User talk:Redvers/Archive15
This page is an archive. If you edit this page, someone will revert it, and I'll never see it. That doesn't work for either of us. 〈REDVEЯS〉
Rei-bot[edit]
User:Rei-bot is a bot. Just a heads-up. {Slash-|-Talk} 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You're back, huh?[edit]
A true Wikipedian. Can't resist the allure of the Wiki, eh? So that makes two of us. Cheers. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Um...[edit]
Questions of a nocontext here as apposed to a 38 min hangon , i will not stress as much as my need to understand in the partition or development of the term "Hillul"
Having found the change to hillel described in the context in the history(not the wikipedia edit + "history" + watch) but real history as we know it, from the developings of the letter "e" in todays english language. In an essay that describes the current American english as to be 95% germaic influenced 5% of 5 or so other roots, the hillul transition I found interesting here, especially with the modern inclusion used as a description of historic Jewish law.
hillul definition incomplete;hillel
observe contexts and pairing ;i.e. hillul jubilation found in the letter ["E"]'s history
"hillul" seems to have transition through history into "hillel"
See also "hillul ha-shem" in Jewish Law and history on smoking, where "... Rabbis also debated the use of tobacco under halakha (traditional Jewish law). Notably they addressed varying aspects of its permissibility on Sabbaths, holy days, and fast-days. They also investigated the need for a special blessing for smoking.among the early sources are the "Keneset ha-Gedolah" of R. Hayyim Benveniste (1603-73)
Writing in Islamic Turkey, Benveniste further argues that smoking defames God (hillul ha-shem) because Muslims who refrain from smoking on fast days would see Jews smoking on theirs ("Keneset ha-Gedolah," ib. 567 [ed. Constantinople, 1729, pp. 101 et seq.]). Despite such concerns..."
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EPLU RIB USU NUM YAHOO (talk • contribs).
hillul[edit]
148.167.126.211 20:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
HILLUL== hillul == Questions of a nocontext here as apposed to a 38 min hangon , i will not stress as much as my need to understand in the partition or development of the term "Hillul" An explaination to the editing choice to delete or redirect "hillul" to the "hillel" page that has no reference found to hillul. I see hillul used to define in the letter E but possibly as an outdated form of the word which may have translated to hillel today; all this with some interest that there may still be a use in some conjugation of the current hillel but I am unsure of the constituent level; that is that it may have a relevent meaning that binds to hillel that is morphed out as a zero in constituent to hillel definition , but if this is true then is it fair to just assume? I dont think so. I still dont know all the full contexts so, if an equal to the ""hangon can apply, the fallowing that i originally edited to a new page , although the grammer may need tweeking, the annalisis is the best i can draw at the moment. first also Having found the change to hillel described in the context in the history(not the wikipedia edit + "history" + watch) but real history as we know it, from the developings of the letter "e" in todays english language. In an essay that describes the current American english as to be 95% germaic influenced 5% of 5 or so other roots, the hillul transition I found interesting here, especially with the modern inclusion used as a description of historic Jewish law.
now the original edit in italic;
''hillul
definition incomplete;hillel
observe contexts and pairing ;i.e. hillul jubilation found in the letter ["E"]'s history
"hillul" seems to have transition through history into "hillel"
See also "hillul ha-shem" in Jewish Law and history on smoking, where "... Rabbis also debated the use of tobacco under halakha (traditional Jewish law). Notably they addressed varying aspects of its permissibility on Sabbaths, holy days, and fast-days. They also investigated the need for a special blessing for smoking.among the early sources are the "Keneset ha-Gedolah" of R. Hayyim Benveniste (1603-73)
Writing in Islamic Turkey, Benveniste further argues that smoking defames God (hillul ha-shem) because Muslims who refrain from smoking on fast days would see Jews smoking on theirs ("Keneset ha-Gedolah," ib. 567 [ed. Constantinople, 1729, pp. 101 et seq.]). Despite such concerns..."
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.167.126.211 (talk • contribs). and EPLU RIB USU NUM YAHOO (talk • contribs).
