User talk:Tellerman/1

No... it's not obviously some type of error. It's also not obvious why you were blocked as a sock. I'm reviewing the block but I won't unblock/decline until the investigation is complete. Hang tight for a bit.--Isotope23 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I found the possible reason. If you look at the second to last message on my talk page. It's from User:Used_up, who is permanently blocked as a sock of the same person. But as you can see from this talk page, and from these editing times ([1], [2] look at February 27th at 2:00), we obviously can't be the same person. Maybe a case of mistaken identity? --Tellerman
  - Can anyone explain why my message was removed before? --Tellerman

License tagging for Image:JPReis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JPReis.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:

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. 22:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

You may have gone farther than you intended in your edits to Georg Cantor; you have removed a substantial amount of well-referenced material, including statements by Cantor himself. I have reverted, and ask you to have another look please.--Runcorn 10:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I do not believe that your edits do justice to all the relevant material. What was there before was very carefully crafted as the result of a long-running discussion. And Wikipedia is meant to be the sum of all human knowledge, so I cannot accept your contention that anyone wanting further details should go and find a biography.--Runcorn 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, anyone has the right to edit the article responsibly. Equally, anyone else has the right to criticise edits. I must reiterate that the existing wording was the result of a careful compromise among several editors with different POVs and I would be reluctant to see wholesale changes that would wreck that compromise. Surely it is better to proceed by increments - amend what you see as badly wrong and let others review that.--Runcorn 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear tellerman

as far as i know-cantor is a German word, and any way it means "hazzan" which is the Jewish ritual singer at the synagog .any way, i dont know what is your own ethnic origin but you have no good case to delete my addings since i also mentiond the use that canto made with Jewish signs-which is known for any body who deal with his mathmatics .and by the way, all of the ashkenazi jews usally have german surname -so your claims have nothing to base on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

thanks

thanks for cutting down the massively excessive footnotes at Georg Cantor. I have to say I'm perplexed and dismayed by the history of that article. The most revolutionary mathematician of the past two centuries, and all anyone wants to talk about is whether he was Jewish. While it's reasonable for the article to discuss that briefly, somehow it's gotten all out of proportion. --Trovatore 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

In his original writing,he used david shildes as well as other simbols and hebrew letters,but the א is unik because it was acceptable by the mathmatic world as a sign to the magnitude of natural numbers and so i find it right to mention. More ,cantor is mostly a Jewish name and you should check it before you clming somthing,being so sure in what you are writing is the ultimate true . I dont know if you are a german,nor do i care, but if you are- maybe you are right-and cantor is not a german word, but there is no doubt that it is a word, no matter in which language ,that means "Hazzan" (Jewish ritual singer for this subject)-you should check it under this value in wikipedia, and it is a common surname between the Jewish people.No body ever claimd that Newton,including Newton himself ,was from a Jewish origin and it is well known that Newton study hebrew only beacuse of his great interst in the bible . However, Cantor did claim that he is from a Jewish decent and there are ample evidence that make this claim ,at least, possiable .So ,claming that wheter Cantor was a Jew is a " big question" (mainly because of a very few non formal studies done at the 30' in Europe ) is just not true.

the only damage that i made to Wikipedia , is due my bad english.and ,well, i will cut of my last addition so you cant complain any longer.

when you are claming somthing...

you should get into deatils with the evidence against or in favor of it . just saying thet there are 4 biographers in favor,6 semi in favor and semi against and 8 against-is not enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 09:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree, assuming you're talking about whether Georg Cantor was Jewish. It's not an important enough question to merit a long discussion. The man was a mathematician. Focus on the math. Tellerman made the right call. --Trovatore 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Babel

If you had bothered to look about three edits below the one you made, you would have seen that I had just reverted "deaf-mute" to "deaf". Almost no deaf people are literally mute; they simply choose not to talk. "Deaf-mute" is offensive to most deaf people, equivalent to using the "N" word for African Americans. See Deaf-mute. Please do not use that term. Thank you. Ward3001 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf-mute

I'm quite aware that not all deaf people choose not to talk (I know at least 1,000 deaf people from all over the USA), and I never said they did. Some talk; some choose not to talk, but are not mute. Almost none are mute. And the terminology used in a review is irrelevant to the issue; a reviewer's insensitivity doesn't make it appropriate to use in Wikipedia. "Deaf-mute" is offensive and should not be used. Would you use the "N" word to describe an African American simply because someone else uses it? Ward3001 01:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider my pointing out use of offensive words as a "confrontation", then I apologize. As for "'deaf-mute'" being offensive to any more than a minority", at one time in history the "N" word was offensive only to a minority. Simply because a word is offensive primarily to the minority at whom it is directed does not make it's use appropriate. "Deaf-mute" offends most deaf people, and only deaf people are called "deaf-mutes". That is sufficient reason for not using it. If you wish to revise the article to reflect the fact that the character does not talk, it is acceptable to describe the fact that she is deaf and uses writing to communicate with hearing people. Use of the word "mute" is not necessary, nor accurate. Ward3001 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Lilienthal

Thank you for your comments on Talk:Otto Lilienthal. I am beginning to think many of these "users" are playing games; they keep repeating the same argument I have already addressed many times, and the anon (likely R613vlu) hasn't bothered to respond to the Jewish Chronicle questionings at all, so so much for verifiability. Please do not request a page lock on either of the lists yet. I still think this can be handled without resorting to that. Usedup 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Georg Cantor

Thank you. I have responded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire (magazine)

I have restored your unexplained deletion of information in this article. Please us the edit summary in future, and the talk page to discuss if further discussion is necessary. Stephenb (Talk) 08:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]