User talk:Steven J. Anderson

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Welcome!

Hello, Steven J. Anderson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --ragesoss 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halakha

Both words can be used as nouns or adjectives. I think convention is to always capitalize "Jew" and only capitalize the noun form of Halakha, but I am not 100% certain. -- Avi 22:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, there are no capital letters in Hebrew, so the convention is purely English (of which I am not a native speaker). I think Avi is correct. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it would be halakhic rule, but the rule of Halakha. (except for Halakhic Man which is the title of a book by Rav Yoshe Ber . -- Avi 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this ->(downcased halakhic throughout article). We need more consistency and an abandonment of the mistaken notion that all Hebrew words should be capitalized in English.--Redaktor 06:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your efforts to improve the coverage of Judaism in WP. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifying

Thanks for your note. During preview I try to remove all links to DAB pages, must have missed that one. Avalon 04:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hei there

you did such a good job correcting and adding stuff to my latest addition to the Culture of Israel article that I wanted to invite you to check out my latest article which I added - Cuisine of Israel. Acidburn24m 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain

I like the new expanded Britain dab page. Thanks! -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response regarding AD/BC vs. CE/BCE corrections to Spatha article

Mr. Anderson, thank you for your recent message to me regarding my recent edit of the above. I agree that changes of this sort can engender strong responses due to the frankly political nature of CE/BCE usage. For purposes of clarity, I will explain why I considered by edit back to the AD/BC time references both appropriate and minor: 1) The original usage in the article was AD/BC; 2) The article deals with a distinctly Roman concept; and, 3) AD/BC usage is culturally appropriate being based on Latin derivatives. Since you have taken issue with the edit, I have now posted an entry on the Discussion board opening the issue up for discussion. I hope that this response to you is appropriate for purposes of clarifying my edit. (Since I am a casual user and not knowing a better way to respond, I responded on your Talk page. I ask your pardon if there were a better way to respond and if there is a more appropriate way of contacting in the future, please advise.) Jpetersen46321 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other AD/BC vs. CE/BCE issues

I posted a note on User talk:Jpetersen46321. If the user is willing to use discussion as indicated, I woudl consider this resolved. If the problem persists we can deal with it then. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrBot's edits

Please see my response on the bot's talk page. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Already saw it. --Steven J. Anderson 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

metzizah bi peh

A google search of the term has almost 500 hits for this variation. I think the article should be inclusive so that people familiar with this spelling are able to find the article here more easily. Please discuss this with me her, on my talk page, or the talk page there before it is removed again. I look forward to some good faith editing on that article , and hope that you will be a part of that process. Shalom! Die4Dixie 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Date warrior Carnun

Hi Steven. I wouldn't worry about it, to me your actions in this matter seem perfectly reasonable. I see that this particular tendentious editor has now been blocked (for the fourth time) after your alert to ANI, appropriately IMO. Time will tell if they are able to take the hint this time; personally if they resume the behaviour again I'd have no qualms about imposing a very lengthy, if not indefinite, block. We've all got better things to do with our time. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Steven. Carnun is active again today in changing dating styles, just as Nownownow was until two days ago. It is hard keeping up with them, much as I try, and I very much agree with editor Wright that we all have better things to do with our time. I too believe we are probably dealing with the same person, as the behavior pattern is remarkably similar. I am unsure of how to apply for blocks or other sanctions to shut down this/these nuisance(s), but will gladly back you if you need any support, such as corroboration. Thanks for your efforts. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megaliths

Dear Mr Anderson, please contribute to the discussion page before making changes to the Megaliths article. I am a bit puzzled why you would describe me as a "persistent date warrior", as I have absolutely no background of such activity. To be honest, being accused of edit warring is offensive and shows that you do not assume Good Faith on the part of other editors. The Megaliths article, and two of its three parent articles, was started using BC/AD. I cannot see any good reason, without discussion and consensus, why you should change it, it is certainly bad form and against wikipedia policy. athinaios (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steven. I apologise, likewise, for my harsh tone. You probably know as well as I do how annoying these things can get. I have reverted your changes in a number of other articles I was watching, all of them previously stable, and all of them unobjectionable in terms of religious issues (I understand that's were normal wiki convention lapses in favour of a more topic-rwlated approach?). I don't doubt that your intentions were of the best kind. Good editing and happy end-of-sun-year festivities :-). athinaios (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCE/CE at Cybele

Each Wikipedia article continues with whatever convention it had when dates were first put into its text. That way our own feelings of what's most appropriate don't enter into it. --Wetman (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism: Early Christianity

Regarding your revert of my small edit, I don't agree with your conclusion. The way some sections are written, they present a rather ugly anti-Christian feel to the article. While some Jewish editors like this approach, other Jews (in the West Indies or South America, for example) have no problems with having been invited to leave Spain. There's room for both PsOV. Jews who became Christians are known to enjoy the further evolution of Judaism into Christianity (which is the original intention of the Jews who started the Christian movement). I'd like to do some work on this rather bitter article to show the positive side of the evolution of the Jewish faith. Not all Jews support the unfinished aspect of Judaism, nor do they support the blanket blaming of Christians for Jewish problems.

