User talk:DLand/Archive 5

3/07 - 6/07

hey

please check out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-18 Kol Yaakov Torah Center --Yodamace1 10:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude

By the way, I'm currently warning User:Talmudscholar for his transgressions with Haredi Criticism, Ohr Somayach, Monsey, and the Kol Yaakov Torah Center. Check it out on his discussion page...if he continues to do this, I'm going to step him up through the NPOV Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace process and then attempt to get him banned from editing Jewish articles. Hopefully, we'll be able to peacefully resolve it, but if not, then that's what's gonna be. --Yodamace1 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

audrey

http://z14.invisionfree.com/The_24_Community/index.php?showtopic=3421

some scripts were aquired well before episodes began to air, the dates on the post are because it has been compressed from a topic of 32 pages

Ask Ausellio confirms. 1. http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Ausiello/default.aspx?columndate=24-Jan-2007

Question: I'm lovin' 24 so far this season. What's the latest on Kim Raver returning?— Barry Ausiello: It's looking iffy at best. My CTU mole tells me there's a tragic twist involving Audrey coming up around the midday point that would appear to make a Raver reprisal highly unlikely.

2. http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Ausiello/default.aspx?columndate=31-Jan-2007

Question: Do you really not know that Jack is **** ** ******* that Audrey ** ****, *** she's ******** ***** and in ******* *******? Or were you just being coy with us in last week's Ask Ausiello?— Hank Ausiello: I'm going to confer with my lawyer before answering that question.

The guy who asked the question confirmed he asked:

<<Do you really not know that Jack is lead to believe that Audrey is dead, but she's actually alive and in Chinese custody and appears at the end of hour 17? Or are you just being coy with last week's Ask Ausiello and trying not to give away a spoiler this early in the season?>>

Ausellio slightly editted it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.9.134.36 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This also confirms it, including the brain damage bit which i didnt include because im hoping to god its not true: http://www.buddytv.com/articles/24/24-spoilers-226-drain-bamage-4444.aspx

Thanks for the welcome!

Hi, Dland. Thank you very much for the welcome. It's not that difficult to edit here (I have been on the internet since it was knee-high to a grasshopper). But I must say, even though I've been wandering around here for a few months I still get confused with all those alphabet soup acronyms everyone uses. They give me a headache! <8O) --Usernamealreadyinuse 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

audrey

Forgot to say thanks, ive registered now, and my "spoilers" have remained, although they have a seperate warning. I dont do much editing on wikipedia, so thanks for the advice! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.9.134.36 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

**** Midrash

Let's have some discussion on the talk page first, so there isn't a slew of movewars or bad feelings . -- Avi 19:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiur times

I see that you relisted Shiur times at Articles for deletion. However, it has only been 4 days since the original listing, there is unanimous support for deletion so far, and you didn't insert an indication that the article was being re-listed to reach consensus (see {{Relist}}). --Metropolitan90 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Raines

It's not vandalism... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.109.122 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

conceal

yeah, I would like to avoid being referred to by the old name. the userpage is intentional, of course. ve'hameyvin yovin. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 00:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the "cheese" vandal!

I would never have noticed. I can't stop laughing. :) Okay, I just did. YechielMan 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Mansour article

How'd you respond to that one so quickly? I'm just curious. It looks like a real article now. Also, why take out the information about the exact location of the new synagogues (not that I care so much, I actually don't like a lot of his stances, even though he is a nice guy.) Bilditup1 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vendyl Jones

Hi! Perhaps I've been hiding under a rock lately, but I actually didn't know how much attention this individual had gotten in the outside world or whether his claim to being the basis of Raiders of the Lost Ark had been picked up on. I did a check myself before the nom and came up with what seemed to be a bunch of private websites. I also noticed he was never mentioned in the Raiders of the Lost Ark article which seemed fairly thorough. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info

But Hesder was not tagged in error. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamantaschen

Please see the discussion on the hamantaschen page. Thank you. Jami86e 06:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Raines again

Look, threats aren't going to get me to stop fixing the article.

Image:Yonason Sacks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yonason Sacks.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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.

