User talk:Bus stop

Unblocked

Based on the apparent consensus at WP:AN#Community ban review for user:Bus stop, the community seems to be willing to give you another chance. As a previously uninvolved admin, I'll take the chance of unblocking you. Contingent upon a full apology to the community, you are on at least six months of general probation, during which your behavior will be under scrutiny by User:Durova. During that time you are not to be involved with any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. Please construe this quite broadly, and steer well clear of any articles having to do with this topic. You are unblocked on the expectation that User:Durova will be actively mentoring you. If you have any questions about what you can/cannot do under the terms of your probation, please refer them to her first. So, to sum up:

• You are on general probation for six months. This applies to all articles and pages on Wikipedia. Any problematic behavior will result in a new block, no exceptions.
• You may not edit any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. This should be construed broadly. Should you try to WP:GAME the edges of this ban, you will be blocked again.
• You are to be mentored by User:Durova. If you follow her directions, I foresee no reason why you should not become a stand-up member of the community. Any sign of you not following her directions during your mentorship will result in a block.
• One of your very first edits should be a section on this page, or your user page, consisting of a genuine apology for your previous actions. This will go a long way towards convincing the community of your good faith.

I sincerely hope that you will become a productive member of the community again. I don't like blocking productive users, but I will not hesitate to reinstate your block should any misbehavior arise. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop. Dweller wasn't able to mentor and some of the community wanted a mentor to step forward. If you have someone else in mind who's willing I'll be glad to hand this off to them. Otherwise, wishing you a successful return. Let's mend fences. Best, Durova^Charge! 16:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Durova. I appreciate your help in getting my account unblocked. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back...

I hope the return is successful... you have much to offer the community if only you can stay away from controversy.

I'll come back here and post a link you may or may not find useful to read through, of dialogue between myself and another user I successfully mentored back to being a user in good standing.

Good luck. --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. Quite a lot isn't relevant to you, but I think you might find it instructive to read. --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dweller. I appreciate your expressed sentiments. That is kind of you. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To fellow editors

To fellow editors

I note that an apology is stipulated, as an unblock condition. I wish to make this statement voluntarily.

I certainly apologize sincerely and wholeheartedly for the very improper language I used towards Durova. What I did reflects poorly on me. Durova's easy and quick acceptance of my apology reflects very well on her, in my humble opinion. I think I can say with confidence that this will never happen again.

I take seriously my wrongheadedness not only in the words I used, but that I could mistake that which is counterproductive for that which is productive. I recognize that I have also gone about various matters in the wrong way previously, and have caused frustration because of this. I apologise to those whose time has been taken up by it.

It is my intention to contribute responsibly and sincerely to Wikipedia, to reach understandings and compromises, and to do whatever else it takes to write a good online encyclopedia. This of course especially refers to those I may disagree with.

Of course I will stay away from the articles and general topics as suggested, for the next 6 months, and I accept mentorship from Durova. I trust that Durova will advise me if my editing in any way goes astray. It is my sincerest intention to work with others, not against others. To err is human, so if I go off course, please let me know.

I don't want any more drama, and would like to simply get back to editing.

Thanks to all.

Bus stop

Welcome back

Do your best...it's good to see you back again...Modernist (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Modernist. See you amidst the paintings and sculptures and various conceptual entities. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, and that probably isn't much, I'm happy to see your return as well. Based on the comments of others, you have been a very productive editor in fields about which I personally know little if anything, art and the like, and it's good to see valuable contributors there. Regarding religious/ethnic questions, none of us necessarily know everything, me particularly, and input is always welcome there as well. A recent injury has severely limited my activity of late (not that big a loss, of course), but if by chance you should see any obvious errors or misrepresentations in articles relating to those subjects, feel free to email me or leave me a message and I'll see what can be done, although under the circumstances it might take a while to respond. Good to see you back. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter. I look forward to working well together. I wish you speedy recovery on the medical front. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? LOL!

Well, I have to say, in light of our last telephone discussion - I'm STUNNED (but happy none the less) to witness the Wikipedia Revival of "Bus Stop". Why - oh, why - oh, why - would you ever want to return to this wicked place after the way you were treated? I hope you realize that the nasty little pack who relentlessly wiki-stalked and provoked you are waiting with baited breath to renew their campaign of harassment against you. I see it didn't take a NY minute for a certain party to leave a phoney baloney message on your talk page - lest you somehow "forget" that he's still there - watching you - waiting - itching to twist your words, push your buttons and trump up some kind of complaint against you.

You know, it all makes me wonder.... What type of person inspires such feelings of hatred and anger that someone would attack them - hitting them in the head with a baseball bat? Was this a random attack? Considering the character, in question, I somehow doubt it. He claims his COMPUTER was stolen. If the attacker wasn't sending him a message - perhaps, the universe was. It's a pity you're "friend" apparently still hasn't "gotten" the message that he needs to stop using the Internet, and Wikipedia, more specifically, to harass people. Be careful, where he is concerned.

Drop me an e-mail sometime. I'd love to hear from you. I'm not editing from this account much anymore. If you ever need help, just edit the "BLB" article - it's on my watchlist. You can always find me that way. If I see you make an edit there - I'll know what to do. Best of luck to you, friend!

Hugs, Kisses & a good bottle of Merlot....Cleo123 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Cleo. I'm uncorking that merlot now. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Anne Mondro

Well spotted. I've deleted it as a recreation of the article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Mondro. Ty 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's greetings

And to you too. I hope all continues to go well. Ty 14:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying hello

You seem to be doing fine, but touching bases now and then can be a good thing. My user talk and email are available, as you know. Saw that one post you made and withdrew a few weeks back. Here's hoping all remains well, and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for saying hello. Everything is going alright. It's good to be back editing Wiki. I realized that the edits I made were over a minor issue; that's why I deleted them. Thank you again for the various steps you've taken to allow me to edit again. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Leonid Afremov

Doesn't look notable to me per WP:N or WP:BIO, but not a speedy candidate. Prod, and, failing that, AfD. Ty 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jew

Hello Bus stop, thanks for stopping by. I checked the link you mentioned regarding Talk:Jew, but did not find it as vandalism. I've moved the post to the bottom of the page however, as new posts should start at the bottom. Let me know what was your concern with the edits. Jay (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What I understand by "someone forgot us" is that the editor could be talking on behalf of the Swiss Jews. In any case, it is a talk page and you can ask what the editor actually meant. What matters is if the statistics the editor has provided is verifiable and will be useful to the article. It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards ... (see WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments). Jay (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish principles of faith

Hi. I reverted the vandalism. Thanks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for my assistance too, but by the time I got there it had already been reverted by Malik: thanks. As I am not an administrator, there is nothing beyond this that I can do; but I do invariably revert such nonsense when I see it, and I regularly check "related changes" to my home page to see what has been happening to articles I have been editing. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Tubes of paint, artist's paint PNG.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Tubes of paint, artist's paint PNG.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. It can be deleted. I rather take a better picture anyway. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, if anyone else wants to, that would be great too. It's not rocket science. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		It's been a pleasure to see your return. Here's marking three productive months and wishing you many more. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 17:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Durova. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Tubes of paint, artist's paint PNG.png

Thanks for uploading File:Tubes of paint, artist's paint PNG.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tubes of paint image

All you need to do is replace the existing {{di-no license...}} tag with the {{GFDL-self}} tag. If I were allowed I'd do it for you I would but I'm not "you". I like the image and it is quite suitable for the article. You can always replace it later but I'd suggest keeping it (for now anyway). Cheers, -hydnjo talk 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've gone and done it! I've pretended to be you by adding {{GFDL-self}} to the image page (and deleted the other thingy). Hoping that that doesn't make me pass Go and go directly to Jail. Oh well, its for a good cause (I think). I love finding excuses to say that that  :-) hydnjo talk 01:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You were reverted. I've had another go.[1] Ty 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted myself. I misread BS's instructions... Ty 04:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, apparently some of us like your image ;-) -hydnjo talk 22:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Mixed paint.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mixed paint.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bus stop. You have new messages at J.delanoy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 21:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I've made this edit. Thanks for your contributions at the WP:RD :-) -hydnjo (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mondrian

Please see my note on the Mondrian page regarding my correct change of date and your incorrect "correction." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.169.83 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry. I really didn't know. I thought it was vandalism. My mistake. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know

I added to your comment on User talk:J.delanoy. Have a nice day. --Sky Attacker (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting. I haven't looked at what's in that toolbar in a long time. It looks like there are a lot of useful things in there. There ought to be a box for thinking outside of the box. I could use that one. Thanks again! Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bus stop's Day!