BTW, on another topic: I have no problem with your fondness for the CE/BCE notation since it's now commonly expanded as "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era". Hoserjoe (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly know where to begin my response, there's so much here that is either incomprehensible or incorrect.

To begin with, the edit you made was to a summary of a cited source, unless you examined the source cited and have good reason to believe that the summary was unfair or inaccurate, edits like that are erroneous.

Second, it makes not the slightest difference whether an editor who prefers a particular version of an article is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist. What matters is the quality of his edits and the arguments that support them.

Third, while I'm sure there are Jews in the West Indies and South America who are happy in their homes, it seems to me a trifle unlikely that any of them were "invited" to leave Spain. Perhaps their ancestors were. If so, that has no bearing on the edit you made, which is in a section that refers to events occurring in 681 CE. Obviously, it was impossible for any Jew who was "invited" to leave Spain at that time to have found his way to the West Indies or South America.

Next, what "Jews who became Christians" "enjoy" is not pertinent to any discussion of how to edit Wikipedia. What is pertinent are notability, verifiability, NPOV and Wikipedia's other guidelines and policies.

Also, the antisemitism article has nothing whatever to say about any "evolution of the Jewish faith," either positive or negative, and I can't imagine how any material of that sort could find a proper place in the article. The article doesn't concern that. It concerns antisemitism. Further, your statement about the "unfinished aspect of Judaism" beggars the imagination. What can you be referring to? Moreover, there is not "blanket blaming of Christians for Jewish problems" in the article. There have been certain antisemitic acts by certain Christians at certain times, which the article recounts.

Next, while you may find the article "bitter," I don't. I think if you'll compare it to the articles on cancer, racism, child abuse and rape, you'll quickly conclude that it is no more or less bitter than any other article that deals with a distasteful subject. If you intend making further edits to the article that begin with the notion that it's bitter in its current state, I think you'll have trouble achieving a consensus in support of them.

And finally, let me assure you that I have no particular fondness for the BC/BCE notation. I watch a number of articles related to Judaism and Jewish history. Occasionally, I find that one of them has been disrupted by a tendentious editor making a hamfisted attempt to change every instance of era style notation he can find to match his personal preference, usually with deceptive edit summaries and edits that are erroneously marked "minor." When I do, I revert and usually check the editor's edit history. If that check shows numerous edits of the same character, I frequently go down the list of edits, checking each one for conformance to WP:SEASON and correcting where necessary. I always do so in the open, leaving detailed edit summaries and talk page comments where warranted. I find your statement that you have no problem with the notation because it is "commonly expanded as 'Christian Era' and 'Before Christian Era'" somewhat troubling. If it is only acceptable to you to the extent that you can read your own religious preference into it, I'm afraid this speaks against your ability to edit from a neutral point of view where articles relating to religion are concerned.

To move on to another subject, may I suggest that it would be a better idea to archive outdated sections of your talk page, rather than simply deleting them as you did here and here? actually that last deletion was made by and IP whom I presume is you Particularly when one is deleting warnings and criticisms, it runs the risk of creating the impression that one is trying to cover one's tracks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes to the Chomsky entry

Thanks for correcting those typos in the "Politics of Noam Chomsky" entry!

Technetium25 December 18, 2007

Thanks for all those edits to the entry! You did a wonderful job cleaning things up.

Best wishes, --Technetium25 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain

Hi Steven, thanks for your response. I wrote something back on my talk page. Best, Eliezg (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely contact me. thanks so much. i've already put water on to boil (really!) and am about to switch out... till then, Eliezg (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i've had my tea and tossed my hat back into the ring. Eliezg (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, thanks so much for your input, mediation and contributions. In the end everything worked out pretty well, and my rapidly withering faith in the Wikipedia process is Reborn. Hallelujah! - Eliezg (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template

Hi! I honestly have no idea how the standardization and norms for templates work around here; I was just asked to mass-protect all the country data templates and redirects because of their high risk of vandalism. You might be better off asking WikiProject Flag Template. All the best, east.718 at 18:55, December 22, 2007

Hi Steven

I wanted to let you know that I changed back "Britain" from "United Kingdom" on the David Reed page because that was the title of the article that Reed wrote for Reader's Digest. Thanks for your help, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkwriter4 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Zietz

Zietz is very notable. Give us busy academics time to clean up the article. pls do not speedily delete. Alfred Legrand (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date warriors

"If you don't mind a friendly word of advice, it's probably not worth the trouble."

I not only don't mind, I appreciate it very much - and your entire message.

"If there's any way I can help further, holler."

