User talk:DLand/Archive 4

1/07 - 2/07

BadBillTucker

DLand: I went through a lot of his edits, read his motivations for joining, read IZAK's concerns, and completely agree with IZAK. The guy is not Jewish, is totally not interested in Orthodox Judaism. Why do you want him listed as a member? There should be membership rules. Having a serious involvement with Judaism and most importantly, actively editing Judaism-related articles would be a prerequisite for joining. Non-Jews are not excluded, of course - take Bsnowball as an example. He is not Jewish but does know what he is talking about, and he is actively involved in editing Judaism-related articles. Please share your thoughts on the talk page. --Chussid 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Russian rhapsody title.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Russian rhapsody title.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steinman/Shteinman

I don't think it's obvious at all. Certainly let's not move it w/o consensus. crz crztalk 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate version do mater

I does matter that it is a pitrate version this is because wikipedia cannot breask copywright law and a pirate version is an infringment of copywright law. Please wait a few days until tuesday at the earliest befor adding your spoiler back to the page or i will request a page protection as you are the only registered user putting it back in to the page.--Lucy-marie 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes but wikipedia is still not allwed to break cpoyright law. this means the use of material which has not had the express permission of the copyqright owner or is freely avaliable to the public after a brodcast on t.v. What you keep on adding is oillegeal material whihc is a fragrant braking of copywright law. After it has aired on T.V then by all means withe a full detail of every second of the show but untiul then dont. I also found your tone rediculously rude and conderscending.--Lucy-marie 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beard

it is unclear to me why it is not worthwhile to show more than one type of beard. and even if you insist that there is only need for one image, the one i have provided is higher quality (sharper image quality, etc) and includes a more "typical" beard than the image that was previously here by itself. Thanks. Jaredlenowguy 20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this editor a message letting them know continued reverts to include the photo are disallowed on Wikipedia. This is clearly a vanity photo (my reason for taking it off), and [name removed] even included it on the Bearded Woman page, claiming he was in fact a woman. If this photo is, as he claims, a friend, then I'm not sure why he is using his friend's name as a log-on. --DavidShankBone 20:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

none of this has to do with my arguments for including this image on the beard page. let's discuss those rationales, which i have outlined on the talk page for beard, rather than dwelling on issues that do not have to do with whether this image is appropriate for the speciic article. Jaredlenowguy 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[name removed] silliness

I apologize for the "douche" silliness. I had just discovered wikipedia and did not realize the seriousness of what I was doing. I can assure you that it will not happen again. In the last several weeks I have been exploring wikipedia quite a bit and spent some time reviewing wikipedia policies. To be honest, I find the whole project fascinating. I have become a good faith contributor (see by contribution to Ear tag today). I honestly do think that the beard photo I have posted is superior to the existing image, regardless of the fact that it features [name removed]. Hopefully we can focus on whether this is the better image rather than digging up past behaviors that I regret. Jaredlenowguy 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Protection

I replied to your post on my talk page. Cbrown1023 04:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question

Do you plan to monitor my contributions indefinitely? I did appreciate your work on the Andre article, though. Thanks. Jaredlenowguy 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take it personally, it is pretty common for us to monitor each other, especially once we are aware an editor was responsible for questionable additions. I, and I bet DLand as well, would welcome you to contribute. You're smart, well-read, and you know a lot. But if you want my advice, ditch this User name and start with a new one. Your real contribution to public knowledge and your serious attempt at such is a great reason to begin a new handle, one not colored by your experimentation. Either way, yes, we're watching you and we are watched (by you and others). That's what makes us enjoy this site: collaboration. It's only fun when there isn't a bunch of BS, foolishness, agendas or egos. Best of luck to you, and I hope you continue to edit and enjoy law more than the average JD graduate. --DavidShankBone 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Stern

As you certainly know sad news brought me to this article today. I don't have special interest and I don't think it is so important, but if I was enough important to have an article written in an Encyclopedia I would like to know it is written in English without mistakes that Hebrew wikipedians don't know how to improve. Some days ago you welcome me, and I saw you have special interest in Hebrew articles, I thank you in this occasion. Rachel Wa L. 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your edits to Aharon Lichtenstein

