User talk:Dbratton

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

Welcome

{{Welcome}} (I see you know your way around, but welcome nonetheless). JFW | T@lk 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still working out all of the formatting tags, so this welcome page should come in useful. Dbratton 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah

Thanks for heads-up. AnonMoos 19:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Easter

"Passover *definitely* is not the 'Jewish Easter'" Why not? -- Vít Zvánovec 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Whereas the Last Supper as Good Friday re enacts is a Passover seder. John wesley 16:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. -- Vít Zvánovec 07:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Link spamming

I've sprotected the pages for now; perhaps that will bring the anon to the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed violationg image

I have removed violating image please destroy image. I guess i'll have to take a picture of my self wearing one then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs) 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Brit milah

Dear Dbratton.

It is a direct quote from the book Sdei Chemed.

The book is widely available to buy.

I have a photocopy of the book were he writes it and if you or someone can show me how I would gladly scan it for everyone to see.

About the verbal problems please be specific it’s probably a wording problem and I most probably didn’t express myself good.

BTW, someone with user name Jbolden1517 is personally angry with me because something else I wrote, so he deleted the entire part about Metzitzah, not knowing that it is a vital part of Brit milah, and not even taking time to realize that I am not the author of the article except for this one part. Instead, he slanders me with out any foundation or proof.

So would you please be so kind and revert it? Like this, it’s not personal.

Bloger 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to Jbolden1517 that he’s off his tracks. he keeps on deleting the entire article about Metzitzah because he doesn’t like my edits about an organization on a complete different subject, and he cant get it thru his head that I didn’t write the article except for one part (even if I did he’s wrong on deleting it because his personal feelings) he doesn’t now anything about brit milah as is evident of his deleting of the entire section and yet feels comfortable in editing it.

Besides he keeps on attacking me and others with slanders attaches and then deletes the complains from his talk page to make it looks nice and clean (check out the history)there should be a consequence for people like that who put there own filings above the concept of putting useful info out as is the goal of wikipedia

Bloger 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Long Con

Why is that peice of information notable, as you put it, "for its implications"? What implications are those? The trivia point is vague and if it should be kept, it needs to be re-written to be clear in it's intention. It contains what appears to be Original Research when all that it says that connects the two books is that the plots are "similar." I'm very familiar with An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge and am really curious what it has to do with the plot outside of Dave (Lost). If anything the reference to The Third Policeman should be excised (and stand on it's own in the previous episode it appeared in), and a clear reasoning for the inclusion of "Owl Creek" should hold up based on its own, without the vauge reference. Help me out here. Thanks. Radagast83 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

If you would note the previous pages, you would note that the self-described "defender of Judaism" seems to have no objections to falsely attacking others. I agree it is ridiculous, and, in her case, has seemingly been so since the start. Also, that person had explicitly stated at least once that a direct response to a reasonable point would never be forthcoming. For what little it might be worth, this "person" in question will be intermittently watched by me in the event further discussions of this sort ever happen again. I note that s/he was treated with more civility than s/he displayed from the beginning, and used that advantage to insult and demean others regularly. In fact, I even tried to defend him/her in the beginning, before I (and I think everyone else) saw how consistently s/he was failing to live up to the standards s/he wishes others to follow. I realize that these issues are inherently emotional. However, this particular person has demonstrated, I think to everyone, that emotion, and not reason, is all s/he is capable of. Rationally, that point could have been made and left. However, s/he insisted on repeatedly accusing others of bad faith and pointedly refusing to answer points made against him/her. That is truly ridiculous. I am personally a member of I think all but maybe five projects on the Philosophy and religion directory page, and I am fairly sure I will be on hand in the event discussion like this ever takes place again. If it does, I will ensure that the other party is treated no better than s/he treats others. It will be interesting to see the response. Badbilltucker 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Badbill, you are just as much at fault here as Ryan for prolonging this, if not more so. Don't try to justify yourself to me - having seen an almost identical exchange between you and Izak, it's clear to me who's at fault. The difference with Izak was that he didn't feel the need to defend himself to you, which is Ryan's only shortcoming in the discussion. Good night. Daniel^C/_T+ 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, please note that I agreed with her and actually defended her early in the discussion. Please tell me how I am at fault for eventually coming to the same conclusions seemingly everybody else in the conversation (with the possible exception of BostonMA, who is I believe of extraordinary character in such matters), places me in the wrong. Or perhaps it is unreasonable to ask people to support their positions with something like facts. There is no question in my mind who was at fault here. I noted the previous "discussion" with IZAK was also one where he flatly refused to contact anyone before telling everyone his "objections". Presumably, that behavior of his was my fault as well. Really. Badbilltucker 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome arbitration. I believe any reasonable review of the record which does exist would make it clear whose actions were less appropriate here, and I'm certain it isn't me. Have a good day, and good luck with the house. I know that moving can be a problem. And, by the way, I only put that user's page on my watchlist to observe her continuing attempts to try to dodge reality. As she is otherwise boring, I am removing it from my list. Again, good luck with the move. Badbilltucker 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

