User talk:Gilisa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Gilisa! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Runcorn 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

|}== English usage ==

Hi Gilisa, I realize that English is not your native language; so this some friendly advice to improve your written English (and explain my modification of your edits in Albert Einstein. The expression "alot of" is too informal for written English; write "many" instead. Also do not put a space before a period or comma, but do put space after a period or comma before the next letter. --teb728 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Gilisa

Sure, go ahead and change it. I'm just the copy editor, I've been trying to take all the sentences the real writers put in and make them into proper English with good references, that's all. I hope I didn't misunderstand and mangle something you wrote, but if I did go right in and fix it up.
Haifa? My best friend's dad was a university professor there for years, last name Tabak. She lives in Tel Aviv now, she sends me pictures of herself with The Cats. :) Good luck, and write on! ~ Otterpops 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

I feel the articles are extremely well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to pick a fight. --Metzenberg 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilisa. I believe in evolution! I also feel that there is no incompatibility between science and Judaism. The study of evolutionary biology in all forms illuminates and increases our understanding of creation. I'm afraid that the person that is being so difficult is neither an evolutionist or a creationist. He is some kind of troll. --Metzenberg 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:3 ימים ראפטינג,בוקר שני.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:3 ימים ראפטינג,בוקר שני.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gilisa, Hard as it may be for you to believe (wink, smile), I had nothing to do with that message. But a few weeks ago I looked into images on Wikipedia; so maybe I can help you.

Wikipedia is sensitive about images because some people upload copyrighted images which Wikipedia (or derivative works) has no right to host. What you need to do is to say on the image page where the photo came from and include a copyright tag.

The photo looks like one that a friend took for you. If that is the case, then you probably own it and can give rights to it. So say on the image page that a friend took it for you and add a tag. There are several possible tags, and you almost have to be a lawyer to tell the difference between them. The two most usual choices are:

• You could grant a GFDL license (meaning that anyone can do what they want with it); the tag for that is {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}.
• You could release it into the public domain (meaning you give up all your rights to it); the tag for that is {{pd-self}}.

If the photo was taken by a professional photographer, ask him whether he owns it or you do. If he owns it, he has to give a free license, or Wikipedia will not host it. If he agrees to that, say on the image page where it came from and add a tag (the tags are different if you don’t own the rights yourself).

By the way, it’s a nice looking picture. Unless you are getting set to do a whole gallery on your user page, you might want to take off the gallery tag; so that the picture appears bigger. --teb728 23:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting your comments?

Hi Gilisa! I've seen that you delete your comments from my talk page. [1][2] Unless you have a very good reason, please don't. It's considered bad style to substantially modify messages already replied to, as it changes (or in this case eliminates) the context of the replies in a way that is not easily visible to the reader. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 07:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, compliments on the progress with your English! It has improved very much since I first read you a few months ago!--Stephan Schulz 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein

Hey Gili

I read your conversation with Stephan Schulz, I think that it is fair compromise/suggestion Epson291 12:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also for the photo you added, you have to add

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

or it will get deleted, I added it for you, I hope you don't mind. Epson291 12:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

בבקשה Epson291 12:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was a German Jew, German by birth and nationality buta Jew by ethnicity. There is no such thing as German Jewish ethnicity, although there is say Spanish and Portuguese Jewish ethnicity.--Newport 12:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

German Jew seems fine to me, as in Category:German Jews.--Brownlee 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I've no problem with this ,as long as it not mentioned at the ethnic entry (other wise it might be misleading to some)-and I guess thats what you meant in the first place. The exact description of Einstein should be : "Swiss scientist who born(to a Jewish family) in Germany , where he spent ,in sum ,30+ years of his life (or here: , to a Jewish family) " .This formulation should replace the ethnic entry , but , and it looks likely that we agree on this point ,it needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph.Best--Gilisa 06:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if a little cumbersome.--Runcorn 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] אנשי עסקים יהודים

סלחתי, ותודה על התגובה המעמיקה .

1. לגבי אנטישמים בויקיפידיה (ואני בטוח שיש הרבה), דעותי לגבי מטרותם הפוכים משלך. נדמה לי דוקא שהם ששים לראות רשימות מדויקות של יהודים בעולם, ואכן מחברים כאלה רשימות בעצמם (וניתן למצואן באינטרנט). ראה [[3]] בקשר לזה.
2. כן, אני מסכים איתך שקים קשר היסטורי וסטטיסטי בין יהדות לעסקים. לו זאת היתה רשימת אישים הסטוריים מפורסמים, הייתי מצביע להשאיר. אבל הבעיה, כמו שאתה יודע, היא שהקטגוריה כוללת כל מיני אנשים חיים (חלקם אפילו ספק יהודים) שהשפעת יהדותם עליהם היא זניחה ושולית.
3. השוואתך לקטגוריות של עמים אחרים נכונה: אצלם קימים קטגוריות דומות. אעפ' 'כ, אני מבטל את הטעיון הזה. אין שום סיבה לא לשאוף שדברים יהודיים בויקיפידיה יתעלו על השאר בדיוק, רלונטיות, ואמינות. והעובדה שגם אנטישמים שוקדים על הרשימות הללו גורמת לי לחשוב שצריך פחות רשימות של יהודים מיפנים, נגיד. אל תשכח שלא כל היהודים בעולם יושבים בבבטחה בארץ.

