User talk:Valley2city/Archive 5

Archives

/Archive 1 - October 2005 - April 2007
/Archive 2 - May 2007 - December 2008


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #185

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

y have you tried to delete a page i just created?

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Valley2city,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join #wikimedia-npw.

— Aitias // discussion 15:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem

It's a page move redirect so no problem speedying it. – ukexpat (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Jimbo thing is just a bit of fun. The code is as User:Ukexpat/peek - I shamelessly stole it from another user! – ukexpat (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Metalism

I'm new to Wiki, and only joined to add a page about Metalism. Metalism, is a Religion with over 1700 members, and everything necessary to form a a Legal Religion. Please, I don't know how to, edit the page to make it proper, and don't delete it, because it's a religion and can have a page on here, just like Christianity. Revnorslal (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Revnorslal, welcome! Sorry your first experience had to begin this way. I no longer have access to the article so cannot give you specifics , but the main issue that caused it to be deleted was that you didn't assert its notability, which is criteria for speedy deletion.. You need to assert notability by referencing at least an article or two. If you can assert notability by means other than that it is a popular group on facebook, it fares better for the article. If you want I would be glad to help you determine whether a source provides enough notability for you. Meanwhile take a look at the links I left on your talk page; they are quite helpful. Again, welcome and happy editing. Valley2city^‽ 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you, really confusing making these pages so I'm still getting used to it. Thanks. Revnorslal (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Hi, just a reminder to mark pages as patrolled after you speedy 'em. Cheers --DFS454 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tiptoety. Wow that was fast! Valley2city^‽ 04:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Perek Shirah

On February 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Perek Shirah, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I Would Love to Help

I'll try out a couple of things with your page. Can you say, specifically, what you want? Resident Mario (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Resident Mario (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock help

Hey there. The multiple-sock vandal over at Maksim Chmerkovskiy appears to be doing much of the same over at Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) now. I'm unfamiliar with the whole sock investigation process. I was wondering if I could drop it off with you as I begin to learn about how to do it myself. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I am also somewhat limited with this sort of thing because I am not a checkuser and can't check IP ranges but what I saw is that each user was making identical edits and therefore was very likely the same person making multiple accounts. What I do is keep track of diffs and showed the admin on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctor1111 )which got generated after I used Twinkle (which I see that you use)). Use the history of the page and make the cur as the previous GOOD edit and prev the most recent act of vandalism done by the vandal. and then use that link in your report. See how I used it in the sockpuppet investigations: Doctor1111, RABIRABI, Friskyrabbit. There probably is a better and easier way, but I have to run now and will do research to see if Twinkle can automate that later. Valley2city^‽ 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Darn good question. Basically, the article (such as it was) was indeed poorly written, but it was also a sort of "how-to" under a very implausible title. So, the A7 applied as a sort of catchall in this case. Thanks for asking. Let me know when your RfA starts up! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for A Cat in the Brain

On 11 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Cat in the Brain, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

Hi again. Despite your entirely logical conclusion that he has a conflict of interest, IsraelXKV8R has once again deleted the section I added to the Dead Sea Scrolls article, dealing with the controversy in which he is involved. His accusations about me being a sockpuppet of Norman Golb are untrue. I have a right to be interested in this topic, whether or not Norman Golb is involved in it, and to make contributions without being harassed. I would like to reinsert the section into the article, but I would like to know who is violating the 3 revert rule, me or him. I don't want to be in violation of anything. I added this section about an interesting topic, he keeps removing it. Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dealing with people who consistently recreate speedied articles

Re your message: Lucky coincidence that it was me. =) If an account repeatedly creates an article that is deleted, the account may be blocked temporarily or indefinitely. The length depends upon the reason for the deletions and how often the article has been deleted. If the article is just a vanity article, I would probably apply a temporary block. If it was an attack article (like the example we're talking about) or vandalism, I would be more inclined to indefinitely block. Create protecting the article is an option should multiple accounts attempt to create the article. If you run into somebody who is repeated creating an article that gets deleted, you should report them to WP:AIV. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where I am -- my IP address

Hello again. One of my teachers warned me not to submit my email address, because apparently there have been threats of lawsuits directed at people blogging about this controversy -- he says this is what IsraelXKV8R is talking about in his comments. But you can see the IP address I'm writing from here because I have logged out (I also accidentally forgot to sign in when reinserting the section which IsraelXKV8R again took out).