Bus stop has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Bus stop's Day! For your excellent RefDesk contributions, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Bus stop! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 23:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulataions, man. You've earned it. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Start a new section on the talk page and begin by explaining the problem as you perceive it, without your proposed remedy(ies). Keep it simple and short. See if there's consensus that there's actually a problem and if it begins to emerge then start on the solutions. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not a major one. I feel inspired by correct nomenclature. That is a worthy aim in and of itself. I did not notice that some categories of questions were filed under headings that incorrectly identified them. Someone else noticed that. But I noticed the argument concerning that, and to me it seemed very clear -- go with correct subject names. I saw, and I see, no great drawback to increasing the number of areas within the larger reference desk area. But as the number of sub areas increases, I think it can have the effect of making it more difficult for a newcomer to post a question. That is why (one reason) I have agued for putting the sub areas in the background, almost as an afterthought. I really do not want to hinder ready access to the reference desks to anyone. In a funny way all of these things seem densely intertwined. I can understand why no one wants to adopt any changes. First of all the problems are not glaring ones. Secondly the solutions are more design solutions than anything of a more radical nature. Just because one or two people have a vision is no reason why everyone else should come on board. I just thought I'd throw my ideas out there. Maybe eventually some other people will make suggestions that incorporate some of these ideas. But I don't really want to argue for my grand scheme. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Work song

No offence was meant, but the grammar of a double negative following a negative and a positive was challenging. In any case I have moved the link to the external links section as You Tube is not considered a reliable source to support text. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. They are often removed by bots as copyright is difficult for videos.--Sabrebd (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Star-planet size

Don't know what happened to your question on the RD, but you might want to scan this. -- kainaw™ 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Conditions lifted

Hi Bus stop, I just realized that it's been well over 6 months since you were unblocked, and you seem to have done quite well, so I think I'm safe in telling you that I'm lifting the restrictions that were placed on you before. I hope you can avoid any trouble in the future. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Aervanath. Thank you also to many other members of the community who have shown good will and support. I appreciate it. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You've done really well. You and User:TreasuryTag are two examples of how editors can be immensely productive and valuable after a troubled start. It's all down to your attitude, which has been spot-on. I'm tremendously impressed. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dweller. I appreciate your support. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One question

I'm not sure why, but you haven't seemed to have put the three awards you've got on this page onto your main user page, like most people do. Unfortunately, as your page gets archived, they might not appear on the talk page anymore, so people who don't know you won't see how highly regarded by others you are. And, no, I didn't miscount. This is the third:

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		I myself don't spend a lot of time at the Reference Desks, but I see the amazing amount of work you do there. It's hard enough for some of us to even write stuff in articles about things we already know about, let alone find answers to questions from others about any number of things. Thanks for everything you've done for the project and for those whose questions you've helped answer. John Carter (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I appreciate the sentiments. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sweetheart!

Glad to see things are going so well for you! Cleo123 (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the truth gets more fictionalized all the time. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

In my humble opinion as you know there are certain topics that are best left alone...Modernist (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject of Dylan's apparent conversion possibly being a false one might be notable. Personally, I don't know enough about him to have an opinion one way or another. But if it is, it might be best to try to raise it at a location where more people not particularly interested in the subject might see it, like, maybe, WP:POVN. Alternately, if you believe that the article as it stands is biased, maybe requesting a featured article review at WP:FAR might be the best way to go. But I do have to think that trying to add to the article itself, without prior discussion on the talk page, might not be a path down the safest of all possible roads. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting bogged down in anything. I found these sources. They seem to support non-conversion, for Dylan. So, I am stating it. The information is out there. If consensus is to run and hide, so be it. As a Wikipedian, I can't see suppressing information. I'm all about sharing information, or at least I try to be. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We're just lookin' out for you...Modernist (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

You removed the word “ethnically” from the phrase “ethnically Jewish” in the lead, with the comment, “revert; do you have a source for "ethnically Jewish" for Einstein?” What is it you want sourced: the fact that his family was of Jewish ancestry or the fact that he was not religious? —teb728 t c 08:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You should know that the phrase “ethnically Jewish” was added to the lead as a compromise consensus after long discussion. The goal of the consensus was to mention his Jewish background very briefly without giving the false impression that he was religious. Before the compromise the lead did not mention his Jewishness. Your change breaks that compromise. As you can see on the talk page, there is already considerable opposition to mentioning his Jewishness there. Notice that the next edit after your revert was to remove it. —teb728 t c 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I hear ya. Maybe mention of "Jewishness" shouldn't be in the top portion of the article. Maybe it should be beneath the table of contents. I don't want to get into it, but Jewish is a religion. It includes observant and nonobservant Jews. And all points in between. Sometimes you can split hairs to a degree that you lose sight of the larger, and simpler, picture. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

village pump -- thanks for adding some perspective

hey, thanks for defusing the situation at village pump. My own tone came across as more aggressive that I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry I did that. Tell you the truth, even though it's a conversation worth having, the jury is still out as to whether this particular thread will not get derailed into the realm of speculation by ... one of its three current contributors.  :)

Peace. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you. It has been interesting so far. What you said was perfectly appropriate, because it was getting a little contentious, and I guess I was contributing to its contentiousness. Nothing out of the ordinary — par for the course. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your post

Thanx, but I'm cool -- I'm not against a suggestion that I made. I'm the one under attack here, and perhaps your mountain/molehill analogy would be more apropos for those who would like to see me blocked from RD edits. Thanks for your moral support, though. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		In appreciation of our personal Détente, both general and specific. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

I see you fixed my mess on the RefDesk talk page. Thanks. That's, like, the third or fourth time I've done that. I feel like a jerk each time. I'm not sure why I didn't get an e/c warning.

So, thanks for fixing it quickly. APL (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

After reading the discussion on the RD talk page, I thought to pop over and read your user page and talk page. After reading this talk page, my opinion of you went from "just another RD guy" to "a great RD guy." I'm assuming you are rather young (at least younger than I am). However, you are obviously wise beyond your years. You may have heard it enough already, but I thought another compliment wouldn't hurt. -- kainaw™ 21:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, kainaw. That's kindness to excess. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is like anesthesia.

That's just trolling dude. Vespine (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've crossed through my probably improper comment. I apologize to you and others. It was improper of me to butt in that way. Bus stop (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing titles of Ref Desk questions

I see you changed the title of a question from "Question" to "Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Hacking, legality, private_website". I agree that the title needed to be changed to be more clear and applaud you for doing so. However, it's a good idea to leave the original name of the question, as the original poster may search for that term. Therefore, something like "Question (Hacking, legality, private_website)" solves both problems. StuRat (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, OK, I will keep that in mind. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanx for the revert. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pattern and Decoration

Hey there, thanks for starting the article. I did some work on it, adding references and a list of artists. One thing that I thought it could use was more specificity about the sorts of art produced - for instance I found info about tiles produced by Joyce Kozloff but it could use references to other artists' works. Thanks,--Larrybob (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to get back to it. I hope you and others flesh it out. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help

Hi Bus stop, was looking into something that might fall within your area of interest. Would you check out this proposal? Several months ago I restored the photograph and nominated it for featured picture; it nearly passed. Recently another editor has identified the synagogue. There isn't any article yet for that synagogue. If there were it would enhance the encyclopedic value of the image. Am working on a re-edit of the image. Would you perhaps be interested in helping to start an article for it? Best regards, Durova³¹⁸ 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Durova, Thank you for asking. The photograph is great. I like the expressions on the people's faces. But a quick search turns up little on the synagogue. This is the best name and address I can get for it: "Congregation Emunath Israel" "236 W 23rd St, New York, NY, 10011 " I'll keep on looking, but I am not sure there is enough for an article. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dual-covenant theology

I think the concept of dual-covenant theology comes from the modernist branch of Judaism ... at least that's the impression I get from reading about interfaith conferences where prominent liberal rabbis participate. The traditional Christian concept of dual-covenant refers to converted Jews and converted Gentiles, so it doesn't necessarily include non-converted Jews or non-converted Gentiles. The essential point that Paul is making in the New Testament is that the Church forms one people, which can include people of many cultural or ethnic backgrounds. ADM (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed un-sourced material. Bring a source or please leave it out. I believe it is misinformation. Please don't foist it on the reader. Wikipedia uses sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting source here that talks about a 19th century rabbi who used similar terminology to what is now known as dual-covenant theology. Incidentally, the article is written with the help of Leon Klenicki, a noted liberal rabbi who contributed significantly to interfaith relations between Christians and Jews. [2] ADM (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Assimilated Jew and WP:OR

There's a discussion on the article's Talk page about the term "assimilated Jew".

The OR is in the final sentences you added: "These are all normal and standard terms of description for Jews who are not particularly religious. All have slightly different meaning, but they are somewhat similar." — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A dictionary would provide each term's definition. These terms are hardly a mystery to anyone. These are commonly used terms.

As far as "assimilated" is concerned, your comment on the Talk page as well as Benjil's comment on the Talk page both convey the notion of a term that suggests a movement away from religious observance, which is consistent, I think, with my comment that the terms have "slightly different meaning, but they are somewhat similar." I can only assume you feel "assimilated" suggests too little movement in the direction away from strict religious observance to warrant being grouped with the others. Benjil merely says that "assimilated" is usually used in the context of marriage.

