship by means of the word الله also. When the Malaysian government recently tried to force Malaysian Christians to avoid referring to the Christian God as "Allah" in print publications, this measure received very little support even within Malaysia, and the government soon had to back down.
So it's quite inappropriate for you to edit Wikipedia to make it conform to your own personal viewpoint, which seems to be a minority viewpoint among Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- First you are wrong, My Arabic linguistics and grammatical analysis are NOT weak, There is Shadda (الله) on the 2nd L, you cant' dived Allah name to 2 words. If you dived the word, it will be like this, AL LLAH (Double L) Because of the Shadda on the 2nd L, not AL ILAH just like you said. the west translated it, which it forbidden in Islam. Mussav (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Venusonahal.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Venusonahal.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ethnologue
Just to say thanks for removing my duplicate comment from the talk page. I sent off the edit, then noticed a typo in the headline and stopped the transmission to correct it. But the thing was already well on its way. When my slow connection got me back to the edit page, you had already done the correction. You even deleted the version with the faulty headline! Thanks again! Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Word for "Jew" in languages of former Yugoslavia
AnonMoos, thanks for joining the Language Desk discussion on the above query I'd posted there. You might be amused (hopefully not dismayed) by the response of a linguist colleague of Polish Jewish extraction (as am I, inter alia), who observed, Yes, the Polish language retains its word for Jew that's similar to the derogatory term, and it doesn't seem to stop the Poles from using it, hmmmmm....?! We engage in correcting mistranslations of the whole Jew/Hebrew/Israelite set wherever we find them and invite you to join in. I appreciate your input! -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good work
I've seen your edits around Wikipedia often, and, although you may not have noticed me, I just wanted to say good job. :) (Also, you may want to archive your talk page soon. My computer is freezing up just trying to send you this message.) --Alexc3 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Or
I added {{cn}} because the proposition that "or" is usually written with a capital letter is being made with nothing to back it up, and the reason that this happens because it needs to be distinguished from the conjunction is likewise being made with nothing to back it up. I don't think either of these are self-evident, and so we need a citation. Hence the "citation needed" tag. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your "citation needed" tag is rather pointless. The word "Or" could be capitalized for any of three reasons: 1) In some styles of blazoning, all color words are capitalized. 2) To emphasize a word which is semantically very important for blazoning, but which is short (two letters) and in its lowercase form easily visually overlooked (containing no typographic wide letters, ascenders, or descenders). 3) The rather obvious fact that the conjunction and tincture name are otherwise spelled identically. AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your response. To take your points in order: 1) Yes, this is certainly true, and finding a citation for it will be trivial. However, this applies to all names of tinctures, which is a very good reason not to mention capitalisation only under the entry for or, but instead to mention it in a general section about tinctures towards the start. As for 2 and 3, they serve merely to demonstrate why it would be useful if blazons did adopt this practice: they don't show that in fact it's common practice anywhere. Indeed, I don't believe it is: I have never seen a blazon where all tinctures were lowercase except or, and I think the burden of proof rests on whoever is making this claim. Can you find an example of a blazon which has all tinctures in lowercase except or? The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Attributed arms
Hey, thanks for finding or making those shields. Also responded to your comment on the talk page. Gimmetrow 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Saint Faith
Thanks for your help with the article on Saint Faith. I'm unclear as to why you reverted my edits about her attributes and relics. I'm currently expanding the article, which is a stub. No explanation was given for your revision. Can you clarify? Thank you! --Polylerus (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Darell
In the Toran and Bayta Darell article's talk, you mentioned that it might be good to rename the article. I think so too, but "Darell family" sounds... cumbersome. What do you think now? —ScouterSig 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kali's teeth bracelet
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kali's teeth bracelet, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kali's teeth bracelet. Neitherday (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kiva Kahl
I noticed your note on Schumweb's talk page. You mentioned that the article was speedied. Is that true? The delete log says that it had been "dated prod", but there's no mention of the date and no link to a prod debate. –BozoTheScary (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think I know what happened. I refreshed myself on the deletion procedures. Someone put a prod tag on the article. It sat there without being removed for 5 days. Schuminweb deleted the article. He did the right thing, because no one removed the tag.
- The right thing for you to do would be to ask Schuminweb to consider your correspondence as the equivalent of a late removal of the prod tag. This will advance the article to a deletion discussion. I will be happy to participate in that. Please be nice. He did the right thing. He can't advocate for every article out there with a languishing prod tag. If he chooses not to reinstate the article, you should post a request for a Wikipedia:Deletion review.
- This article should be in the Wikipedia. She is notable from at least 2 directions. Someone just needs to advocate for the article. It will help substantially if you can work up a new version of the article as a subpage of your User page. You can use the Google cache of the article as a starting point. –BozoTheScary (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Be sure to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiva Kahl and cast your vote with your arguments. It is out of Schuminweb's hands. –BozoTheScary (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Kali's teeth bracelet
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kali's teeth bracelet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali's teeth bracelet. Thank you. Neitherday (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] YOU Stop messing with categories of Arrow Cross
Nazism isn't a German only ideology, its used by various different groups who follow it. The Arrow Cross Party's ideology (see the "Ideology") is inline with Nazism, not Fascism. If you don't know the difference, then why bother editing articles to do with it? - Gennarous (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AGF
I noticed your comment in this edit [[2]]. I want to inform you, that you are violating WP:AGF in this case. Thanks for reading. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation Update
Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.
I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Apology
-
- I apologize for that, I actually meant for that to be in your talk page(I thought it was) but now that you mention it it may have been in your use page, it did seem a bit odd for a talk page. So once again I apologize.--Teacherbrock (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Contribution to King-James-Only Movement
I noticed you recently made a minor correction in King-James-Only Movement. The article really needs much more dramatic work at citing sources that support the claims. If you are able to help in this way, that would be great. If no one adds any citations soon, I will be deleting the uncited material as discussed in the article's talk page. — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Isratine proposal
Wikipedia has guidelines regarding the citing of sources (Wikipedia:Citing sources) It doesn't matter if the form of a link gives little idea of what is linked to. People who are interested can simply click on the link to find out. Furthermore, it violated a neutral point of view of the article (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) to claim that "not all historical details given are accurate". Stop re-adding your biased commentary to links otherwise it will create a dispute that may require a Wikipedia administrator to intervene to explain to you how things work around here. --Loremaster (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Stop decontextualizing Gaddafi link: "White Book (ISRATIN)" is completely and utterly indadequate as a description of the external link on the Isratine article. People need to be told where they're going and and why they might want to go there, and "White Book (ISRATIN)"[sic] serves none of those purposes. Furthermore, the link is full of historical falsehoods, and Wikipedia is not required to be neutral between the proposition that the earth is flat and the proposition that the earth is round. AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- You are wrong on both counts. Although we can debate a better title for this link, the notion that we are linking to a website "full of historical falsehoods" is your OPINION not a fact. Even if it was a fact, it is against Wikipedia guidelines regarding the citing of sources to include such a critique within the title of the link. What you are doing is simply unacceptable. That being said, if you can cite a reputable source which argues that the White Book is "full of historical falsehoods", we can discuss adding this criticism within the text of the article rather than in the title of the link. --Loremaster (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Map in Land of Israel
There's an ongoing discussion in that article about whether a map of David's kingdom is too fringily extensive or not that I think could benefit from knowledgeable input, so I thought you might want to look in. Cheers,John Z (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