מכל מקום, שיניתי את הצבעתי ל"התנגדות חלשה" כיון שהעלו כמה הערות חשובות בהצבעה. nadav 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

שלום. אני עונה על הנקודות אחת אחת:

1. אני לא מציע "התקפלות", אני פשוט לא רואה שום ערך אקדמי בקטגוריה. אין פה על מה להגן. התלחם גם בעד מאמר "רשימת יהודים שיכולים לעשות עמידת ראש"? כמו שאמרתי, אולי סטטיסטית או היסטורית יש קשר בין יהדות לאנשי עסקים, אבל היום נראה לי שהקשר רפוי מכדי לסווג כל מיני אנשים ששוהים גולה באופן שחור-לבן כזה.
2. אפשר אפשר, אבל מה יקרה בפועל? מה שתמיד קורה בויקיפידיה: משתמשים חדשים יוסיפו כל שניה אנשים לא מוכרים מוטלים בספק, ולאף אחד לא יהיה את הכח לשמור כל היום נגד זה. בסוף תישאר הקטגוריה בדיוק כמו שהי. זה כבר קרה בכמה מאמרים עליהם עבדתי. יתר על כך, ויותר קריטי, הקריטריונים שלך לא טובים (על אף שאני אישית מקבל אותם) כי אינם מקובלים על קהילות רבות (כגון הרפורם וכו'). אתה תראה שיהודים אמריקאים לא יסכימו.
3. אולי אתה צודק, אין לי שום מושג. אגב, לא טענתי שאנטישמים מתרגזים עוד יותר מזה, אלא שהם שאוהבים ומחברים כאלה רשימות על מנת "to keep track of the jews", בבחינת רשימות היהודים שחיברו הנאצים. אבל זו נקודה פחות חשובה. הבעיה העיקרית היא חוסר ערך ואיכות אקדמים.
4. אתה מדבר בשם אנשים אחרים שאולי לא מסכימים איתך. השקפתך היא מאוד ישראלית, אבל מה אם איזה יהודי ברוסיה שלא רוצה שיוסיפו אותו לרשימת יהודים?
5. פרט מענין על ויטנשטיין. אתה צודק במה שאתה אומר פה לגבי תאורית ה"גניוס היהודי". זאת בדיוק הסיבה שתמכתי בלהשאיר את קטגורית המדענים היהודים. הייתי תומך גם בשאר קטגוריות אנשי רוח ומדע. אבל אנשי עסקים נראה לי קצת מרוחק מדי מהתאוריה. צריך לקבוע את הגבול איפושהו, כי אי אפשר להשאיר את כל הקטגוריות של אנשים יהודים.

אני כבר לא כל כך מעונין בלהמשיך את הויכוח כי כעת אני מקדיש את כל זמן הויקיפידיה שלי לנסות לשדרג את Jerusalem ל "featured article" nadav 11:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Sometimes boundaries between countries (or between Religions/Nations)can make boundaries between humans,I'm happy to see that this is not the case (first I wasn't sure what will be your reaction to the fact that I'm Israeli, so I didnt signed in) . Any ways, I'm from Natanya (but study in Haifa)- my girl friend parents came from morocco to Israel, things are always complicated...would be happy to talk with you about it. Friendly yours--Gilisa 06:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Gilisa. I hope you are enjoying your time in Wikipedia. Actually, the guy who nominated me for adminship a while ago was an Israeli living in Britain User:Izehar. Unfortunatly, he's not editing anymore. I have no idea why! I also nominated a Jewish user for adminship.

I am glad to hear that your GF is of Moroccan descent. Cool beans and please say hi to her. Which is weird is that my ex-GF spent around 3 months at the University of Haifa in 1994. It is the same university where you study now! You can contact me via email to talk about these stuf :)

Again, if you need any help, do not hesitate to contact me via my talkpage or email. Or if you plan to visit Morocco soon, you'll be my guest. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to correspond via E-mail: gilisabo@yahoo.com :)--Gilisa 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gili. I've just sent you an email. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleting comments on user talk page

You should know that you can always delete comments from your own talk page if you want to. See WP:USER. nadav (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] היי

nadav (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about your user page

can you read Hebrew/Arabic?--Gilisa 10:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I cannot read Hebrew or Arabic. I got two editors, Nadav1 (talk · contribs) and Anas Salloum (talk · contribs), to translate for me. I do, however, plan to learn Arabic (and potentially Hebrew as well) once I start college this fall. -- tariqabjotu 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As you asked, I have taught myself to read Hebrew at a basic level. Shalom ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Gili

אני עוקב אחרי דף השיחה של יונתן, ממתין לתשובה וכך נתקלתי בפנייתך אליו. סליחה שאני מתערב, אני חושב שאתה מבזבז את זמנך. לא ברור לי מה התוצאה המתבקשת של המעקב הזה (ומי בכלל אמר שאסור להחזיק בובת קש) אך הוא נראה לי מיותר. עניין נוסף - לפי דף המשתמש שלך אי אפשר ללמוד דבר על תרומתך לאתר (התמונה ששמת מציגה אותך באור רשלני משהו) , שוב, סליחה על ההתערבות (-:, אביעד

Gridge 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

לא נראה לי שכל מי שלא מעוניין בקטגוריות על יהודים הוא דווקא אנטישמי. זו היא דעה שונה משלך, וזה לגיטימי שמישהו יתמוך בה, ללא לקשר לאם אני מסכים איתה או לא. אם מישהו נולד בתור נוצרי ולאחר מכן התגייר, היית מרגיש אותו דבר כמו שאתה מרגיש במקרה של מישהו שנולד כיהודי? בנוסף, אתה יכול לתת לי קישור שתומך בציטוט שלך? Yonatan ^talk 15:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