Of course these terms are not identical. But I think they are all useful terms for expressing degrees and shades of nonobservance. It probably would not have occurred to me to collect these terms together were it not for the article's insistence on the use of only one term — ethnic Jew — to designate Jews who are not particularly religiously observant. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For superlative talk page lurking, and for being a good sport about the subject. :) Durova319 02:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Durova. Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Who Is a Jew?

I recently saw the discussion on the talk page of the above article. I don't know a bloody thing about what y'all are talking about there, so should probably stay out of it, but if there is any topic which might be really relevant to the ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard, this might be it. And it might be possible that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups might have some useful input as well, although I'm not really sure how active that project is. But, if the discussion continues very long, it might be useful to have some editors who deal primarily with the general ethnicity topic involved as well as what might be called "ethnic" Jews, whatever that means. And, to echo Durova above, thanks for the continuing good work. I wish I could get some of the editors involved in some of the more contested new religious movements to live up to the standard of conduct you're setting. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi BusS, I took part in the discussion on "Who is a Jew" Talk page and I took the side of ThuranX becuase I don't think that "Ethnicall Jew" is flawed or incorrect term. I also don't think that your own research on the use of this term in wide media can support your position. However, I'm willing to changh my mind if you explain exactly what you think to be wrong in this term aside for its not being widely used.--Gilisa (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll get back to this article when some more people contribute activity to it. I don't want to make it seem that the article has to reflect my ideas. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus, It's fine that the article will reflect your idea if it's right idea, I'm really willing to hear. Best

--Gilisa (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Another star

		The Civility Barnstar
		For an exemplary communication at 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC). Ty 10:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tyrenius. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Einstein ref

Hi, please have a look at my edit comments here, here and here? Thanks and cheers. DVdm (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All assertions are taken from the same reference: "Einstein and religion: physics and theology," by Max Jammer. The various assertions I make are separated by no more than a few sentences in that source. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you put the page right then? Your reference goes to page 42. The quoted sentence is not there. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The references span about six pages in that book. I think it is correctly linked now. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I had stopped searching too soon. I have "fancified" the refs a bit. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Negroid Talk

Why did you delete my post? The concept I posted needs to be explored scientifically. By deleting it in a knee-jerk reaction, you close the doors to this scientific discussion. --98.236.11.20 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't seem to need the exploration that you say it needed, but go ahead and reinstate it. I will refrain this time from reverting. Perhaps others will find merit where I didn't. Bus stop (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ada yonath is Jewish

It's mentioned already in her early life section.--Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, Gilisa. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You welcome!--Gilisa (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Put my question back

You don't sEem to know that ALL people came from Africa (original home of s sapiens) and THEN turned white. So why doesn't this happn. It is a serious question u can elaborate on it if u want I'm typig from a mobile phone, that's why thr phrasing is terse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.217 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted this inquiry because I felt it was not a serious inquiry. But if I'm mistaken please your question back. I apologize for the inconvenience I've caused you. Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No

Though you may well be acting in good faith, only one of two things can be true here. 1) You have no real idea what antisemitism is or 2) for lulz or other reasons, you wish to see antisemitic posts on talk pages. If the answer is 1) please don't edit in areas relating to that subject. If 2)... well, I prefer not to contemplate that eventuality. Really, please do not feed this troll. IronDuke 03:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Feeding," in this instance, would involve engaging potentially objectionable topics in discussion. I did not do that. My dialogue was concerned with identities based on varying IP addresses. It was off-topic. It wasn't "feeding." Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for not restoring the post -- and that's what I meant by "feeding," in this instance, replacing the anon's post. Though the anon did a very nice job of slapping a patina of reasonableness on his remarks, they were flat out antisemitic. I don't mean that they flirted with crossing the line, or that they set off alarm bells, I mean that they were virulently antisemitic. And I should make clear: I am not now nor have I called this user an antisemite; I would have no way of knowing that. Though unlikely, this could well be a misguided user conducting a breaching experiment. The motives for this user do not interest me. IronDuke 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop. Does this one go up the hill to enlightenment? I'll have a ticket for one please. I refer you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke#Despatch_for_the_self-appointed_Wikipedia_censor It appears that the poster above's modus operandi is deleting what doesn't fit on his 4:3 horizon. I leave it to you to make your own conclusions. Thanks --86.180.47.30 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Bus Stop, I have left a message for Sir Myles indicating that his criticisms are harsh and constructive. With his criticisms in mind, I am esxaming how to move certain aspects of my contribution to other, perhaps more relevant, Wiki entries. In the same vein, I am also going to correct wome of Sir Myles' editorial criticisms - he's correct to point them out.

As you can see from the change log, I am presently iterating through the sections, updating Jewish tribes of Arabia so that I can excise the details about these tribes from Jewish Philosophy.

Is that what you meant by iterative? Your comments are welcomed. Jimharlow99 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeshivish Jews

Why do you keep on taking down my addition to the Yeshivish Jews post. I am new to wiki but I think the addition of the subcategory of "Harry" is warrented. I would provide references but unfortunaltey I have not yet leanred how. If you like a cursory search on google for "Yeshivish Harry" will provide several references for this phenomenon. I would like to discuss this further, as this section certainly warrents inclusion in the general article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcashmoney (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I was unfamiliar with it. But a source is necessary for including material in articles. Please try looking into information found here and here. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for gettting back to me. For now I have reinstated my changed but I will try to learn how to post references ASAP. Many of the minutia in this category, as in common in many small social phenomena, are difficult to document as they are often known only to true insiders. I have provided what I feel is a true reflection and description of the community. So long as wiki is willing to dedicate a page to "Yeshivish Jews", I think it is neccesary to include both its "Noteable members" and sociological byproducts (i.e. Harry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcashmoney (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will probably soon revert your most recent edit. Those are assertions that are unsourced. Consider looking over this. I don't know where you are finding the material that you are putting into the article. Also, please continue this discussion on the Yeshivish Jews Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let this discussion continure here where others who share our particular interest in writing the the Yeshivish Jews article are more likely to find this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeshivish Jews

Hi Bus Stop! I very much appreciate your help with the Yeshivish Jews article, especially the way you dealt with that somewhat persistant new editor. The article, though far from complete or encyclopedic, has a special place in my heart because it was one of my first articles I significantly contributed to. I had a few things I wanted to ask you though. First, the lead sentence, which was admittedly somewhat convoluted, was an attempt to portray the Yeshivish phenomenon as something somewhat more complex than just describing an alumnus of a Yeshiva. As it stands currently, it seems that once someone attends a Yeshiva, he is labeled Yeshivish; that is simply not the case, at least not in the most common sense of the word. Additionally, women can be described as yeshivish, as can families, communities, etc... even though it isn't the prior attendence of a Yeshiva that is being described. Also, the word "ideology" was the closest I could find to describe that there is a common range of Hashkafa among Yeshivish Jews. I am not changing it back now, but I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter, and if you have any other suggested wording. Thanks. Keyed In (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I think you have greatly improved the lead to better encompass the various aspects of Yeshivish. It is clearly a difficult subject to describe, but I think it's getting there. I also like your choice of worldview/ideology, because I think it really is a bit of both.

My only question is the sentence which now reads "Additionally, many Yeshivish Jews do not attend secular colleges for unmarried men," which you probably intended to say "Additionally, many Yeshivish men do not attend secular colleges." But are you opposed to saying that there is somewhat of an opposition to the whole college idea? I know that it isn't necessarily unanimous, but I think it should be mentioned.

Thanks again for all of your improvements. I very much value your opinion on this subject. Keyed In (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and also what do you think about User:Dcashmoney's section "Notable Members of the Yeshivish Community"? I think it is difficult to point to any limited number of notable figures...what do you think? Keyed In (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bird mesorah

Okie -- I did this. You can build on that, depending on how detailed you'd like to go, but that seems like an extremely reliable site. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood

To begin, I'd like to note that it's not only fish blood that is permissible, but insect blood (of the kosher insects) as well -- this is not just a goofy point; it is explicitly mentioned along with fish blood in the Mishnah as the blood of the seven liquids that make food items susceptible to impurity.

And is blood the only non-kosher food item whose reason for being forbidden is mentioned in the Torah? I assume you refer to the Written Torah, and not the Oral Torah. I do not think so, nor do I think such a distinction is perhaps even worthy of mention. All non-kosher land and sea animals are explicitly excluded because they lack the requisite signs, either cloven hooves/rumination or fins/scales. In Lev 19:7, pigul is said to be prohibited because it is rejected. Creeping creatures are prohibited in Lev 11:42, because they are an abomination. While one can argue that these explanations are ambiguous in their meaning, one can say with equivalent incredulity that "souls are contained in blood" is just as, if not more so, ambiguous. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave it alone

Bus stop -- I was embroiled in an argument a month or so ago on the ref desk regarding religion (Jewish view on Christianity, to be specific). I ended up in a big mess with a bunch of editors (SteveBaker, APL, etc.) and I stepped away just in time to save myself from being completely ostracized by the ref desk sub-community of Wikipedia. I figured that it was more important to me to have that specific cohort value my opinion and welcome me in discussion than to have my question answered. I didn't intend to troll or to upset anyone, but it seems apparent (couched phrase -- it's probably a fundamental property of beliefs, in general) that person A takes tremendous offense to person B speaking about a conviction of theirs in relative terms. So for me, as a Jew, to speak of Christianity as though it's completely false and inviting others to provide sources and evidence for it -- that really ticks people off. It happens, though, that I did receive what I thought was a [[User_talk:DRosenbach/Archive_7#Ten_Commandments_question calm, collected response from an individual on my talk-page]. It's often difficult for people to respond calmly and with objectivity when they are in a public forum, and I think that had something to do with it.

