User talk:Warshy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Essjay 06:05, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome and for the tips, Essjay. I am on a learning curve regarding how to publish stuff here, but I'm making some progress. I've figured out already at least one of the ways to sign a new page, such as Warshy 15:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks again.

You cannot reword a quoted document

You cannot reword a quoted document because it doesn't conform to Wikipedia style or because you don't like the wording! - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Explanation to Mr. Mabel

I wasn't trying to reword the document. I was trying to correct a link that was incorrect. There was no Wikipedia page about the Viaux coup attempt the link alluded to. Instead, the link was pointing to the Rene Schneider page, where the Viaux coup attempt was also mentioned, with a material to an existing Wikipedia page about Robert Viaux.

What I didn't know how to do, and what you have now done in correcting my misguided attempt at correction, is to make the Wikilink name, that points to a different page, not appear in the reading text of the page. You then later explained to me what you had done, which I didn't know how to do, in the following manner:

"Wikilinks have two parts: the display text and the target. When the two parts are identical, you just use the one piece of content (e.g. Georges Danton). If, however, you want to display text that differs from the target, you do it like this: Danton. That will display visibly as just "Danton", but will link the same place. This is also very useful when referencing a section of an article, thus ethnicbreakdown of the breakaway province."

Thanks for the explanation. Now I know how to do it, and hopefully, someone else reading this, will not fall into the same wiki "trap."warshy 12:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek

Thanks for your message. No, unfortunately I do not read or write Classical Greek, but I am willing to learn. Happy new year! —Viriditas | Talk 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholem

I honestly don't remember what my source was for the information about Scholem, most likely I translated bits from the Hebrew language Wikipedia. I don't speak Italian. I may also have opened a book, but I can't think what book it was (this was before Wikipedia started putting such an emphasis on sourcing). And I added a tidbit of information from my own knowledge, the fact that he was married to Fania (the two were neighbors of my grandparents). --woggly 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Take another look at the history of the article, you might find it enlightening. You can track the evolution of the article by clicking on the dates in the history page. Yes, I did create the article in December 2004, but I wrote nothing about the division into three stages. This is what I wrote: [1] A few weeks later, another user, Anyfile, who apparantly speaks Italian but not the best English, added a lump of text to the bottom, which he/she had translated from the Italian Wikipedia: [2]. I then revisted the article and attempted to touch up the English and blend the new text into the old, adding the comment some corrections, still needs major cleanup and fact checking: [3]. By tracking the article from "diff" to "diff" (from one edit to the next) it should be possible for you to identify which editor is reponsible for precisely which sentences in the text. You can ask Anyfile about the Italian. --woggly 15:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I appreciate your support; I was already at wits end. Having already reverted it twice and seeing that my words are falling on deaf ears, I decided to call it quits until tomorrow. The reverter seems to be knowledgeable but his understanding of the differences between Litvaks and Hasidim and all the forms of Orthodoxy is probably less then my understanding of the differences between Sunni and Shiites.

Sometimes it’s lonely out there when you edit and it’s good to know that there are people who will stick up for someone when they're right. Itzse 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your edits on that case were right on the mark, and I was happy to see someone with the guts to go there and do it. I was still studying that entry (and still am, as a matter of fact), so I wasn't at the state where I thought I could change anything there yet. But when I saw your changes they made absolute sense, and then the guy compounded it by reverting everything without even considering, as you explained. But I saw right throught where that guy was coming from. Actually, any time. I am Jewish history buff, but especially 16th through 16th centuries, so if you need help with anything related to it or to Jewish History in general, please feel free to ask for my help. I will look into it, and even research it if needed. On the technical side of Wikipedia I still have a lot to learn, too. But I'd be glad to look into stuff, or help, if you need. Regards, warshy 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer; here in Wikipedia more then ever no one can go it alone. You gotta be bold if you think that you're in the right and the main thing is to go about it right. Thanks again; and now that I know that you're a history buff we'll have plenty of opportunity to help each other. Itzse 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Toffeenose

Hi,

This account is clearly used for vandalism.

I have reported him to :

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hopefully, he'll soon be out of Wikipedia.

Tovojolo 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action. The vandal is now gone! I'll learn for the future from your edit here, and I also just learned how to add a nice smiley! Thanks for teaching me these two useful tools. Regards,
warshy 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help.

We'll defeat trolls and vandals for ever !