P.s. Please take note that I have now also found a major New York Times article on the Jewish Museum exhibit, and it explains that all the Dead Sea Scrolls people were Christian and were charged with antisemitism. This charge has been leveled at the museum exhibitors (apart from the Jewish Museum) on the blogs IsraelXKV8R keeps talking about. I have not used any such unreliable sources, but the New York Times article seems entirely reliable and relevant to this article. I will, however, get even more hostile reactions if I cite it, so I don't know what to do about that. Rachel.Greenberg 128.122.88.28 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ya, you don't even want to think about going there. there is nothing antisemitic about arguing that the dead sea scrolls were composed by jews. there is nothing antisemitic about disagreeing with norman golb's position on the dead sea scrolls and agreeing, for instance, with larry schiffman or jodi magness. however, if you'd like, i can point you to a nice now public article by 'charles gadda' that attempts to interject antisemitism into this debate. in fact, the setup of the article in 'gadda's' article is almost identical in wording to the line above. and as was the case when 'gadda' attempted to go there, he was grasping at straws. those dss scholars who happen to be christians all agree that the dss were composed by jews and had nothing whatsoever to do with christians (except thiering and eisenman, whose views are as in the minority as golb's.) sorry to write on your page here, but rg is reaching now. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but IsraelXKV8R has a conflict of interest on this issue too, because, from the very sources he provided in the Dead Sea Scrolls discussion area (and which he falsely tries to connect me with), it appears that the curator of the exhibit where his film was shown said, in an interview with a San Diego newspaper which is available on-line, that the Dead Sea Scrolls are "not really Jewish texts." Unlike the blogs in question, I have no quarrel with IsraelXKV8R's own training as a Christian minister, but his association with an exhibit whose curator made such a declaration seems to raise a lot of questions.

The New York Times article (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/arts/design/07scrol.html) refers to "scandals ... that surround the scrolls." And it describes the key scandal as follows:

After the 1948 war, Jordan annexed the West Bank, took control of the caves and appointed the Rev. Roland de Vaux of École Biblique et Archéologique Française in East Jerusalem as overseer of an international team of scholars that would publish the scrolls. Then came 40 years in which the scrolls were passed among generations of scholars like esoteric possessions...

Jewish scholars were deliberately excluded from de Vaux’s original eight-member team, which was dominated by Roman Catholic priests and scholars. De Vaux later rejected offers by Israelis to help his team and persisted in referring to Israel as Palestine.

In the 1967 war Israel won control over the caves and scrolls, but two decades passed before it asserted any real authority over the project. One of de Vaux’s early appointees, John Strugnell, became head of the team in the 1980s but was dismissed in 1990 after an interview in which he called Judaism a “horrible religion” that “should have disappeared.”

De Vaux and Strugnell were not alone on the team to have a scorn of political or religious aspects of Judaism, a strange situation given that the scrolls demand an intimate understanding of ancient Jewish politics and religion. But their interpretations tended to reflect more a frame of mind than a doctrine, portraying the group that created the scrolls in the scholars’ own image.

Though the identification of the scrolls with a sect of ascetic Essenes was first made by Prof. Eleazar Sukenik of Hebrew University, that vision was filled out by de Vaux and his colleagues. De Vaux’s excavations at Qumran led to his theory that it housed a monastic celibate group living in the desert, isolated from other Judaic movements; in the dissent and messianic passions reflected in the scrolls, these devotees embodied almost proto-Christian sensibilities. Over decades this became orthodoxy, made immutable because until the 1990s the texts were largely inaccessible to outsiders.

The article explains that this outrageous situation was followed by a "revolution" in scrolls research. And we know that there's a huge controversy going on between people who support the original theory and people who disagree with it. IsraelXKV8R is involved in that controversy. And the controversy over the exhibitions is obviously connected with it.

So don't tell me that I "don't want to think about going there." Why is this issue not even mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls article? I will continue to pursue this matter to the full extent of my rights, and I will continue to point out that IsraelXKV8R has an obvious conflict of interest and should be prevented from controlling the Dead Sea Scrolls article the way he has been doing.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)