It seems as though you are embroiled -- not in anything specific, because I see all of what you are doing in a single, panoramic-sort of perspective -- in a general issue of what is most likely a product of a numerous things which make Wikipedia great for certain things but not for other things -- these things relate to Judaism in specific:

• Judaism has a concept of shivim panim latorah -- there are "seventy faces of Torah," in that there are many, many different ways to explain things, and no interpretation is incorrect, assuming all interpretations follow the rules of interpretation provided by the Torah itself.
• Wikipedia policy is that articles need not necessarily represent truth, just verifiability.

These two things are at tremendous opposition to one another, and I'll explain why. Rabbi Mordechai Becher of Gateways (who is a personal mentor of mine, in some respect) tells a great story of how a Conservative rabbi approached him at a rabbis meeting once with a real desire to understand why his view -- the Conservative view -- cannot be acceptable to an Orthodox Jew who necessarily subscribes to the idea of shivim panim latorah. Rabbi Becher responded with the following example:

Two champion boxers meet at a tournament in Vegas with much anticipation among the fans as to the outcome of such a match-up. The two boxers enter the ring, and after circling for some time and a few punches thrown, one of the boxers draws out a knife and stabs his opponent in the right chest. With the impaled knife remaining in his chest, the other boxer falls to the ground, while the first boxer lifts his arms, demanding cheers from the crowd. "I won -- he's down and he ain't coming up!" shouts the boxer who brandished the knife.

Why doesn't the crowd cheer? How come this boxer doesn't get the ridiculous gold belt, and why is he arrested shortly thereafter? Because, in boxing, the boxers agree to rules of engagement. Much like in any argument or dispute, the arguers or disputers need to agree on a heck of a lot more than they disagree on -- for starters, they need to agree on what can and cannot be used as ammunition. So, Rabbi Becher explained to this Conservative rabbi, Orthodox Judaism rejects arguments brought by the Conservative movement because the Conservative movement essentially cheats. When two rabbis, like Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and the Chazon Ish argue on the nature or the prohibition of using electricity on shabbat, they need to first agree that:

1. There is a God
2. That God revealed himself to man
3. That, in revealing himself to man, God made his will known to man
4. That man was given the Torah
5. That the Torah commands man
6. That one of these commandments is to keep the Sabbath
7. That the Sabbath includes 39 categories of forbidden activities
8. etc.

The list goes on and on and on and on and on...and it's really only at the very end that they come up with opposing views (the former asserts that electricity is rabbinically forbidden, while the latter holds that it is biblically prohibited). Important for my point to you is that they must both agree on which sources one may utilize. They both agree that only Torah sources can be used, including and pretty much limited to the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, the rabbinic commentaries, including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam + Ramban, etc., the Shulchan Aruch, etc. I mean, you get my point, I hope. If the Chazon Ish would quote Richard Feynman, who is says was involved in an argument with some yeshiva boys on an airplane once about the nature of electricity, it is as if the Chazon Ish pulled out a knife at a boxing match. He automatically loses the argument, because he breached the boundaries of legitimate source material.

When people write things on Wikipedia, all they need to do is quote from a notable and verifiable source. OK, so no blogs and no MySpace. But pretty much anything else is allowed. That certainly doesn't hold water in Judaism, but Wikipedia is not Judaism. It doesn't claim to be.

I began on Wikipedia in the hopes of dedicating myself to advancing Judaism-related articles. That hope died away quickly. I learned the hard way that the majority of Wikipedia users editing Judaism-related articles were not playing by the rules outlined above by Rabbi Becher. Not playing by Rabbi Becher's rules may be their prerogative from a politically correct, pluralistic view of the world, but certainly not from Judaism's perspective. Almost each editor brings a knife to the boxing match, and there is nothing I can do about it, because the referee at the match is just as surprised as the knife-wielding opponent that I have any problem whatsoever with this new way of boxing.

Now, I do not know you -- I do not even pretend to know you. You may consider yourself as part of one "denomination" or "branch" of Judaism or no branch -- I cannot know, because I do not know you. But I am not here to judge you. But Judaism as it has been practiced since it's establishment by national revelation at Sinai asserts that there are no branches of Judaism. Pluralism is a falsehood and there cannot be different strokes for different folks when it comes to adherence to law as dictated by God or the sages within whom he has provided the power to mandate rabbinic regulations in order to protect the biblical laws. You or others may contest this -- I cannot stop you or others from thinking what you may, and as you can probably attest to yourself, such people are quite the majority here on Wikipedia. So I edit and start articles relating to Judaism that have very little meaning or relevance to the non-observant or liberal minded Jew. But long ago I decided that I'd stick with dentistry, which is much less controversial. I think it might be time you do the same -- you will not be able to win when other editors bring knives to your boxing match.

Again, if I've offended you, it was unintentional. I mean no insult to you or your faith, whatever it is. I am not judging you -- that is God's job, not mine. I am here in this world to promote unity and truth and peace, but I thought you could benefit from the analogies and stories above because it seems to me that you are in the same predicament that I once was. We can speak more about this if you'd like -- you know how to contact me. But if I were you, I'd stick to the ref desk, where your witty comments and side remarks inevitably make me smile if not giggle and you are thought of, at least as far as I can see, as an integral and important part of the question-answering machine that is the ref desk. But when others are permitted to quote anything as a source and utilize ingenuine source material that is held to the same level of authoritativeness as the Mishna, your only hope of winning an argument is if there is no argument because you are writing about something like the chumrah of the Ohr Zarua regarding keeping an additional period of onah prior to the half day already kept by a woman expecting her period -- I mean, something that is really sooooo foreign to anyone who does not maintain only the highest respect for Torah-true Judaism that how would they argue? Why would they argue? They have absolutely no clue what you are talking about! Or like my article on toch k'dei dibur -- it's not like I'm asserting that driving is not allowed on shabbat, and someone who drives is coming to demand I respect their POV and add that it's merely an Orthodox perspective of sabbath observance that prohibits driving.

OK -- I've written a megillah here. I hope what I've written helps you a bit, serves as a source of direction change for you, and serves to protect you from future battles you will not win -- you cannot win. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take this as my saying I won't help you if you insist on helping out on Jewish-related topics. I'm just in a bit of a rush now to get ready for shabbat, so I'll respond to your prayer in Hebrew issue when I can. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Hey -- perhaps something like this would work for Marx. Follow the wiki-linked asterisk following her religious affiliation as listed in her upper right disaply box. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment of Jayjg

I warned you (in a now-deleted message here on your talk page) to stop harrassing Jayjg, specifically on his talk page.

You did stop that, but this morning made this comment on Talk:Judaism.

That comment is over the line on our policy against personal attacks. In combination with your previous behavior, you're pushing way past what is acceptable user conduct in discussions with other users here.

We know you are frustrated with Jayjg. Wikipedia requires that all users, at all times, treat each other with respect and in civil, adult terms. This shows up in WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS. This applies even (and especially) when you are extremely frustrated with other users.

Please keep content disputes focused on content. If you believe Jayjg's violated policy ask for help on ANI again. If you continue to launch attacks such as those of the last couple of days, you will violate policy to the extent of being subject to being blocked to stop it. I hope that you can stop pushing it and refocus on the article content.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert -- OK, I have taken your advice. I am trying to proceed cautiously, with propriety. Thank you for posting this here. I would appreciate it if you would keep me posted if anything untoward on my part comes to your attention. I'm trying to do this the Wikipedia way. Even after several years I don't think I quite have the hang of it. Thank you again. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an outstanding reponse by a party in a heated situation. Good luck resolving the differences. Focusing on the issues, rather than the parties involved, will be key to emerging with consensus. Well done. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion

User_talk:Collect#Mediation_on_Judaism Debresser (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, is there some reason you are posting this here? It is very nice that you are giving a barnstar to Collect. But why am I being notified? Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Break-in by fat slob in red

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

John Carter is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

John Carter (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear"

As I read it, the surrounding context had to do with some hypothetical enhanced eavesdropping capabilities against (in this case) Muslims, and, perhaps, some concern that this might not be appreciated by those eavesdropped upon. To say "Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear" is to say, "you don't have to worry about us eavesdropping on you if you have nothing to hide (and you don't have anything to hide, do you?)". If I were the hypothetical eavesdroppee, and the person making the comment were serious, I'd be quite offended. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is no secret that there is a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan. The OP needed to be made to understand that the fanciful language used was outside of permitted reference desk parameters. There is a problem that should be addressed before persecuting one regular reference desk editor. That problem is the issue of how to respond to postings that seem problematic. My initial suggestion is a few back and forth questions to establish what wants answering, and whether a given scope of question can be addressed. That is the first and most important order of business, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB and Words to avoid

There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for your note. I hope this year is happy, healthy and successful for you, as we start this new decade..here is an old favorite of mine - [3]...Modernist (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And from me too. Ty. Ty 02:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not?