Two things[edit]
Hey Redvers, I have two things to say:
1. Thanks for finding a useful redirect to British Standards for the couple of pages I found at broken redirects. That was a new page to me and in just a few moments and edits I understand more about it, thanks to you.
2. Maps. Hmmmm. My favourite book of all time is Metro Maps of the World by Mark Ovenden. I'm sure you're familiar with The Great Bear... I'd love to work on some ideas (real or abstract) which could be represented similarly.
Anyway, keep making beautiful maps. All the best, The Rambling Man 22:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Rfc deleted[edit]
A Rfc that I submitted was deleted, for the reason it didn't get the threshold number of certifications, I think the editors who signed, didn't know exactly where to sign, I'd like to get the contents of the deleted page so that I could resubmit it. Could you please help me get the contents for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rajsingam, thanks. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 05:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
More clutter[edit]
Hiyas! ;) Syrthiss 13:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! You should check the policy again. There is no longer any rule against non-Latin usernames (and I'm rather surprised that you didn't catch the huge discussion about it, going on at Wikipedia talk:Username, wikien-l (or was it wikipedia-l? I'm not on any of the two) and foundation-l about it…). And this rule was removed well before Mikkalai's unjust block of the user. Jon Harald Søby 22:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Userpage[edit]
Hi Redvers! A strange question: did you copy User:Lil Yukiru's userpage, or did he/she copy yours? ;) AecisBrievenbus 13:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
M.J.M. Capital Inc[edit]
Why was this page deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcase31 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.[edit]
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Filled in form in triplicate, puce to accounting[edit]
22:12, 6 February 2007 Redvers (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay" (No certification after more than 24 hours)
- This was a bit legalistic, mate: clearly two editors had contributed, and *gosh* since I'd refactored the page there wasn't even a section for certification. While there's probably no harm in it since this (suprisingly to me) had gotten no attention, you've certainly violated the spirit of the law at the very least. - brenneman 23:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
As you deleted the page following my tagging of it, I've explained my reasons to brenneman on his talkpage. WjBscribe 01:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Copied from User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Re:_RfC_deletion
I noticed your message at User talk:Redvers. He doesn't seem to be online at the moment and as I tagged the page for deletion I thought I'd reply. The certification requirement may seem legalistic but its the only way of making sure that there is some consistency in the RfC process. The requirement is that: Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. In the RfC in question although two people had contributed, there was no statement that users had tried and failed to resolve the dispute. That may be a failing of the non-standard template that was used, which I think also explains lack of participation- two users had commented on the talkpage that they found the layout off-putting.
As you will see Template:RfC contains a sections especially for such certification. If there's still a problem with the user that needs comment I suggest a fresh RfC using the recommended template. I'm sorry you feel these actions have been heavy handed... WjBscribe 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I signed it and I added proof of my disagreements. FGT2 04:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- End copied section.
- No, I wouldn't have said "heavy-handed" as much as "mechanical" and I don't mean to shoot sparks out my bum at anyone... but there needs to be some fluidity preserved in all Wikipedia processes, other wise we'll choke on our own filth. Request for comment (about users) is famous for failing to produce good results, to the degree that many subjects simply choosse to ignore them. While it's clear from the talk page that this experiment didn't work quite as intended, please don't mistake "consistancy" for "goodness." I'm going to restore the content (with a section for certification) and I'll put a speedy deletion tag on it pointing here so that an admin other than myself can decide if it's fair enough to delete it. If there are any objections to that course of action, just jump and shout and I'll stop. - brenneman 06:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- End copied section.