I could take it myself in Passaic. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Ok, listen, we both disagree. But there is no need for the constant vandalism warnings on my talk page. You and I both know that there is no need for them. Yaksar 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that one wasn't me Yaksar 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yeshivah of Flatbush

Great wrap up at Talk:Yeshivah of Flatbush! Hopefully that gets the point across. I'm wondering how I'll survive wikiwithdrawal over the next two weeks, but I certainly won't miss the "Hagler controversy". Alansohn

Clearly not a good wrap up, especially after having countered it. And by the way, thanks for creating a discussion for that IP despite the fact that multiple people have been using it and that you merged them all togther as if it's a single individual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.151.139 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A point you should keep in mind; when arguing with me, you're actually arguing with several different people. So if a conversation or comment seems incongruous with another conversation or comment made by this IP that's because another person wrote it. So if you're getting upset by it, that's the reason, it's different people, not one person. 24.47.151.139 21:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've addressed most of the controversy controversy. I would suggest avoiding use of the word "great", which smacks of POV boosterism, even if the word is used in the source. If you do think it's relevant, I would strongly recommend using a direct quotation rather than paraphrasing. Alansohn 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Raines

Well, we're finally done with this edit war. Good game... Yaksar 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles

Hey, man. Sorry If I overstepped a bit, I erred in the edit summary. The summary should've said that I was changing the cross-namespacing to the Article page, which contains a link to WP:FA. I was fixing double redirects of similar pages, and I mistakenly copied the edit summary of my other edits.

However, my edit was well intended. I thought consensus was that article pages should not be redirected to other namespaces (cross-namespacing). That page has been deleted 3 times based on such consensus. I'm not going to revert your edit until we sort this out. So then, I think the Featured articles page should direct to the Article page. What do you think? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant prose

Hey. I think this article should not be directed to Wikipedia-related articles, it doesn't make any sense. Users who weren't around when Brilliant Prose was being used will probably be confused with the re-direct. Re-directing to Prose would be an acceptable alternative, and more so by adding a link atop Prose stating something like: Brilliant prose redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured articles. just to make sure veteran editors will understand. Also, I noticed that the prose article does not have a link to WP:MOS, so I'm adding that as well.

My opinion regarding cross-namespacing is that, generally, it shouldn't be done. Re-directs in the article namespace should direct to articles, unless a valid reason is given. But, I believe articles should contain a link somewhere, either atop or at the see also section, to guide users between the different namespace. That's my two cents. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with you in part. Your arguments make sense to me. Let's just leave Brilliant prose directed to WP:FA, since I also doubt any other reasonable user will be looking for anything other than WP:FA. If someone objects or sends it AfD, I'll probably agree your argument, but I'll let consensus decide.

However, regarding Featured articles, this term is used outside of Wikipedia, so I think we should be conservative and simply direct to article. If someone is looking for WP:FA, then the article page clearly has a link at the top. They can't miss it. Furthermore, new users will quickly learn to use the WP:FA shortcut anyway, it's easier. So, what do you say? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. ;-) I'm glad we reached consensus. If the article is ever nominated to RfD, drop me a message, I'll back you up. Peace. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dberger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dberger.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Y not? 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam???

I see that in December, you undid the edits of an IP Address, who put in links to article referencing a site you think he runs.

First of all, he has started to do it again. Secondly, I was wondering if you are sure that it is a problem. The information seems useful for the article, especially for Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

Thanks, Greatal386 02:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've seen your work around, I'm really impressed.

I hadn't looked that closely at the article...I guess it fooled me.

I've always been meaning to write an article about it...haven't had time to do it justice -- will probably do it during summer vacation, or when I should be studying for a final. Greatal386 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaz Alum

Is 'having your own page' a necessity to be listed as notable? Looking at at the page for Stuyvesant alum, lots of people there don't have links... Greatal386 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel B. Wolowelsky

I reverted myself for time being, looking into this. I notice the Joel B. Wolowelsky article isn't very well sourced -- will attempt to better source it. --Shirahadasha 19:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Benjamin G. Kelsen

could you please explain a bit to a newcomer how to improve this article etc. in order to avoid deletion? Rabbi Kelsen is, according to many (such as R. Hershel Schachter, R. J. David Bleich, and R. Aharon Kahn) to be a true rising star and influence in the Jewish community.

Shaving in Judaism

[1] Hilarious!--Rambutan (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Russian_rhapsody_title.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Russian_rhapsody_title.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. MER-C 11:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

glen spey training exercise

You are wrong, my dear. Read further down the page for the rest.--Gilabrand 06:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva University images

Please check my IP address: I am a member of the Department of Communications and Public Affairs at Yeshiva University and am authorized to publish these images. The university's legal department approved the license we chose.--Scaligera 16:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rav Gigi.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rav Medan.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haredi Judaism

The article claims that thousands of Haredim surf the web. I don't see any statement that thousands participate in chat rooms. --Redaktor 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New wikiproject

It seems like political activism, not a wikiproject. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's headed for WP:MFD. Shalom ^Hello 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I am User:YechielMan but I changed my username. I hope your summer is going well. Shalom ^Hello 16:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom

Hi. Two things.

First, I noticed a post on your talkpage from YU's Dept. of Something-or-other regarding permission to use photos of the Rebbeim. What's the latest on that...all the photos have been deleted from these articles.

Secondly, please see my comments here. Kol tuv. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okie...I was thinking of contacting YU myself, actually. Maybe I'll get around to it one of these days. Thanx. :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]