What's wrong with an infinite universe? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Fractals can contain infinity completely. A fractal of the proper number set would be good, as a model, I believe. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• When you look at a Fractal like the Mandelbrot set,

Everything going on is going on at the edge, along the border, yet everything going on is connected through the center, A little squiggle on the border over here may think it's separate from the little squiggles on the other side, but all the squiggles are related through the center. What would a 3D fractal look like? A sphere with squiggly shapes on the outside of it? Sounds like Earth to me. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your paintings

I see on your user page that you're a painter. If you have any abstract paintings relating to subjects I write about like Kitchen cabinet or Handyman or Allegheny College or Citizenship in the United States or Criticism of American foreign policy, please let me know if they're on Wikimedia, I'd like to put your artwork in my articles. I'm trying to get people to read my articles but often they're kind of boring, and visually appealing images adds a lot. I put Modernist's Gauguin in Philosophy of Spinoza. I admire creative people. I've tried to be creative but I really don't quite have it. What is your philosophy of painting? I've done Julian Hatton and Maeve Harris but I'm looking for more artists to write about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images

Hello. Could you please edit your comment here to change the showing of that image into a link? Showing non-free images like that typically isn't allowed on Talk pages. Linking to them is fine though.--Rockfang (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that.--Rockfang (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revamping of Combine painting

Hi, I'm working on a revamp of an art article which you suggested. If interested, check out Combine painting revamp and make changes as needed. Thanx for suggesting the revamp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not suggest a revamp. But of course you certainly don't need my permission to do that. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk

So, should I put a box around the 3 debate sections about counterfeiting? Or should I and everyone else ignore them and hope the IP will go away? Alternatively, maybe put them all into one section? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I saw your answer, I went ahead and grouped them under one topic. If someone wants to revert that, they can do so. It looks like a set of endless loops either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not unnecessarily mess with indenting on ref desk

If you don't know what the various levels of colons "::" etc. are supposed to indicate, then the wisest course is to just leave them alone. AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jew or Jews

Howdy. Not sure if you were aware that admin discussion on this issue is taking place here. Thanks in advance for your input. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You just nipped me at the finish line

in reverting that edit at Art Deco. it had to be done and it was. thanks. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopism

Note that the article was posted by User:Evelynquinlan. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

<<Hopism is a cultural movement where everything is informed by hope. This movement, founded by Irish artist Evelyn Quinlan, was borne out of a global conscious of the financial crisis of 2007-2010. Visionary world leaders are quoted in everyday media; Obama 'yes we can' and Robinson 'comprehensive vision of what sort of society we want'.

See free hugs campaign link link title

History

Ricoeur’s secular understanding of faith when he applied it to history: “Faith in meaning, but in a meaning hidden from history, is thus both the courage to believe in a profound significance of the most tragic history (and therefore a feeling of confidence and resignation in the very heart of conflict) and a certain rejection of system and fanaticism, a sense of the open.” (Paul Ricoeur, History and Truth, trans. Charles A. Kelbley (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965), p. 96. Originally published as Histoire et vérité (Paris: Seuil, 1955) So, faith involves courage, confidence, and a coming to terms with human tragedy. It further combines a rejection of foundational systems and the possibility of absolute certainty with an openness to the possibility that one’s own life is, nevertheless, meaningful. (McCarthy, Joan (2007) Dennett and Ricoeur on the Narrative Self, Contemporary Studies in Philosophy and the Human Sciences, New York: Humanity Books)>>

Rollback

I've noticed your vandalism reverts and thought you might find is useful to have the rollback facility, which I've enabled for you. You'll notice on your watchlist the link [rollback] at the end of the info on an edit. Clicking this will revert the last editor's edit(s) to the article state prior to those edits. Please note that rollback may only be used for clear vandalism reverts and not to revert content which is merely disagreed with. Misuse will lead to rollback being removed. Check out Wikipedia:Rollback feature for more info. There is a template you can put on your user page to show you have this right: {{User wikipedia/rollback}}. If you don't want rollback, let me know and I'll remove the facility. Ty 03:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Tubes of paint, artist's paint PNG.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Tubes of paint, artist's paint PNG.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page

Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama Smoking Thing

Kudos to adding those sources in and not removing relevant content! I mean that seriously, that was resolved nicely. I should have left in those sources. Sorry. Kelseypedia (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bus stop. You have new messages at Hatzalah's talk page.
Message added 04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Joe407 (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for defending me on the ref desk talk page, which I am just now reading now that the storm seems to have passed. I figured participating in it would only add fuel to the fire, so instead I've tried (again) to temper my natural tendencies to see humor in everything. :) I'm going to add a hopefully useful comment to it and then hopefully it will be done for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

An Important Keyword

I just wanted to thank you for introducing the key concept of "alienation" in the discussion named "American Culture". I think that is what it's all about. (By the way: the argument on the Ref Desk's Talk Page is not about me and my question, I hope?) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Cosmogony and Creation accounts

Hi, Bus Stop. Are you a Marilyn Monroe fan?

I stopped by to ask about the titles we give to articles about creation, as well as ways of fairly describing the various scientific and religious viewpoints.

What do you think about using the word account in place of myth as a way of avoiding the connotation of falsehood that the latter word seems to imply? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetically...

The right answer to, "Hypothetically, if I had [insert name of disease here]..." could be "Hypothetically, go see your doctor." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case Genesis Creation Myth

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

ANI

You are mentioned in ANI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deleting_content_in_Criticism_of_Judaism_without_prior_discussion --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your survey answer

Hey dude. Regarding Talk:Genesis_creation_myth#Survey, could you change your survey response to read Support Genesis Creation Narrative. I want to make it clear that this is the consensus language. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My last reply to you on Creation according to Genesis page

In my edit summary I was trying to be funny and wrote "stop that bus." After I wrote it, and looked at it again I see that you could interpret it differently than how I meant. I didn't mean to tell you, "Stop that." (as in "stop that, bus"). I merely meant "slow down the bus..." Not that funny, but hopefully you get what I meant... SAE (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I take no offense to anything. I am beyond the fence. By the way, did the bus stop? Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not:[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This may not be related, but in my opinion, Girls just want to have lunch. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I made the change to Judaism

Let's see what happens. I guess I'm a hypocrite of sorts because I didn't read any of the prior discussions before coming in and insisting that Judaism should be labelled a religion. I'll wear a beekeeper's hat and veil when the hornets come.Griswaldo (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I just used Christianity as a template.Griswaldo (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And the party is over [5].Griswaldo (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not done actually. What are my options to try to get community wide input on this? I browsed through the archives and didn't yet find the pertinent discussion but I did come across the hatnote discussion. In general I think these discussions are occur within a very narrow group of editors. I think something like this requires much broader input. Can you give me some pointers on getting that? The thing is that no reliable reference source (encyclopedia, introductory texts on Judaism, etc.) would not identify it as a religion. With enough people engaging in the discussion I think common sense and reliable source conventions would win out. What do you think?Griswaldo (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made some extensive posts on the talk page and await responses from those who opposed my change.Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've run into the same problem there. This is similar to an Evangelical saying, "Christianity isn't a religion; it's a faith." The odd part is that a religion is a set of beliefs (the Christian emphasis) and practices (the Jewish emphasis). That's like a person saying, "I'm not a man; I just have a penis and testicles." Well, okay -- however you want to describe yourself, as long as it intersects with reality at some point. Since "a set of beliefs and practices" IS "a religion", it's probably not worth a fight.EGMichaels (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a violation of WP:Synthesis? If most reliable sources are saying it's a religion, and some reliable sources are saying that a religion is a "set of beliefs and practices," that doesn't necessarily give us permission to make the statement that "Judaism is a set of belifefs and practices." Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No -- I think this is simply a case of letting a religion describe itself in its own terms. Christianity is a "faith" and Judaism is a "set of beliefs and practices." Both of those are functionally synonymous with "religion." Well, if they want to use a synonym, why not use it? It adds some native color to the article.EGMichaels (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

An ANI discussion has been started that involves you. You may wish to go and leave a response there. Silverseren^C 00:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A star

		The Resilient Barnstar
		When you fall seven times stand up eight

I am jealous of your resilience, determination and energy. Alatari (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism

I just wanted to thank you, more personally than a comment on the Judaism talk page. I know we have often disagreed so agreement on this matter from you means a lot to me. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Ultimately, I just ant an article that matches the major sources. But I am very wary of editors who think there is some cookei cutter for producing articles that all look alike ... I have not yet gone so far as to make Monotheism its own section mostly because i have already made nmany edits and do not want to impose myself too much. But if you too think it should be its own section, I would encourage you to do that. I'd support it fully. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth

...I think this is an interesting answer to the question. I do think it's a subject that has many layers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my heartfelt answer. I didn't do any research. So I was thinking it wasn't "encyclopedic" or a proper response on the Reference desk. Anyway, I've reverted myself yet again. Thanks for the feedback. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stretcher Bars

It seems to be pointless trying to explain to you that stretcher bars should also be in the category - Picture Framing. You seem to have your mind set on the fact that because you are an artist that stretcher bars are only used for art - WRONG.