Nice parrot[edit]
That's a cool parrot on your userpage :-). Thanks a lot for your message. I'm glad my contributions are being well received. To answer your question I'd be pleased to be able to help out with the janitorial tasks at some point. There's something pretty annoying about running around cleaning up numerous edits by a vandal you've already reported to WP:AIV. And I'd be happy to lend a hand on the WP:CSD backlog. But obviously two and a half months aren't enough time for the community to be convinced I'd be the right person for the tools, and it would be really presumptuous of me to think otherwise. If everything goes well and you still think I'd be a good candidate in another couple of months, I'll gladly accept the shackles. Thanks again, WjBscribe 01:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
is back again, adding more copyrighted text. I stubbed Ana-Maria Avram and Hyperion Ensemble, which s/he had created. BuddingJournalist 07:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
My user page[edit]
Thanks a ton for reverting the vandalism on my user page! It's really appreciated, especially because I was taking a break from Wikipedia at the time and couldn't have noticed it myself. Again, thanks. ^_^ -- Daverocks (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
stalker[edit]
InstaTornado is the person who created the turboface page. Please send me an email about it educationalreplies@yahoo.com , I can provide police references. They have been activley seeking this person for the last year for multiple warrants. Send me a talk page. He's using his wikipedia account to create search engine spidered links to improve his link popularity on google. This account he create4d is for personal attacks.I can provide MORE then enough evidence. His old username on here was CUMBERBUND , search that user's history alkso,, you'll see it was also an attack account
His ip address will be 68.155.245.99. It's a permanent ip belonging to the Greensborough library. Email me to talk to the officer in charge of his case. Thanks. 65.184.20.38 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.20.38 (talk • contribs).
NuevoCyrus[edit]
Hi Redvers. I see no reason to believe this is anything but another sock of Technajunky. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Unblock of 129.31.65.133[edit]
Sorry, I only just noticed I overrode your unblock decline of 129.31.65.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I was consulting with the previous decliner, Yamla, just the minute you put in yours and didn't notice the change. You're of course right about the opportunities for seeing the warning, but I think we can still AGF here; the previous edits clearly show there wasn't generally an intent to vandalise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Amalfi and your deleting policy[edit]
Hi,
I have just had my first contributions to the Amalfi And Amalfi Coasts pages deleted and then received rather angry reactions to my contributions,particularly from you.I have only joined today so be patient with me and I will get to know how Wikiepdia works and hopefully I will add local knowledge and wisdom and genuine information that is of a practical use to people.All of the exisitng external links are of a commercial nature so I do not understand whu you edited my contributions.
Anyway a little more undesrstanding and tolerance from you and a little less aggression is welcome and I will now read through the guidelines and I hope that your censorship is not selected and is based on local knowledge.
Gerardo di Amalfi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerardo1 (talk • contribs).
No[edit]
Are you the famous continuity announcer Redvers Kyle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.50.189.179 (talk • contribs).
Awesome. All I did was put it in WP:HORSE - this is miles better! Guy (Help!) 23:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother[edit]
Have removed fallacious statements made by LexiLynn, a sockpuppet of the anon user 65.184.20.38. Both will resolve to the same IP if checked, which, if I'm not mistaken, leads back to Charlotte, NC. A check of my post history shows I've only mentioned this on this page. A check of my ID will verify I am not Cumberbund.
Ispy1981 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Strange Ip address doing some dammage, if you got my email you know the background on this.
69.106.7.122 is strangely the same as users:ISpy, no checksum needed, it's the same that matches the email headers I get here routinely. Please check Jessica Lunsford article.
InstaTornado and user: ISpy just as I told you in email. Now you can see for yourself and play match the ips. LexiLynn 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Redvers, I double dare you to followup on anything LexiLynn asks you to checkout. But while you're at it, compare edit histories between LexiLynn and WorkingHard. WorkingHard was banned PERMANENTLY by Jimbo himself. I know for certain they are one and the same.
Please also note that LexiLynn has repeatedly deleted my comments left on other admins user talks before allowing the Admins to reply. --InstaTornado 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not going to work InstaTornado, too many admins know about you and wikistalking off and on wikipedia. Good luck with that. LexiLynn 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Military History elections[edit]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!
Delivered by grafikbot 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Hey. I'm just dropping in to thank you for the Barnstar. It is very much appreciated. Thanks again, Prolog 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank You[edit]
Thanks for moving my homeland stupidity thing to my user page, I couldn't figure out how to do that :) TehBrandon 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Lies?[edit]
You can delete my entry if you want (obviously) but I think Wiki will be poorer for it.