אני מסכים בהחלט שלא כל מי שמעוניין במחיקת קטגוריות כאלו הוא דווקא אנטישמי-יש קטגוריות יהודיות וערכים יהודיים שאני אישית מעוניין במחיקתם. אבל כמובן שניתן לעקוב אחר פעולות עקביות של משתמש, אחר ההקשר שבו הטיעון למחיקה נעשה וכ"ו ולהבין אם זה בא ממניע טהור או לא. מעבר לכך, אני חושב שבעניין של מיעוטים או קבוצות אתניות שהינן נרדפות או היו נרדפות ומופלות במידה זו או אחרת-רק חברים מאותה הקבוצה עצמה יכולים להחליט אם למחוק קטגוריה או לא. אני למשל, לא ירשה לעצמי להמליץ למחוק קטגוריה של מדענים אפרו אמריקניים למשל-אם משתמשים אפרו אמריקנים רוצים למחוק-זה עניין שלהם כך שאני לא מתגרה בהם וגם לא נחשד בגזענות. יתרה מזאת-אם נוצרי או סתם גוי אירופאי המיר את דתו ליהדות, וכתבתי זאת מזמן בדיון אחר-חובה לציין כי הוא נולד לא יהודי כך שההנחה שלך לא נכונה. לסיכום: איזה ציטוט ביקשת?--Gilisa 18:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

מותר למשתמשים אנטישמיים להשתמש בוויקיפדיה, כל עוד הם עובדים לפי הכללים. הרעיון שלך הוא קונספט מעניין אך זוהי לא המדיניות הקיימת באתר - כל אחד יכול להציע קטגוריה למחיקה ולהשתתף בדיון על מחיקה. בנוגע לבקשתי, התכוונתי לקישור למקום שבו המשתמש אומר שהמקורות שהבאת הם ציונים\אנטישמיים ועל אלו מקורות מדובר? Yonatan ^talk 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

אין לי בעיה, בכל הקשור לוויקיפדיה בלבד, עם אנטישמים ששומרים על הכללים-אבל באמת שומרים עליהם. יש משתמשים שייתכן כי הם אנטישמים אבל בכוונה הם מדירים את ידיהם מעריכת מאמרים שיש להם קשר כלשהו ליהודים או ליהדות-כדי לשמור על הכללים, ואלו הם, אולי, אנטישמים שעוד נותרה בהם מעט הגינות, אם כי יותר סביר להניח שהם פשוט נמנעים מלהגיע למצב שבו הם יתחילו להשתולל מכעס על גבי האתר. בהקשר למדיניות ויקיפדיה-לדעתי כלל אינציקלופדי ישים אחד היא חייבת לממש: קודם עובדות, ואח"כ דעות-ואם אדם נולד יהודי לדעתי זאת השמטת עובדה לא לציין זאת. לגבי קישור, בבקשה: [4] התגובה של המשתמש

Tellerman

אגב, היות וכפי שתראה, אמירתו היא כוללנית, מדובר בכל המקורות שהופיעו אי פעם במאמר עצמו החל מהאינציקלופדיה ליהדות, דרך האתר ג'ואיש אינפו שצוטט 4 מקורות אקדמיים, וכלה בציטוט של מאמר שאני הוספתי ,שהופיע בכתב עת שעניינו יהודים ויהדות, שיוצא לאור ע"י אוניברסיטת אוקסופורד:

Redner, Harry., 2002. Philosophers and Anti-semitism, Modern Judaism - Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 115-141. Oxford Uni. Press.

--Gilisa 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights

i) the work must be specially ordered or commissioned; ii) the work must come within one of the nine categories of works listed in the definition above; and iii) there must be a written agreement in advance between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

"Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership in copyright must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor." (Copyright#Transfer and licensing) nadav (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] אני מצטער

אני מצטער אם פגעתי בך או הרגזתי אותך. אני מבטיח לך שיש היגיון וצדק במעשיי, גם אם זה לא נראה לך כך במבט ראשון Gridge 06:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] החזרתי את התמונה

Gridge 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Leonid Hurwicz

Hello

As far as I am concerned the only connection Mr. Hurwicz has with Moscow is the fact that he was born there. Maybe it is contrary of your nationalistic opinions, but the family lived in Warsaw for generations, so it makes a difference regarding ethnic roots. Cautious 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock issues

The autoblock tool is playing up and I can't reach the autoblock to release you. Did you get an autoblock number when you tried to edit? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the block needs to be adjusted to a softblock so registered users don't get caught up in it. Next time you are on a PC and get autoblocked, please note down the autoblock number and the name of the blocking admin. That will help us find the block and clear it. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My affiliation

I'm not sure why you want to know my affiliation and, as an anonymous editor, I am not able to reveal it. However, I am on an indefinite wikibreak now, so I expect it doesn't really matter. Anyway, thanks for stopping by at my talk page and good luck with your edits! Geometry guy 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Polo

Was your deleted comment some kind of massage or your mistake, I'm not sure? Zenanarh 09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to question on my talk page

Hi.

Responding to Hello, I saw that you made an edit on citizenship talk page. I have a question and I hope that you can help me with it: do you know about any western democratic state that can rule out the citizenship from any given citizen for doing a crime other than immigration fraud? Best--Gilisa 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I'll try to respond. If there is any back & forth discussion, let's keep in here (I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while, so I'll see any changes here).