Although artists use blank canvases and pre-stretched canvases in the art business, many photographers use stretcher bars for framing wedding photography and reproduction of photographic prints. Stretcher bars are also used in picture framing when framers are framing things like sport shirts etc. Stretcher bars are used extesively in theatrical productions for framing material backdrops. . . .

When a photographer takes a picture then digitally transfers this onto a canvas (inkjet printing), he then stretches this over a stretcher frame. By wrapping the canvas all the way around the frame, known as gallery wrap, the photographer can then hang his picture on the wall - already framed !!.

Now will you reconsider your decision and allow this to be placed in the category "Picture Framing" Regards - Les Mandev (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandev (talk • contribs) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:Judaism

I moved the discussion "Should every BIO of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism", which you recently participated in, to the talk page of WP Judaism's MOS. This is an important subject and needs to be incorporated into the MOS once we reach a consensus. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Christianity heading in "Chosen people"

The Christianity Heading divides the views of SDA and Mormons (Christians) from those of Islam, Rastafari and the Unification Church. The supersessionism link describes a common christian belief that Christians are the new chosen people. I think that it is useful. Editor2020 (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to merge your changes with the pre-Goldite version of the page, apologies if I missed something out. BillMasen (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

stereotypes of white people

I tried to merge your changes with the pre-Goldite version of the page, apologies if I missed something out. BillMasen (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, by all means put them back. Was just trying to get rid of Black Gold's excreble and egregious edits. Sorry didnt mean to take them away in the 1st place BillMasen (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RD

= "ritual decalogue." You will find a lengthy section of the talk page in which kwame quotes sources identifying which verses in Exodus 34 = the "RD." Also, check out the article, Ritual decalogue. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles and segmented article titles

The proposal put forward at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles has drawn a lot of opposition. The RFC has had the effect of involving many other editors, but all of those editors oppose the proposal, and seem have an interest in ensuring that the proposal fails: they all appear to be "investors" in articles that have descriptive titles or segmented article titles in the sense that they have spent time and effort in creating or contributing content to article's with problematical titles. I am not sure how to proceed, other than to call in other editors who may (or may not) be able to respond to the proposal in good faith. What do you suggest? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For your information, I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Alternative_article_names. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity killed the cat. Bus Stop, why did you remove your support argument from Gavin's VP Article title proposal? Wrong side of fence or have you changed your mind?--Mike Cline (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

On a related issue, you might like to add the debate at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision#Category problem?. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Just as a matter of information, my respect for you as an editor dropped to near zero the moment you made this edit. I don't care how important this issue is to you personally, and editor with 4 years and 13000 edits should know better than to use mindless POV-pusher tactics when there is an ongoing talk page discussion on the very issue. I would ask you to revert yourself and go back to trying to resolve this issue civilly in talk. if you refuse, it's not a big issue; the only real ramification lies in whether or not I continue to think of you (and treat you) like a responsible, reasonable editor. I can't abide people who are so desperate to win a point that they play games with the system. --Ludwigs2 20:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And your edits here and here, which preceded my edit — how are your edits any better than my edit? By the way this issue is not important to me "personally." I am just trying to write a good article. I don't care for this bickering. I am responding here but I would rather cease this discussion here. Sorry that we disagree, but the article Talk page is a better place to carry on a related and hopefully more productive discussion. Bus stop (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was correcting what I saw as an error by a new editor to the page (he should have noticed the talk page discussion and refrained from adding that category until the discussion was over). you, by contrast, were aggravating a talk page dispute by trying to edit the dispute into article space. that's POV-pusher behavior, and you know it. I don't expect you to admit it, or to admit that you have a personal prejudice (and you don't really need to - everyone is entitled to have their prejudices). Further, at this point I no longer expect you to 'do the right thing' on the article, and that's more of a problem. I don't care what you say about your motives, I'll judge you by your talk-page arguments and your behavior, and both of those are leading me inexorably to the conclusion that you have no interest in being reasonable or rational on this issue. that just sucks. But I will rest in the fact that this kind of effort almost never succeeds in the long run; reason will out, eventually, the only real question in how pleasant the road to reasoned understanding is. It's just disappointing how many people decide on the low swampy road. --Ludwigs2 16:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about when you say, "I was correcting what I saw as an error by a new editor to the page (he should have noticed the talk page discussion and refrained from adding that category until the discussion was over)." Which new editor added what category? Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Avi, who had not to that point (that I noticed) participated on the talk page or article when he added the 'evangelical christian' category. he was fine with my removing it, once I explained to him the problem; you were the one who decided to push the POV. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are more people involved in writing the article besides Avi, you, and I. So I don't see the great significance in Avi being "fine" with your edit. You removed material that was there for several days. Yes, the material was being disputed on the Talk page. But it is unclear which version should stand while the dispute is sorted out. You removed the material; I reinserted the material. Avi was in the midst of a major edit, and put up a sign requesting that nobody edit the page until he was done doing some maintenance. It was during that time that you removed the material. I assume you did so inadvertently, as there was a sign at the top of the article requesting that nobody make any edits while he did some maintenance. Avi sounded annoyed that he almost lost a lot of work that he put in. He then realized that your edit was small, and that he really didn't lose any of the edit that he was working on, and he apologized to you for his initial overreaction. I reverted you and you initiated this section on my talk page. Do I have that scenario right? I think Avi just caught himself for his initial outburst, and thought an apology was in order. Anyway — he wasn't addressing the specifics of your edit. His concern was any edit anyone might be making while he was making some needed maintenance. I don't know that Avi was "fine" with your edit — only apologetic for his initial overreaction. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that potentially problematic material and claims should be excluded from a page while a discussion is on going. This is because the absence of a claim that is correct has far less potential to misinform than the presence of a claim that is incorrect. It would be one thing if the discussion had been stale for a week or two, but we are currently debating this issue right now on the talk page. This is, as I said, common sense, and your determination to include the disputed material regardless can only be interpreted as problematic.

I'm not here to debate this issue with you. I'm here to tell you that your behavior looks very much like POV-pushing. If you are of a mind to be reasonable, you will remove the disputed text pending the outcome of the discussion; if you are not, no amount of discussion will convince you to do so. in either case, I see no reason to debate the matter with you further. I will simply judge you by your behavior and respond to you accordingly. get it? --Ludwigs2 03:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What you are calling misinformation is in fact information. The purpose of an article should be the conveyance of information. Bus stop (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On "the Bible"

Regarding "'the Bible' can mean more than one thing to more than one person": I agree, but it's irrelevant to the comment at hand. My statement is useful and correct for all mainstream scopes of "the Bible", so I don't see a need to tie it to any one definition. I'd have been happy to address this had you asked. What's problematic is that you're posting on the RD a definition of "the Bible" that is wrong, which is why I replied in the fashion that I did. "The New Testament" is never synonymous with "the Bible", and such a statement shouldn't stand unchallenged. — Lomn 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I stand corrected. I actually should have pointed out that I agreed with everything else you said. I was just taking issue with one turn of phrase. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Harvey (artist)

I've reverted your edits.[6] The link you added as a ref to Bookrags is to a copy of the wikipedia article on Alphonse Mucha. Also the lead should summarise the main article content and there's nothing in the main article on pop art. This is, I think, a relevant observation, but a) it needs to be in the main text, before it can be summarised in the lead b) it needs a valid reference to avoid it being WP:OR. Ty 04:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I didn't notice that it was a link to a mirror site of Wikipedia. But on a separate note, I'm not sure the source supports the suggestion that Alphonse Mucha was an influence on Paul Harvey. I think that assertion would require something said by Harvey. The source that we presently have merely asserts that a reliable source detects a style that is felt to be similar to that of Mucha. As an opinion of a reliable source it belongs in our article. But we don't want to inadvertently suggest that Harvey has acknowledged Mucha as an influence based on that source. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The source says, "Harvey's works often feature celebrities such as Madonna or Emily Mann and stylistically owe a debt both to Pop Art and to the Czech Art Nouveau painter Alfons Mucha." (my emphasis) Saying "owes a debt to" seems clear enough to me. There's nothing that implies Harvey has said this, only that it's a statement about his work, the source of which is available as a reference. It anyway is blindingly obvious that there is a strong Mucha influence in a lot of the work. Material from secondary sources is preferred to that from the subject, who may well have an agenda to push, e.g. "all my work is totally original and I owe nothing to anyone else" (I'm not suggesting that is the case here), while to external observers it quite obviously does have an influence. Of course, Harvey's statements about his work can also be included. If they contradict the source, then that too can be shown. Since writing that, I've done some googling and added more to the article. Harvey apparently says Mucha is his "hero" etc. You were right about pop art, which I've reinstated. It was in the ref, but I was looking for a Mucha ref to get rid of a {{fact}} tag, and didn't notice it. Ty 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe you inadvertently removed the "Spoonfed Media" reference which said that, "Harvey's works often feature celebrities such as Madonna or Emily Mann and stylistically owe a debt both to Pop Art and to the Czech Art Nouveau painter Alfons Mucha." You added a different Spoonfed Media reference in two places in the lead. So I re-added the one making the reference to Pop art and Alfons Mucha. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC re Inclusion criteria for Lists