Great! And that works both ways. Teamwork is a wonderful thing. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of World War II

Hi Steven, You have chanced date 26.06.1941 "The Russians bomb Helsinki. Finland pronounces a state of war between Finland and Soviet Union." to old version "Finland declares war on Soviet Union. The Russians bomb Helsinki." There is a lot of this kind of false information in timeline, but still Finland never declared the war and the order of events is wrong in your version. waiting yor comment, with best wishes -JarTa (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven

We academics live in a different universe. We think differently. Yet we know who is notable and who is not. Zietz and his adviser are indeed notable, yet we need help to clean up articles. Another notable academic is R. S. Wenocur, who keeps getting wiped off Wikipedia, although well known, along with R. M. Dudley, for Special VC classes, widely cited (see Google Scholar, e.g.), that have been used widely in many applications, and who is pres of NCV. Alfred Legrand (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you about Zietz -- and more

Thank you very much for your support and help on the article about Stanley Zietz, Ph.D., who contributed so much. In March, we shall explain more about his work and applications.

Also: is there anything you can do about R. S. Wenocur, who is well known and considered renowned as a researcher, yet seems to be misunderstood on Wikipedia? Wenocur is world renowned for Special VC-classes, with R. M. Dudley, but because of no books, only academic papers, keeps gettings wiped from Wikipedia. It is a shame that this person is being ignored. Do you need letters of recommendation? Alfred Legrand (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Actually, you have me and my colleagues totally confused.

I do thank you for your trials.

In the academic world, publications in journals outweigh books on Amazon.com.

Hence, R. S. Wenocur is notable in the world of mathematics and statistics, yet not for Wikipedia, alas.

So are others, and their contributions are eclipsed by Brittany Spears and Fergie and such.

I am at a loss as what to do here. We have top-class, deep thinkers, great minds, being ignored, and I am baffled by the instructions.

Sorry, but I guess Wikipedia is not the place for great researchers. Is that the case? It is so involved and confusing.

Alfred Legrand (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indent and the Toledo War

I did not reply on the discussion page of the Toledo War, You suggested that I should indent to reply. Good suggestion, but I don't know how. A quick tip would be appreciated. Thanks.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Dear Mr. Anderson

Thanks for the etiquette lesson. I had noticed the form, but didn't know the method. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

I understand. I'm not particularly sensitive about editing. Especially when it turns out the editor got it right, and I got it wrong.

In my work I am like the supreme court. As Justice Henry Jackson once said: "We are not final because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final."

Of course, in Wiki one is never final. And I was mistaken, as BKConrad graciously pointed out. So keep up the good work, as this was not taken as a personal attack. BTW, apparently you've been working hard on the Toledo War. You (and whomever) have done a very nice job!

Happy new year to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

What about War! What is it good for?? Absolutely nothing!!!

Just kidding. Best. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

help

Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism here, thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

I added article for R. S. Wenocur, again. Hope you can help keep it there. It has been wiped unfairly four time. Needs cleanup, pls help. thanks. Alfred Legrand (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally labeled you as a vandal.

I'm sorry I reverted some of your edits on antisemitism as vandalism. Immediately after this happened, I reverted my reversion. It seems that the Wikipedia:TW script does things without confirmation. Frotz (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy editing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. S. Wenocur

The R. S. Wenocur article has been deleted (numerous PRODs, and one AfD) more than once, the earliest being in 2006. If notability has not already been established in the amount of time between deletions then there's a good chance that she is not notable. Please note that being summa cum laude is not enough to make her notable, also please look over the no original research policies; anything that is added to an article has to have been published by a reputable source. Her work, theories and whatnot, might be notable within the mathematics community, but there's nothing to establish notability for her under the notability guidelines for academics that can be sourced. If you can find reliable and verifiable references for the article, that have not already been found, please insert them. However given the amount of research that I've done already, and the amount of time that has been available to find these sources I highly doubt that she is notable enough to merit a wikipedia article. The information I deleted throughout my editing was given deep consideration and a lot of research. The information that ended up being removed was information that couldn't be sourced, lent no credence to notability, and didn't enhance or improve the article in my opinion. You are free to disagree and re-add the information as long as it can be sourced as per Biography of Living persons guidelines. Given all of this information if within a weeks (1/12/08) time no additional references have been found to establish her notability I will nominate the article for deletion. If you feel you need more time let me know, but as it stands right now the article does not establish her notability. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal Goddezz

This immortal Goddezz seems to have a lot of time on her hands, and a great interest in Wenocur, with 100's of edits. I added sources this morning. Can you help get the no-notability prod off? And I am not good at making the sources look wikipedia-good. Now I must go to work (on other than Wikipedia. Keeping watch on Zietz, too. Alfred Legrand (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. I did not mean to say anything wrong to anyone. I am not good at doing Wikipedia, and maybe I should leave it to others. If the people don't want Wenocur on Wikipedia, I think it is a shame, since many of us use her work and she seems notable. But I think David Eppstein does not seen very notable and an ordinary academic; I do not have the time to learn how to put this article up for deletion, but if you agree, might you look into this? Thanks. Alfred Legrand (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]