I live in the Philippines. I don't know if that qualifies as "Western" by your lights, but as I understand Philippine nationality law, The citizenship of an RP citizen can (currently) be lost by rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto without the consent of the RP govt, and by cancellation of the certificates of naturalization — apparently an administrative procedure needing only a stroke of the pen by an official empowered to cancel those certificates. (note that section 1(1) and 1(7) of CA63 have been effectively nullified by subsequent legislation.

I see that you are in Israel. See sections 10 and 11 of Israeli nationality law here.

See French_nationality_law#Denaturalisation.

See Belgian nationality — 10. How can I lose my Belgian nationality?.

German_nationality_law#Loss_of_German_citizenship says, "German citizenship is automatically lost when a German citizen voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country. The exception is when permission to obtain a foreign citizenship has been applied for and granted in advance of foreign naturalisation."

Austrian_nationality_law#Loss_of_Austrian_citizenship says, "An Austrian citizen who acquires another citizenship by voluntary action automatically loses Austrian citizenship. The exception is in cases where permission to retain Austrian citizenship has been obtained in advance."

Dutch_nationality_law#Loss_of_Dutch_citizenship says, "Dutch citizens may lose their citizenship through long residence outside the Netherlands, or acquisition of a foreign nationality. In addition, in some cases it is possible to be deprived of Dutch citizenship."

Finnish_nationality_law#Loss_of_Finnish_Citizenship says, "Although dual citizenship is permitted, a Finnish citizen who is a citizen of another country will lose Finnish citizenship at age 22 unless he or she has sufficiently close ties with Finland."

The foregoing are just random examples which I have not researched carefully -- they just happened to be handy.

Hope that elops. -- Boracay Bill 23:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What can I tell? you helped me a lot- I'm grateful, you made a lot of efforts it seems...Any ways, I understand that you are a commercial pilot-that's amazing I think (I always wanted to be one- and I may do a civilian license, I actually tried to get into the Israeli Air Force (IAF) flying course when I was 18, but as many others- I wasn't accepted) what kind of planes are you flying and in which lines? In your case, I ask it only out of curiosity.--Gilisa 06:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a big effort -- I just happened to know where to look to give you those pointers. I'm not active at flying, or much of anything else lately. It's been more years than I like to think about since I flew but technically I'm still licensed. I would have a bit of a hurdle to get current again, though. -- Boracay Bill 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:19670.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:19670.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Cantor

The Georg Cantor article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

It comes from the records of his Table Talk, published in the 1950s edited by Hugh Trevor Roper. Here's an excerpt: "Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew." Hitler is claiming that the Christian religion was comparable to "Bolshevism" and was developed by St. Paul, but that it was a distortion of Jesus's original message. Paul B 10:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Stiegmann-Gall is the author of a book (as I said), not an article. It's called The Holy Reich. It can eisily be found on Amazon or elsewhere online. The discussion of the contents of the book and of Nazi plans occurs in the Journal of Contemporary History, Jan, 2007. Hitler refers Christianity several times in Mein Kampf but his strongest claims to be Christian at that time (in the 1920s) came from the booklet My New Order. Of course what he says in private in 1941 is not going to be the sames as what he says in public in 1922. Paul B 07:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, any way- Hitler, for example, short time before he suicide, married Eva Braun via a civil ceremony in which he and Eva were asked: "Are you both Aryans?". To me it's obvious that Hitler was far from being a religious fundamentalist or a crusader - he was obsessed with the racial issues and was influenced by the classical European anti-semic views but he didn’t relate it to the religious part too much (he emphasized the racial issue, argued that the Jews are not only a religion-which is true, unlike the conclusions he made from it).--Gilisa 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's OK!

That's all right. So many Jews have won the Nobel Prize. I have always admire that. Regards, Masterpiece2000 13:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Eric Maskin article

It does not matter whether Jewishness is ethnic or religious in nature... the key to any categorization of a living person is the self-identification of the subject with the category. Until you can find such a source, it is best to leave the categorization out. Blueboar 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem... good luck with your research. Blueboar 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers

Hi, I notice you voted "speedy keep" on the above AFD. You've probably seen the speedy keep page and I'd appreciate if you would return to this AFD to clarify which of the four speedy keep reasons from that page this nomination meets, or alternatively if you find it does not meet any of them, amend your vote accordingly. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenicians

You asked me

"I just read what you wrote on the article talk page, i.e. Phoenicia talk page, about the Canaanite origin of them-as you know, there are 7 ancient nations which were part of the Canaanite group, or, and more generally, from an Akkadian ancestry. So, which of them you think the Phoenicians was? (i.e. Edomites, etc)"

It is interesting that the Bible lists Hittites as Canaanites. Historically Hittites were Indo-European in the Bronze Age, but by the time of the Iron Age, people were using "Hatte" (Biblica Heth) as a generic name for all non Aramaean inhabitants of Syria, as Assyrian records show. You speak of them having Akkadian ancestry and this is linguistically not accepted. Akkadians are "Eastern Semites", whereas Canaanites are North Western Semites and share a common linguistic ancestry with the Jews.

Of course we must be aware that this refers to language - not to ethnicity (culture) or genetic biology (race). Ethnically as Tubbs, Dever, Smith and others point out, the culture of the Hebrews in the monarchical period (Iron Age I & II) was Canaanite. Genetically it has been shown that Jews tend to have a high proportion of the so-called "Phoenician" gene, whilst Lebanese also have a high proportion of the Jewish Kohanim gene.