'Self-Described Defender of Judaism'? If that was meant to refer to me, I am (and described myself as) no such thing. You'll either have to provide a diff or stop making that vile comment asap. If it was not referring to me, please delete, strike or just ignore this post. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You describe yourself on your userpage as proudly wearing the badge of the Zionist Cabal. There is little, if any, factual difference between the two characterizations, although I acknowledge it wasn't an exact quote. Considering your own regular misphrasings of the words of others, I would think you would be the last person to raise objections there, but somehow I'm not surprised that your aren't. Badbilltucker 01:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again you mischaracterize. The link makes clear I was included on a list of 'Zionists' on a Nazi website (see the link on my User page) - that's not self-described, nor do I claim membership in a 'Elders of Wikipedia Zionist cabal'. I'm still not sure what issue prompted my inclusion on that list but I am proud of being described as a 'useful idiot' by Nazis given the irony implicit therein (and herein as well). If you don't read, and think, you just react from emotion. 'Duckspeak', in essence. I'm beginning to consider your conduct as being very much in that vein. Dbratton's point that I don't need to defend myself to you has been well taken. Have a lovely half-mooned evening. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And again you seemingly willfully misstate my comments. It is an exact quote on your userpage that it is a "badge of honor". Those words are not from a link, but are explicitly your own. Also, at no point did I use the word "elders" which you ascribed to me, in quotations, no less. On that basis, I have no alternative to believe that your comment above contained a willful lie and a willful misrepresentation/personal attack. It would be interesting to see how long you would be suspended for it if I weren't a bit more nice than I should be, as someone has told me at least once on my userpage. Badbilltucker 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill, focus. Focus. 'Useful Idiot' is the badge of honor, not 'Zionist Cabal'. 'Elders' is from the source website. Do you understand? Please try to understand. Re-read what I said, think for :03 seconds and then answer. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that you refuse to address the matter of your own false statement once again. No surprise there, of course. Also you are explicitly in your own words saying you are "one of the 'Zionist Cabal' here at Wikipedia, or at least a 'useful idiot' (link) a misattributed badge of honor'. I acknowledge that there is no such thing as a Zionist Cabal here (except for maybe you and IZAK), so I acknowledge that it might be misattributed on that basis. Your own statement is far from clear on your user page, and in fact, in the context of the words, not the link, considering the words are what are actually on your page, it is the most reasonable conclusion. Try to think for at least a second before you respond. Badbilltucker 01:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious you aren't interested in reaching any agreements so I'll point out to you what it actually says:

In fact, if you ask your local Nazi skinhead, I may even be one of the 'Zionist Cabal' here at Wikipedia, or at least a 'useful idiot' - [1], a misattributed badge of honor which, given the source, I now wear proudly.

The meaning of that text is clear. It points out the absurdity of the idea of a cabal and some Nazi believing in my having anything to contribute worth 'cabalifying'. You may not want to understand or acknowledge what I am saying - as it doesn't support your preconceptions - but once again you go too far ('lies'), illustrate you have no actual argument, fail to find any common ground to resolve the issue, relentlessly attack on turns of phrases until a chorus points out your repetitiveness, and further solidify whatever case I might need to make regarding your conduct. Good evening. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(once again caught in edit conflict with person who insists on revising her own words immediately every time, for reasons we can only speculate about)

Attempting to put words in the mouths of others when those words are not even close to what was actually stated is a lie. I am sorry that you find yourself incapable of understanding that. And by trying to once again avoid an obvious fact of your own words, not those of others which are not even explicitly referred to in your own words, which you could have referred to, you are clearly and explicitly misrepresenting both your own words as they appear and reality. For all anyone knows, that link could be a reference, and it is not anybody else's responsibility to try to find ways to defend your own misstatements. It is your own. I am sorry that you will seemingly never be able to recognize that, at least by your own current behavior. Good night and I sincerely hope good bye. Badbilltucker 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazuraiun

Hi Daniel: What do you make of Nazuraiun? Thanks, IZAK 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazuraiun. Thank you. IZAK 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that

Thanks for this. I had accidentally reverted to a different version than I intended! : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy

I am happy that my thought and some others' efforts to give it a good acceptable shape is liked by you. Pray for me so that I can reach my scientific goal with due knowledge and due tolerance.

Regards

Samir

Aurthor/creator of the article Philosophy of Death and Adjustment 203.112.197.69 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong to revert

Indeed, we have been down this road before. A very large number of Messianics study the Talmud. I provided five citations that support this in the talk page. You will not be reverting it again. Noogster 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What discussion is there, because I'm not even seeing it. A lot of Messianics study/use/reference the Talmud, therefore it belongs on the template. It's so simple and foundational that it seems almost ridiculous that there would be any "heated discussion" at all unless the objectors have a very POV characterization of what they feel MJ is supposed to be. Noogster 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

You're welcome! I thought about leaving you a message, but decided that you would probably have come back to finish the job shortly. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing sourced materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sheep

I'm not quite sure how this was vandalism; an article about sheep behavior referenced in the sheep article with its source linked. Can you please explain? Thanks! 68.158.243.198 8:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 10:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

IP range block

((unblock-auto|1=86.136.244.238|2=repeated vandalism from this range, sorry|3=Can't sleep, clown will eat me)) Daniel^C/_T+ 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, the block expired before I was able to review it. You should be able to edit, for now, although we may want to ask CSCWEM why the block was set, in the first place. In any case, cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert without discussing?

Why are you reverting the article Who is a Jew? without one iota of use of that article's Talk page? Bus stop 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been corrected and asked to stop making unilateral edits on the talk page. Please respect consensus. Daniel^C/_T+ 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)