Note there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists that you may wish to comment on. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please engage in dialog

Busstop: I will open an ANI on "disruptive editing" if you do not engage in constructive dialog at Judaism and violence. I respect your thoughts, but you need to answer the questions posed to you. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Noleander (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI, again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Noleander (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander stop harrassing people who object your POV push!!!Salamaat (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Paramecium

Hi Bus stop, please see Talk:Paramecium#EM_communication. It isn't original research to question the reliability of a source. Cheers Smartse (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)

Would you please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)? Thanks. ----

Proposed deletion of Wheelie bin urinal

The article Wheelie bin urinal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable one-off arts-and-crafts project used to promote the designer.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPCAT and Jewish

BusStop I do know and understand that Judaism is not about what you believe. However at the momet if another Editor disagrees with that, you or I may end up arguing with him about what we know to be true against what he believes to be true. What I am pushing for is a change in BLPCAT wording that would cover an individual's inclusion and that can be held up as policy to any editor who is looking for a self identification of belief. To do that I'm using the same language as the existing BLPCAT in refering to both religous- belief and non-religious criteria. If you wish to change the existing section on belief, feel free to throw your ideas on the wording of BLPCAT into the mix. I do appreciate you input in our last few discussions.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop! I enjoyed very much your comments on [Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons]. I thought that you had a high level of understanding of the subject and you used it very well in your argument. Keep up the good work. Best. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Stuart.Jamieson and Salmon1—In my opinion the first order of business is recognizing the difficulty of categorization: you are trying to do the impossible. In most instances, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (or vice versa). Categorization is generalization. In article space a person can be depicted as he or she is. All applicable (and sourced) descriptions can be articulated in article space. But categorization is inherently problematic. You have to accept that. There are essentially two choices, in my opinion. Each of them come with their own problems. You can increase the number of categories, or you can decrease the the fineness of the criteria for inclusion in given categories. If the criteria for inclusion are very rough (not fine), then fewer categories are necessary. This is the route I would go. We are a diverse group of editors and I think we would encounter more disagreements if we tried to devise fine-tuned categories and then tried to decide which category a given notable individual belonged in. At the end of the day the reader is going to have to click around and read a little bit of several articles, or use search terms, to try to find what they are looking for. Categorization can't be expected to solve all problems. Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop! Can't agree with you more. Unfortunately people need categorization. They cannot micro differentiate. I have found that the general public does not pay attention to detail. On the other hand one can miss the forest by just looking at the trees. The correct activity has to be decided on an individual basis. I repeat: differentiation is the name of the game. In order to do it right one needs to know the data and to discriminate successfully. To reach any goal one has to pay attention to the path. Established rules can be very helpful. I feel very elated that Wikipedia is turning out to be exactly what I expected: editors with good minds at large. Best. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

I disagree. I almost feel there should be one category: Category "Jewish affinity," and leave it at that. I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don’t get it. You just went on contradicting your whole argument. It appears that the preoccupation in Wikipedia is categorization yet everyone wants to fit his or her issue into every category. Best. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

But it is a problematic preoccupation. People don't so neatly fit into categories. In the final analysis they are all different. The question is how gross or fine do you want categories to be? Article space can be thought of as the most finely described "category space." Bus stop (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are funny. Go back to your first statement (01:32). You remember it is all depending on differentiation. It appears that people cannot do it so they categorize instead. Quoting Bus stop: “Categorization cannot solve all problems.” This is as simple as that. Ultimately it all ends with individual responsibility or total failure. Best. (Salmon1 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

If you put two people in the same category, do they both fit there equally appropriately? Or is one a better fit for that category than the other? Bus stop (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thought categorization can be very dangerous. It has proven to be the cause of genocides through the centuries. This is true for Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, African tribal groups and the list can go on. Categorization has been used as a weapon in the hands of tyrants. In many instances categorization is used to escape individual responsibility. Categorization is a step away from tolerance. (Salmon1 (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Apologies

My apologies for reacting too strongly regarding the MJ article. It is, I think, somewhere included in the Manual of Style that redundancy in a given article is something to be avoided, because it in effect takes up space that could be used for other material and/or increases the length of the article without very good reason. I know that it is included in the MOS that lengthy material should not be duplicated in multiple articles, and the same thinking would probably apply to redundancy within an article.

I know that many Jews are opposed to the name of the MJs, as well as their religious beliefs. I also know that I myself dislike being cornered or bothered at home by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and that Jews get the same sort of treatment from the Jews for Jesus people, whom they already may dislike because of the reasons above. There have even been some reported killings of Jews for Jesus or MJs in Israel because of their religious beliefs or unwanted evangelization efforts. It is because of the fact that pretty much everybody, Christians, Jews, and Messianic Jews all, have different opinions about the MJs that I think the talk page has the template at the top of the page about discussing changes before they are made, and providing citations. In this instance, the changes were not discussed when made by others or cited.

But, again, I did lose my temper, and I should try to avoid doing that, as well as apologize to those who were the victims of my failure to hold my temper. Sorry again. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem. I didn't think you lost your temper or anything like that. Bus stop (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you.--John (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Libelous? Controversial? Multiple reliable sources are saying Ed Miliband is Jewish. Can you show me some reason this information should be omitted? Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ed Miliband. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place here on this subject. Please participate. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go down Gavin's road

Bus Stop – please don’t go down Gavin’s road. I find your comments here interesting and they forced me once again to go read the WP policy WP:Consensus. You obviously have a view on what consensus means (or should mean) that is to some extent contrary to the communities’ understanding—That [consensus] is thoughtless silliness, and detrimental to this project. If you truly believe that, then I would encourage you, as I did Gavin, to capture your beliefs in a more complete and well-thought out way via a user essay. Sound bites and snippets in discussions that are long gone and forgotten is not the best way to convey your general views on WP policy. User essays on the hand accomplish that task very effectively, allowing for thoughtful writing, unencumbered by the drama of discussion and available to refer to whenever needed. Right now there are ten essays conveying various views on consensus, yours might be number 11. It could be entitled: Consensus:thoughtless silliness and a detriment the project. In the essay, without criticizing or attacking any individual you could explore the themes of sourcing, activism, agendas, spin, consensus, and the lessons learned from Gavin’s experience you alluded to in your comments. It would be interesting reading, and who knows, might sway some heads one way or the other. Give it a shot. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fat over lean

I'm just curious, how is this not original research? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right—fair point. I stand corrected. I will correct it. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem if you can find a source, I know that it's true from my experience as a house painter. But the one source the article has now is very lean (pun intended). --Nuujinn (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I also do house-painting, except that I do house-painting on canvas. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that you are a painter on your user page. One semester I took off to make some money, told a friend of mine I was talking a semester off to paint. She asked me whether I used oils or acrylics, I said both. What kind of painting? House. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard all the jokes—paint-by-numbers, painting the line down the middle of the road, abstract painting is what artists do if they can't really paint. It's too funny. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Miliband

Bus stop, please consider the history and success of your previous efforts to promote your personal views on the subject of Judaism. I strongly encourage you to accept and support Topperfalkon's entirely reasonable compromise. Otherwise, you're liable to end up with nothing, per User:John, which would be a far worse WP:BLP violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bus stop. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 01:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BLP talk

Bus stop, in a post you made this morning at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons, you asserted that

• I suggested Miliband's religion should be listed as "None" in the infobox of his BLP,
• I am arguing "Miliband does not deserve inclusion in Category:British Jews".

Neither of these is true: I said that " I can live with Religion = None in the infobox". It is not actually my preference (which is not to have the parameter in the box at all). I have also said "I'm okay-ish with the British Jew category, following that new source above where he spoke about "my Jewish identity", which is a self-identification."

I'd be grateful if you could strike the inaccurate parts of your post, or post a correction, at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. Thanks. --JN466 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I struck out my entire post, as another editor had complaints about it as well. [7] Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

The religion field takes a noun. Jewish is an adjective. Which word the sources use is immaterial as it is a grammatical issue. Give it up. Yworo (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Ed Miliband

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Ed Miliband was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK 11:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Isaac Asimov. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yworo (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo—I didn't make 3 reverts in 24 hours. I didn't even make 2 reverts in 24 hours. WP:3RR says, "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")."