Hope this helps

John D. Croft 21:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your very interesting and educated answer, I understand that you already read my question beta-versions as well. I'm not familiar with the Levant history as you do but I did recalled that the Hittites were actually of Indo-European origin as well as few other groups which settled there back then. I can assume that the Bible considered the Hittites as Canaanites because they probably deeply assimilated, culturally and through marriage, with the people which you refer as Canaanites. More, the Bible did call the land of Israel "Canaan" before it was conquered by Joshua and referred to the ethnical groups which live there as the Canaanite peoples (i.e. Chivi, Yevusi, Canaany and etc) . For the Jews and the Phoenicians- the Bible tell us about sinner Jews which worshiped to the Phoenician's gods (like Baal) and about marriage relations between the aristocracy of both peoples. Historical accounts tell us about many Phoenician's which were influenced as well from their closeness to the Jewish (then Hebrews) people and therefore convert to Judaism (hence possible explanation for both genetic findings). Can you tell me please, if it's not too much to ask, what kind of evidence, aside from the genetic evidence-which for me seems more efficient in excluding possible relations than in telling the actual History in this case, showing that the Phoenicians were of North-western semic origin (or it's 'only' the language?)? And what is the origin of the Arabs? P.S I was sure that the Canaanites split from the Akkadians. Best--Gilisa 09:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilsa, one must be very careful about treating the origins of people. It is all too easy to confuse the origins of a language with the ethnic origins of a people. For example the people who live in Turkey speak a Turkish language (as well as some Armenian, Kurd and Greek), but only a very small percentage show a Turkmen genetic heritage and most show that they are descendents of people living in Asia Minor long before the Turks arrived.

Similarly with Hittites. During the Bronze Age they spoke Neshili, one of three languages within the Indo-European Anatolian language family. This language became extinct with the fall of Hattusas in about 1206 BCE, and thereafter the "Hittites" who had previously used a form of cuneiform for their language, henceforth used Luwian (or Luwili - another menber of the Indo-European family). But this population was a linguistic substrate upon an area that had previously been Canaanite and Hurrian, and so the Hittite contribution to the genetic make-up of these people was slight.

When Aramaean replaced Luwian language, over the period from the 10th to 7th century, again this was predominantly a linguistic change - not an ethnic or racial one.

Regarding "Canaanite" before Joshua, the Bible refers to the Hittites as a branch of Canaanites and has Abraham purchasing land at Hebron for Sarah's grave from a Hittite (i.e. Canaanite).

I think it helps to look at four different useages of the word Canaanite here

(1)Canaanite as used in the Bible - to describe residents of Israel who did not adhere to a strictly monotheistic divinity (this referred largely to those people who stayed in Israel during the Babylonian captivity, and subsequently retained their polytheistic traditions after Ezra, Ezekiel and Nehemiah led them back from Babylonia. The chief Canaanite city was Sidon (Sidonians are repeated in the Bible) that was for a long period ruled by Tyre.

(2)Canaanite as used by Greeks and Romans - to describe the purple people (Pheonix in Greek means purple and refers to the same woolen cloth that gave the Canaanites their name). The Greeks had an intimate connection with these people as Zeus was modelled upon Baal, Poseidon on Yam, and Hades upon Mot. Pythagoras's father was Phoenician Canaanite.

(3)Canaanite the language, accepted by Modern Historical Comparative Linguistics as the original language of the region.

(4)Cultural Canaanites, referring to a specific type of material culture based upon Mediterranean agriculture and divided between various city states and kinglets, sandwiched between Egypt to the South and Assyrian to the East.

Confusion occurs when we swap indistinguishably from one term to the others.

Regarding NW Semites, these people were living in the area at least since the Chalcolithic Ghassulian culture from 4,500 BCE which pioneerted mosy of the cultural evidence we now see as Canaanite (in the cultural and linguistic sense of these terms - above). Ghassulian shows archaeological connections (but not necessarily genetic ones) with the earlier Minhata and Yarmoukian cultures, which derived in part from a fusion of Pre-Pottery B farmers with Harifian Hunter-gatherers who introduced an Outacha retouch microlithic culture into Israel from Egypt. It has been considered that this technology arrived in the form of a Afro-Asiatic language (proto-Semitic). Yuris Jarins has suggested that this formed part of a circum Arabian pastoral nomadic complex. Arab culture developed with the domestication of the dromedary camel in large numbers during the Early Iron Age.

Arabic as a language, began to replace Syriac (Aramaean descendent) languages in the area only after the Arab invasions. For a long time the bulk of the people wqere bilingual but with the slow conversion to Islam, they became Arabic language speakers, Arabs today comprise only a small genetic proportion of Arabic speaking Palestinians and Lebanese, who genetically have retained their "Canaanite" genetics.

Hope this helps

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by John D. Croft (talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your replies are always helpful :). Any ways, in the Bible it's also written that Hete, the great ancestor of the Hittites, is the son of Canaan-However, even if the cultures of the Canaanites and the Hittites, and they have a different spiritual systems and languages (I don’t know much about the Indo-European languages history or about the relations they have with the tongues of south and central Asia or about the Semitic languages and their relations with the tongues of Africa or how much it tells about any Nation origins), were profoundly different, it's still doesn’t exclude the possibility of being from the same dynasty. As for nowadays Palestinians- I'm very well aware to the fact that they, as Lebanese, Tunisians and Jews, have a genetic markers that connect them to the Canaanites as well. But this is not the all story, which is highly sensitive subject, having a political implications for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. many Palestinians from the northern parts of Israel (i.e. Arab residence and citizens of Israel which identify themselves as Palestinians), but not all, are Historically known to be actually the descendants of Jewish people from the Galil which convert to Islam at the 8th Century (and probably later also mingled with Arabs), after that most of the Jewish population left Israel at the 4th and later- an outcome of Israel ("Iudaea Province") destruction by the Romans during and after the revolt of Bar-Kokhba at the 2th. As for the other parts of your detailed answer, I will deal with them later.