Also, I resent you telling me not to lie. There were absolutely no lies in either the article or my comments about it. Every single statement was true, and if you cared I could prove it. It seems your zealousness to delete "vanity pages" is controlling however, so have it your way - just don't call me a liar.
--Redbeardsm 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. Shall we?
He certainly is notable. Just because *you* don't know him doesn't make him not notable. Wiki's own pages on what/who is notable states quite clearly that the criteria for notability are debatable.
He has appeared in movies, both on the big screen as well as television. Most were background, some were not. Would you like to see a copy of his paychecks?
Ok, maybe you have one technical point - he was an *alternate delegate* rather than a delegate to the 2000 GOP convention.
At any rate, please do go on.
Actually, don't bother. I'm done trying to convince you.
--Redbeardsm 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Scott doesn't fit your definition of notable. I can deal with that. Just don't start throwing around accusations of lying - that pisses people (namely *me*) off.
--Redbeardsm 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
lol. -- Steel 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on my talk page[edit]
I'm very impressed that you got to it (to remove {{hangon}}) before I did -- seeing as I get a message. --N Shar 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Undoing history merge deletions[edit]
Hey there — I just saw this and I can't help but wonder: how does it get undone, and why would you need it to? I'm assuming that if you delete an article like that you're going to perform the merge, and since I work on WP:SPLICE a fair bit I was wondering what was up there. Just curious :) Kyle Barbour 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Kyle!
- As well as "delete", I have "undelete", so an article can reappear if required. I've made a note to do it if nothing happens. And, no, the merge won't be done automatically via a speedy delete (the template, for instance, only asks for the page to be deleted so that the merge can be done, not so it will be done) although, if the page was linked from WP:PM it could be done... probably not by me as I do all these things on by counting fingers and tend to run out of them when it comes to merges due to the way my brain is (mis)wired. So, in short - CSD is a bad way of achieving a merge unless the nominator is ready to do the next stage and then ask for help (or something... boy do I hate merges!) Happy editing! 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the friendly reply :)
- I know you have undelete (I am an admin, after all :) ) — I suppose that really what I was wondering is if you aren't going to perform the merge, then why delete the page? Sometimes the history merges are complicated, and require attention — if you simply delete the page, none of the other steps get done (the actual merge, the undeletion and history merge, fixing redirects, collateral damage, and so forth). It's perfectly fine to not do the merge, but then it's best if the page isn't deleted so that things are clearer, since the deletion muddles things up a bit (since the template's gone, relevant history isn't available to the non-admin user, etc.). Kyle Barbour 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ohio Attorneys General[edit]
Thanks for fixing that. I made about 400 edits yesterday setting up Attorneys General categories for the states that didn't have them and I didn't want to tackle the renaming of that category. I was going to hold off and do a CfD to discuss renaming all of the categories to "Attorneys General of State". Doing so would make it parallel to things like "Governors of State", but it would deviate from the other categories for Attorneys General (like Category:Mexican Attorneys General). Do you have an opinion on the naming issue?
If you have time, I'm also considering creating Category:Current state Attorneys General in the United States to hold the current Attorneys General that were removed from Category:State Attorneys General in the United States. My logic is that it is parallel to Category:Current members of the United States House of Representatives and that the category's purpose is self-describing (assuming that former Attorneys General only belong in the state-level categories, as is my feeling). This makes it easier for more editors to do maintenance without having to read about which A.G.'s if any are supposed to be in Category:State Attorneys General in the United States, since it is blindingly obvious that former A.G.'s don't belong in the "current" category. Mike Dillon 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Hooge Crater Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery, was selected for DYK![edit]
|
On February 19, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hooge Crater Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: You vandalism fighter, you![edit]
Glad to be of any service. Nobody but nobody (and maybe Jimbo) gets to mess with Redvers. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia[edit]
Hi I Uploaded Ogg vorbis file to wikimedia. it could be found at [1] the problem is it shown as a image. How do I rectify this problem? ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Cascading protection[edit]
Please do not use cascading protection, as you did on User talk:Redvers, unless applying full protection. See bug 8796 for details. --cesarb 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)