I only reverted myself because I inadvertently put the word "categorize" in my Edit summary instead of my intended word "characterize." There were no intervening edits by anyone else so I didn't revert anyone else. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

If you are going to continue to edit here, you need to both understand the letter and spirit of the biographies of living people policy and accept it. If you continue to disrupt article talk pages arguing the consensus can override BLP, I will open a user conduct RfC on your behavior. Yworo (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Here"? Are you referring to Wikipedia in general or a specific article?

Where have I argued that "…consensus can override BLP…"? Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Methinks he's got it backwards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That is right. It is backwards. I have argued for deemphasis on what consensus comes up with and emphasis on adherence to sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How dare you rely on reliable sources? Whadayatinkdisis, an encyclopedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you are actually in violation of the terms under which you were unblocked from your community ban back in 2008.

• You may not edit any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. This should be construed broadly. Should you try to WP:GAME the edges of this ban, you will be blocked again.

Unlike the general probation, this requirement did not have a time limit on it. I highly recommend that you cease and desist arguments that reliable sources trump lack of self-identification in biographies of living persons in this particular area. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Yworo is referring to this post, and I do consider striking out my sentence, "I don't think we need a quote from him saying that he is Jewish."

One thing I am curious about: we have an article on Aaron Rubashkin. It says that he is a Jew. But—do we have "self-identification" for Aaron Rubashkin? I actually haven't seen the source where he self-declares in this regard.

Could Yworo clarify the article he is referring to in which he feels that he finds me arguing that "reliable sources trump lack of self-identification"? Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That article is not on my watchlist. Since the description includes "Ultra-orthodox" it is certainly referring to religion and should have a source indicating self-identification, in my opinion. I can't see how we'd assess it in terms of appearance since we don't have a photo on that article! I must say that I think it should have a standard lead, describing him as an American businessman. And yes, I was referring to the talk page of Andre Geim, as well as referring to your edits to Isaac Asimov with respect to your topic ban. Yworo (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo—for Andre Geim we have: "As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education." Does that source provide adequate support for mention in the article on Geim that he is Jewish? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That source simply does not appear to be reliable on the topic. Geim has stated that he experienced anti-Semitism because in Russia because his name sounds Jewish. Your source only confirms that many people thought he was Jewish. It does not confirm self-identification as Jewish. It simply appears to be bad writing to me, plus there is no expectation that "Scientific Computing World" would be reliable outside its topic, scientific computing. Yworo (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo—you mention "self-identification". Do we find in policy somewhere a requirement for "self-identification" in a matter such as this. If so, where? Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it follows from the statement he has made and WP:BLP, which says, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Given the way his statement is worded, it is clear that he does not consider himself Jewish and that many other people in Russia did. Therefore it is not surprising that some source or sources may have misidentified him as Jewish and that other sources may have repeated that mistake. The only thing that would overcome that would be self-identification, because only then could we be sure we'd gotten the article right. Clearly the talk page indicates that the material is contentious and it meets the level of "questionable" which requires removal, or in this case, non-inclusion. Yworo (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo—wouldn't this from the Jewish Daily Forward tend to support that Geim is Jewish:

"As of press time, Russian Jew Andre Geim shared this year’s Nobel Prize in physics with Konstantin Novoselov." Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, for the reasons already described. In this case, it's not a neutral source. Yworo (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AN regarding you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sperm in vain

Eh, I'm fine with a merge. We don't need an article on every phrase in the Talmud, right? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Every Sperm Is Sacred..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion Field in BLP infobox

I have proposed that the religion field be removed from the BLP infobox at Village Pump/proposals following what you said under Ed Milliband on the BLP Noticeboard. It would help if you added a comment. Mark^Dask 07:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

You've been on Wikipedia long enough that you should know how to properly cite sources rather than simply putting a link and a quotation in brackets like this. Don't make people clean up after you and cite things properly. Do it right the first time. Yworo (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

All the best! Happy New Year...Modernist (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope 2011 is good for all - speaking of the Wikipedia blues here's a good one: [8]...Modernist (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

I've reverted your recent edit to this article. In the opening of the section on his "Views*" he is identified as a humanist. You added that it was also Jewish. In the same paragraph, further down, his Jewish upbringing is discussed, and his outlook is treated in a nuanced, well-sourced way. Look it over; if you are satisfied that your concerns are already discussed, all is good. If not, we can bring the discussion to the article's talk page. Thanks. Jd2718 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. You have been one of the major contributors to the article.Borock (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

as per previous

Hi, I hope you have accepted my apology about that comment - I have struck it at BLPN and also apoligised at the ANI thread and I do so again here, I hope we can move forward working together without that between us. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that. I am sorry I didn't acknowledge it. It was never an issue. I just wished to point it out. You didn't owe me an apology…apology accepted…blah blah blah. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is a True™ Jew?

I suggest that you let Andy have the WP:LASTWORD at the Village Pump. I do not believe that any rational argument is going to make the smallest bit of difference. The community will always refuse to let him define Jewishness, and he will always be unhappy that we follow the sources rather than requiring proof that someone fits into his narrow definition of Jewishness.

It's time to let it go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded to here. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Hutus

Hello, Bus stop. You have new messages at Talk:List of Hutus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In short: I agree with you. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

why'd you remove it?

I thought it was constructive as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.169.115 (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hi as per this - please do not vocalize and comment and attempt to discuss in edit summaries, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I meant no offense. I apologize. Now that I know, I will be more careful. I won't let it happen again. You are right. It is a comment to an editor in an edit summary, which is not a good idea. I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, appreciated, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, please don't move my posts around as you did here. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

posting between the timeline

Hi , I see you have also replaced your comment out of the time line after I corrected it, please don't do that. Post in the time-line and indent. In a simple noticeboard thread posting out of time line disturbs the discussion. Two threads in one night, sorry but its better I tell you how I feel about your edits, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your message

You left a message on my talk page. I was unable to find where you mentioned me in that discussion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the discussion at WP Talk:BLP

I note the discussion has been closed, but with a query left unanswered; "Where is the policy I am referencing?" I would direct your attention to both Wikipedia:Relevant#Due and undue weight, and the lead sentence of the fourth paragraph - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." - and Wikipedia:Consensus, in which your advocacy regarding the recording of the ethnicity of BLP subjects is contrary to most persons position in the matter. Ethnicity in regard to a subject whose notability lies in spheres unrelated to their ancestory is not a issue that the readers of the English language Wikipedia have much interest. I am not required to provide proof of a negative, and policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive anyway, I am giving you the benefit of my understanding of practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nikki

All I want with Sam Fuld is to share with Wikipedia readers the most complete and accurate information possible, if we're covering his background. I don't think that's unreasonable. As for Nikki Yanofsky, I agree with you. Obviously, she's Jewish, and obviously, this has been covered in enough sources and in an interview with the subject. Should she be categorized as Jewish? Yes. The text in the article now seems okay to me, close-knit Jewish family = Jewish in my mind. I fear if I get involved in that discussion, though, it'll just bring back the old debates from the BLP page and so on, since I'm so well known over there by now. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hijacking_of_an_AN.2FI_section_by_Bus_Stop_to_discuss_an_off-topic_content_dispute.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

It's like deja vu. Please do not hijack BLP/N threads that don't relate to ethnicity just because Andy used the term "ethno-tagging" within a comment he made. Isn't it enough that you guys argue this topic all the time whenever it comes up in editing? Let's not steer unrelated threads in that direction as well. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Hi, this living person is Jewish and users are wanting to add religion Jewish, can you help? He was born Jewish. His wife is Jewish. His new criminal defense lawyer for the rape charge is Jewish.Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

david draiman

your input wanted - thanks: see the discussion at David Draiman's entry regarding his personal life information. then, please make a comment as to your opinion of what to do. thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

internals

The thing is as you know linking to Jew is undue when we have no idea what the external means and who is a jew at all. The content is king - it mentions Jew so be happy without directing to internals so vague . Also you jump ot of nowhere to revert me with the edit summary "Why would an internal link be removed?" - but that content has sat there for a long long time without the internal and I have disputed, that is a bold addition and a revert - you are in the discuss part, on the talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen the edit contributions of the user desirous to label this diff - Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article Soft-edge Pop) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. I have added your comments on the talk page to the AfD discussion. Raymie (t • c) 23:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Innocent flesh on the bone

Hello, Bus stop. I came by to tell you that I agree with you that schools, synagogues, churches, etc., should all automatically be considered "Notable", just for the good they do. (I also have to confess I edited your userpage! Hope you don't mind.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want you to think I'm looking at the sheet music. I'm guessing, based on what word goes best there. Somewhere, in a box, I have that book from about thirty years ago with lots of Dylan's lyrics in it; maybe I better dig it out. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Based on your comment at WP:AN I've slightly restructured the section. Just FYI :) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)