Best

--Gilisa 07:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qart or Qrat

Hi,

Thanks for your message. My initial reason for reverting your edit was that it looked like vandalism (people sometimes do small things like that for the fun of it). I now realise that I was mistaken about that, so sorry. As it is, neither spelling has a source in the article, but a search on google has 9,480 for Qart, and 0 hits for Qrat, so I'd have to go with Qart. Perhaps more convincingly, a search at google scholar comes up with 12 hits for Qart Hadasht. It's also the only form I've ever heard. Is your argument that it would be Qrat in Hebrew? Remember these are different languages, even if closely related. Also, Greek and Latin would have kept the initial cr- (fits in with their phonology just fine) instead of car... had it been Qart... If you have a source for your suggestion, it would be good to know it.

Peace, Drmaik 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine it would bear investigation. Something you'd think of writing a paper on?

All the best, Drmaik 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't quite follow your last comments on my talk page, but I think you might not be familiar with the transcription system normally used in Semitic languages. š (note it's not a normal s) represents what we'd write in English as 'sh', and there's also a dot under the h which does indeed represent ח. Forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know. Actually, I think it would be good to put the Punic spelling in there as well (Aramaic/Hebrew script seems to be acceptable in representing Punic). Drmaik 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masterpiece2000

Masterpiece2000 has also been removing Category:Jewish American scientists from other articles.--Loodog 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you telling this to Gilisa? I have respect for all religions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 10:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax, it didn't change my mind any way...And again, as a Jewish person, Jewishness is far from being religion only-please respect this as well. Cheers--Gilisa 11:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is a Jew?

Hello Gilisa. I would like to ask you a question: Who is a Jew? I thought that only those people who believe in the religious aspect of Judaism were Jews. You said Jewishness is not only a religion. Can you please explain that to me? Can we consider an agnostic with a Jewish background a Jew? Please reply on my talk page.

And, I have recategorized all the pages with the category Category:Jewish American scientists and changed my vote to 'Neutral' on CfD. Regards, Masterpiece2000 09:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Please do reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 09:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I will mention here several definitions, but I'm not agree with all of them-

Lets get started with the most customary definitions:

1. one who is a religious/ believing Jew. 2. one who convert to Judaism via an orthodox process- when referring to “orthodox Judaism” it is important to remember that “orthodox” is a new term when it comes to Judaism, as about 100 years ago, plus-minus, it was unused simply because Jewish people didn’t had different groups as the Islam, for example, have -else they had different traditions only and all the Jews were “orthodox”, hence "orthodox" refers to the traditional Jewish law.

Controversial (at least in wikipedia and at least in part) religious definitions for who is Jewish:

3. Reform and conservative converts: In Israel, for example, conservative or reform conversion process wasn’t legally accepted until lately and is still doesn’t accepted by many state institutions. this, even after the Israeli supreme court , which is highly criticized/ appreciated, by many, for being very active and for having it’s own agenda ruled that non-Jewish people which convert via a reform\ conservative process are deserve the full rights of return as any other Jewish who wish to make an Aliyah according to the Law of Return(i.e. having financial aid, geting citizenship and etc) which is a controversial law as it define as Jewish any body who the Nazis define as such (the idea behind it was that any body who was considered by the Nazis as Jewish and hence been negatively affected is deserve for an aid from the Jewish state-however, many Jews, secular and religious are acting to change this law which according to them makes the Nazi law of “who is Jew” superior to the Jewish law and to the historical and customary way in which Jewish people define their own members, even if the intention of this law was a good one). Many Jews -including historians, seeing the reform and the conservative movements as a very new movements within the Jewish life that mostly represent political and social ideas more than they have something with the Jewish fate (The most common counter-arguments against them is that the reform movement was actually established in order to encourage assimilation within the non Jewish society, and that there are reform rabbis who publicly declare that they have, for example, no fate in God ) – the justification for this verdict, however, which came after few USA citizens, who been through a reform conversion process, asked the court to change the situation in which the state acknowled only the orthodox conversion process, was something like “ Not acknowledging the reform’s conversion process is actually to cut the roots that connect us with the other half of the Jewish people, as many Jews in USA are reforms, and many times it is related, for those Jews, with married a non-Jewish couple and having a mixed families” (for myself, as many other Jews in Israel, I have reform relatives in USA, some of them are not Jewish according to the Jewish law).

4. By the Jewish law, if one’s mother is Jewish than he/she is Jewish as well, it is totally about the maternal lineage e.g. even if only your grand mother -mother from the maternal side was Jewish than by the Jewish law you are Jewish, and it is not important how many generations have been past ever since. There are some complicated theological explanations, with which I’m not familiar, and they are the most important for understanding the logic behind this law. There is, however, one practical, non theologic explanation: the mother is not only the one who have the strongest bond with the baby born, but she is also the only one who can be sure about that the baby is truly her- a law which was of extreme importance in times of war-at least some historians think so. More on that, according to the Jewish law, a child that been adopted by an observant Jewish family and later, when he/she get to the age of adulthood, didn't revoked his/her adopted Jewishness (he/she have one chance only to do so by the Jewish law-at the day when they came to adulthood) is hence a Jew for the rest of his/ her life, and the same is for her children even if she married a non-Jewish guy.