"Why do you think that R' Lichtenstein moved in 2005? I'm almost positive that it was already 2006 by the time that he and his wife moved. --DLandTALK 03:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)"

I saw him in August and he said that he had moved in November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidyonah (talk • contribs)

Favor

I was wondering if you could help me out with something. [name removed] is pretty annoyed that this talk page shows up in a google search for his name. Since the dumb [name removed] edits are over, would you mind editing his name out of this talk page, including this posting? (I will do it for you, with your permission). Perhaps replace his name with something along the lines of "[NAME REMOVED PER SUBJECT'S REQUEST]. To be honest, we got a bit silly with trying to get [name removed] up on wikipedia; now our friend is ticked off at us and we feel bad. Thanks. Pleasedomeafavor

Jacob

I think most of the vandalism is kids sitting in high school computer labs next to or across from their friend Jacob and feel the need to inform us that they have a friend with that name. You might want to request Sarah get similar semi-protection too. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sephardic Pizmonim Project article

At this point, I am just a bystander watching this debate go on with little or no say in how the vote of the article ends up. But I can't begin to explain how shocked I am at you, who I thought was a friend, especially when collaborating on the Yeshivah of Flatbush article. The amount of hours that you spent finding the sources, investigating, belittling the project, and even belittling me, is more time than I probably spent building up this project from scratch! After one vote of keeping the article, you really made it your duty to delete it? Now, I know you will say that you do all this for the sake of "notability", and for that I say that 1. the project is more notable than you think within the community, 2. there are many many organizations like me that have articles in which no one is questioning, 3. I am the only person in the entire Syrian community in the world who is working full-force and close to full-time in trying to preserve these pizmonim. For you to say, "don't be confused by his professional looking website" is just degrading. I am disappointed in you.David Betesh

To show you a bit of hypocracy, I am quoting here what you wrote to me a few weeks ago concerning this subject of the article: "I'm probably the most familiar with the SY community out of all the editors involved in this AfD (besides you, of course) and I'm 100% sure that the Sephardic Pizmonim Project is not notable enough for Wikipedia, given its limited scope and influence. But if the vote ends as keep, then I'll submit to that. The point is that when you get involved in Wikipedia, you have to follow the rules. Best, DLandTALK 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC) You wrote that, and to summarize, you wrote that if the vote ends up in the article's favor, that you would "submit to that". Did you lie to me when you said that?David Betesh

Naming and speaking of the dead in Judaism

Hi. I was thinking about the back-and forth about whether alav hashalom is associated with prophets or not.

Chodesh Tov, --Shirahadasha 05:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defending YU Roshei Yeshiva

Thanks a lot for your help. After a while writing with this name, I became quite frustrated after being denied Adminship, and decided to never edit again. After not being able to stay away, I decided to use the alias Pizzapie3. But after being knocked around because I had only 3 edits to my credit, and subsequently being saved by you, I have decided to return. Thanks. Dale 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...and I see you work quickly! Now so many of the Roshei Yeshiva are linked up, and I suppose, "protected." Fantastic Job! Kol Tuv. Dale 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Yosef Blau.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yosef Blau.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasher Koach...

...for uploading an image of Rabbi Bleich. I knew it needed to be done, but I didn't want to bother, partly because I don't work much with images generally. YechielMan 04:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, fair use is a sweeping leniency. A lot of the images we take for granted on Wikipedia wouldn't be here without it. (Proposals to do away with fair use images on Wikipedia have been shot down for that reason.) We live in an age when copyright law doesn't get the respect it once did (there's a lot of stuff on youtube, for example), but it's good to know we can operate within the rules. YechielMan 04:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Earned It!!!

I hereby bestow upon you the *Barnstar of Diligence* for your quick, pointed response to attacks on new articles.

When Rabbi Mordechai Willig and Rabbi Yonason Sacks were attacked, you stepped up to the plate, adding relevent support in the form of details, photographs and talk page explanations to substantiate and defend their right to exist. Excellent!

Please affix this to your user page in recognition of your gallantry. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DRosenbach (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Naming and speaking of the dead in Judaism

The article needs a lot of work, I will eventually get around to it. As for the naming of the phophets, this may be a Mizrahi or Yemenite minhag, I'm not sure. Sources (and experience) would probably help here. Epson291 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 17:46 27 February 2007 (GMT).