5. A Jew who convert to other religion is still Jewish, even if sinner, by the Jewish law. Same is for atheist and etc- and so is for his/her descendants (else for the descendants if he married anon Jewish wife).More, if one can prove that he/she is from a maternal Jewish heritage, even if his/ her family lived like complete Christians for generations-than, according to the Jewish fate, he/she don't have to come through a conversion process.

Self identification and religious preferences:

6. There are, how ever, Jews who declare that they are not an adherents of the Jewish fate for few possible reasons: a.) believing in other laws. b.) atheists. c.) agonists and pan atheists. It still doesn’t means that they are not defining themselves as Jews –there are many cases of Jews which were compelled to Christianity when they were childrens (for example-during the holocaust time) and remain so till today- many of them seeing themselves as Jewish but not by fate – or even other Jewish people who convert to Christianity as there was no other option for them to get certain positions and etc with out doing so. famous examples are Heinrich Heine and probably Jacobi as well. The same is for atheists like Steven Weinberg and Yuval Ne'eman (both world scale physicists) or pan atheists like Einstein. There is no contradiction as I see it, it is true that the Jewish religion keep the Jews as people for a long time but it doesn’t means that a secular Jew (like many Self identified Jews- most of the Jewish people are not religious these days) is not a Jew- I will return to this.

Separation between ethnical identity and religious identity and the history of the Jewish people:

7. There are who see a German- Jew as a German by his ancestry and a Jew by his fate. Some times it is assumed that this is the most politically correct way to define thos kind of Jews, However, I don’t agree with this attitude and any way seeing it as factually wrong. I’m taking the German-Jewish example as it is the ultimate one, since the memory of the Jewish history there is still fresh and mentioned in high profile. More, it is the most problematic example because I think that the common history of the Jews and Germans is the worst (even if had pleasant anecdotes) kind of history that one can imagine between two peoples, and for the Jewish people it made a considerable damage, till these days. Lets start with the notion of ethno-genesis, it is the process by which different human groups, usually sharing the same habitat, merge into one people, developing the same or similar culture, language/ dialects, religious rituals and etc. Some how there are who hiddenly imply that the German-Jews are actually Germans, e.g. like that their origins were from unknown German tribe/s which adopted the Jewish religion and since then been called "Jewish"-and that there is no such a thing as Jewish nation in the same way that there is a German one. It is however very far from being the story, from the historical accounts (which sometimes telling us that many of the German Jews are actually the descendants of Jewish settlers, elite rabbinical scholars from Iraq, who came to the German city of Worms at the 11CE, or descendants of Sephardic Jews that flee from the Spanish Inquisition at the 15CE and etc )or facts like that since the 4CE, a time in which the Jewish Diaspora in Europe was yet very young and very small, Jewish conversion was forbidden by the church and very heavy punishments were given to the communities which break this law, nor it resembles with evidence that came from the genetic studies- showing that the genetic profile of a Moroccan Jewish, for example, is very similar to that of a German Jew but not to this of a non Jewish German (these findings are, however, not surprising at all if one consider that the Jewish people were formed as a nation around 3800BCE and that the European Diaspora became notable in the Jewish history only around 738CE-and first was pretty centered to certain places and not spread all over Europe, or that till the 19CE, at least, all the Jewish communities were pretty much isolated from non-Jewish as they didn't have the right to convert non-Jews and etc). Culturally, to the mid 19CE these Jews had cultural relationships especially with the Eastern European Jewish diasporas and partly with the northn African diasporas. Population exchanges between the diasporas of Europe and these of North-Africa and part of the Asian middle east (so till today it’s easy to find, say, Libyan Jew which his/her surname is of German, Dutch and etc origin) were common. This situation been changed, however, when Jews were given emancipation in Germany after the revolution of March 1848- then, many Jews tried to assimilate within the German society (in the beginning only few and later with the establishment of the Haskalah movement the numbers grew rapidly.) and to abandon their humiliating status as hunted minority what they have been for centuries till then, suffering from riots at least, and to the best of my knowledge, since the early 12CE and further, and having no rights what so ever (for example, when Jew wanted to enter into any German city he had to pay a special tax of Jews and to enter through the animals gate only to the city and he/ she could do so only at certain hours of the day) - many even developed self-hatred complexes under the pressure of living in an anti-semitic society, and the German society remain anti-semitic even after the emancipation been given. It’s a well known fact that there were Jews who voted to the Nazi party (even if not a large percentage of them did it) because they saw themselves as Germans and they refuse to acknowledge the fact that by the Nazi party platform (and hence, by many Germans) they are totally Jews even if converted to Christianity and even if married to a non-Jewish women or being a veteran of the German army which served Germany during the WWI. Many other Jews which voted to the Nazi party excused it with the notion that the Nazi party is against the “Ost-Yuden” (East European Jews- but actually, many of German Jews were grandsons or great-grandsons of those, like Einstein himself) only and not against the Jews of Germany, while the Nazis never made any distinctions or discriminations between Eastern and Western European Jews and never claimed that there are any differences. For me, it telling something about the difficult psychological situation in which theos people been through and the strong pressure under which they lived. And all the mentioned above can tell us great deal about why the Jewish people and their hosts there are two different entities- sure, to this day one can said that he is a German only, but he definitely have unique historical cargo that non Jewish Germans certainly don’t have, and it is not easy, or correct, to ignore that- and these conclusions is true for Jews, even if not commonly in the same magnitude, or closer to the same, as in Germany, in many other places where they been minorities.

8. I sometimes get the impression, and I might be wrong, that when it comes to, say, Hungarian, who immigrated to, say, England- no body would doubted that he was/is Hungarian as well. I mean that no body would suggest a category of Hungarian-English scientists because there is probably not enough Hungarian there, as they don’t have the same history of being without no homeland for almost 1600 years as the Jews been and so Hungarian are not scattered in diasporas as Jews did and still do. But, no body would doubt that to get this hypothetical scientist into both categories of Hungarian scientists and English scientists is the right thing to do. When it come to Jewish people, they are being discriminate by the modern notions of nationality, e.g., these modern ideas exclude any self-definition and sanctified the idea of citizenship – your legitimate identity is mostly connected with your present citizenship. According to this, there were actually no Jewish people after the exile and before the establishment of the state of Israel (in which not all the Jews live or want to live for now)- as you cant mentioned one by his or her ancestry, religion which he/she were born to and etc-only by his/her nationality, and Jews, lets remember, were wanders for many generations so this situation is some how discriminating and any way I don’t see it as a real pluralistic one. Actually, an Hungarian Jew which immigrated to England because of Anti-semiti could find himself/herself in both catgories of English and Hungarian scientists but not in the Jewish scientists category...

9. If some one is, however, black who live in Europe or etc than the racial issue get into action. As the race differences make the things much easier: it seems like when their are notable physical features differences people wouldn’t try to deny one’s origin, I’m not trying to imply that they are doing so on purpose- it just how it works, without no awareness. No one would realy ask “who is an African?” or “Who is an Asian?”, even if they are live for generations outside Africa or outside Asia – and not like that there are not such a thing as African Americans who hate their own origin, sometimes it’s the woeful outcome of racism. In fact, many Asians been through plastic surgeries in order to get Caucasian’s eyelids and many Afro-Americans used bleaching creams and/ or pills to look more like Caucasians. So, no doubt that if one don’t like to consider himself as Jewish, while it is known that he/her was born to a Jewish family , this is a reason why not to categorize him/her in a Jewish category but this is not a reason for why not to mention in the body of the article that he/she was born to a Jewish family. I’m not talking about cases in which one is of Jewish heritage but he only knew it and the family itself is not Jewish by fate for many generations. And one thing that I recall now, a Jew who is married to a non Jewish is still Jewish-I'm saying that because once someone tried to argue about a well known Jewish figure who married a non Jewish women that he is not really a Jew (the Nazis (and this user clearly wasn't one) had a stupid idea according which a non Jewish Aryan women who married a Jewish male woud became Jewish for herself).

10. It is not, however, about race-but rather about history. There are rare Jewish groups which have no racial/genetic connection with the rest of the Jewish people, like the Jews of Ethiopia- and no Jewish community knew about them till 100-200 yeas ago, they share no similar traditions with other Jewish communities and no one know how the Judaism get to them (it is assumed that they are converts, and that they have a basic form of Judaism for 600 years only)- and still they are considered as Jewish. I think that an Ethiopian Jewish scientist is to be include, if needed, in both Categories- and As I think of that-there should be only a category of American scientist, and American Jewish scientist should be up merged within both categories of Jewish scientists and American scientists.

--Gilisa 12:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Gilisa! The answer was great! Regards, Masterpiece2000 09:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maskin and Myerson

Thanks for letting me know. The Myerson reference is eminently satisfactory. I notice, however, that in Eric's interview he says that he is 'culturally Jewish' in that he likes klezmer music and his grandmother's recipes. This fits with what I know of him, as he does not, as far as I know, like to identified religiously. I do not think that his statements there count as self-identification sufficient for our purposes. There is a massive difference between such a man and the examples you give above of Einstein, for instance; Einstein would never have qualified his Jewishness, however secular he may have been. I do think that we are being both disrespectful and factually inaccurate to categorize him as Jewish - and incidentally, I dont see at justified by policy - though I certainly think the fact that he was born in an ethnically Jewish family is OK. (If irrelevant, as are most ethnic identifiers in these articles.) Relata refero 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Disrespectful means that we are not respecting his views on his own identification. You are basing categorisation on the single line: "It's a very rich culture, and I'm attracted to that side of it." To my ears, he was asked by a reporter for NJ Jewish News about his Jewishness, and he answered that he was born in a non-religious Jewish family. On being pressed about his culture, he responded with the above sentence. I am making a big deal out of this particular example - much more so than any others - partly because I have some personal information about his preferences, and I do not believe he would appreciate the categorisation.

If you feel the categories are for 'ethnic Jews' then I am afraid I must disagree with you. They say "American Jews" not "Americans of Jewish descent". If you rename them to avoid the confusion, then I will agree with you. This is precisely why we insist on categorization being both relevant to notability and self-IDed; because otherwise we are making a statement in WP's voice with no nuance at all. Relata refero 09:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we will never agree. any way I left a reply on your talk page. Cheers--Gilisa 10:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendship

Hello Gilisa. How are you? I have never met with a Jew in real life. I would like to believe that you are my friend. Well, you are my first Jewish friend! Reagrds, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if friendship can be on wikipedia-than we are friends :) Best--Gilisa (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we are friends. I think you are a great guy. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cantor

..done. Sorry, I got distracted. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

Hello Gilisa! How are you? Happy New Year! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)