Tovojolo 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User names and authenticity

Hi Yuval,

Welcome to WP! FWIW, I don't find your question naive at all. In fact it is very interesting and I definitely cannot address it with any authority or confidence. If I may though, I'd like to spontaneously share with you some of my personal observations regarding the matter:

  • I sign with my personal, actual name for multiple reasons (in no particular order):
  1. Relational authenticity: I think it adds authenticity to my comments on talk pages. At least this is often my own feeling when dealing with other users who happen to use what appears to be their real names as opposed to a fabricated sign-on. For instance, I am currently engaging in a somewhat difficult discussion with another user whose sign-on is not his real full name; however, during our discussion, he has signed his appends using his full name; thus, I now address him by his first name and feel that I am able to engage him with more care and respect. I guess, in other words, a real name helps me engage others more authentically, as people capable of relations, perhaps as a Buber "thou." I hope for others my use of my actual name does the same.
  2. Cautions civility on my part: It forces me to stick to reality. Occasionally, my thoughts show poor judgment and I'm tempted to respond to another in anger or with sarcasm or in other ways lacking maturity or wisdom. By using my real name, it reminds me to respond in a manner consistent with the actual persona with which I desire others to perceive me. Perhaps put another way, using my actual name forces me to be more vulnerable and thus more thoughtful than a fabricated name does.
  3. Neutral long-term identifier: My actual name is a very consistent way to reflect who I am over time. In a certain sense, my name -- from birth to death -- is a simple handle for referring to myself. There have been times when I've wanted to choose a sign-on name that reflects something that is important to me at the time; so, for instance, on another Internet system I use the sign-on, "ekayano_ayam," which is a Pali term referring to Buddhist mindfulness meditation as being a direct path to the extinction of suffering. But I've come to the view that such fabricated names are limiting and confusing. For instance, in this particular case, "ekayano_ayam" is limiting because my on-going interests are not always focussed so strongly on mindfulness, e.g., other times I'd like to focus on the issue of compassion or domestic violence or American politics, etc. In addition, it can be confusing to others, such as my parents (who are increasingly tolerant of my Buddhist pursuits but who have no ways of relating to a name such as "ekayano_ayam") or Christian and Jewish neighbors (who now send e-mail to my ekayano_ayam id about gardening and community resources, etc.). To give another example, someone else who is currently highly engaged on the WP Buddhism articles has a fabricated user name suggesting risk taking and seems to be an epithet used in Hollywood action movies; not infrequently, his name causes me to wonder about his commitment to Buddhism and thus, more applicably, the depth of his understanding of Buddhist issues.
  4. WP Buddhism norm: I think the norm for WP Buddhist contributors actually is to sign with real names. For instance, the person who first welcomed me to WP and who provided much-appreciated mentoring support for me early on is User:Nat Krause. In addition, a person for whom I have enormous respect in regards to his scholarship is User:Stephen_Hodge. Other very important recent contributors include User:Peter_jackson, Clay Collier (who signs his talk posts with his real name although his sign-in name is User:Spasemunki), Rudy Harderwijk (whose sign-in name is User:Rudyh01 although his user page identifies his whole name and he signs his posts "rudy"), Dr. Tony Page (user id: User:TonyMPNS but his user page provides his real name -- again, like you seem inclined to do) and User:Peter_morrell. So perhaps there are WP subcultural influences regarding this matter as well.
  • Conversely, I sometimes don't use my personal, actual name -- that is, I don't sign on, I simply use an IP address of whatever computer I am on in the followign situations:
  1. Safety: For reasons of personal safety and the safety of my family, I don't want some former clients to find me. Thus, I use my actual name but I've tried to keep my home state obscure. (And I know that each of the states I've lived in has multiple people with my actual name.) The reason is that, over the years (as a social worker involved in domestic violence and child abuse cases), I have often had to testify, provide assistance and engage in other activities that worked against the intense personal self interests of some interpersonally violent and mentally unstable persons. One person met me at his driveway with a rifle. One set his dog on me. Another threatened to track me down and kill me and my family. Another repeatedly said that if he knew my address he would make false child abuse reports against me. Others have sexually abused their own kin.... Etc. And, of course, it's one thing for them to be a threat to me (which is part of the job); it is a completely different thing for them to be a threat to my family. So, when people are concerned about personal safety matters (real or perceived), I can understand that they choose not to present their actual identity.
  2. Separating edits from my user page content: At times I don't want my user page's information to cloud reasons for my edit. So, for instance, in the past, I've made minor changes to articles related to child development and I didn't want my user page's overwhelming emphasis on Buddhism to alienate anyone who might want to discuss a change I've made. In addition, I recently offered some possible citation material on the page of a politically sensitive topic; I didn't want anyone who might see my offer as part and parcel with political views that then might be conflated with Buddhism, etc. Thus, to distance my Buddhist interests from highly unrelated Buddhist topics, I've avoided using my actual name (which here is correlated with a heavily Buddhist user page).
  3. Safeguard other personal matters: I've made edits (essentially wrote) the current article Child Protective Services (CPS) based on my experience in such work. However, after I made the edits, I realize I didn't ask my supervisors for permission to do so. (As it is, my CPS workplace never stipulated that I needed to seek such permission; however, I would deeply regret if I unintentionally wrote anything that my supervisors would assess as reflecting poorly on our agency or institution -- although, of course, on WP I feel compelled to maintain neutrality in all edits). So, in my naivete, to distance my agency from complicity in anythign I personally wrote (again, not to be deceptive about my intentions but out of respect for others' work), I decided to delete my entire contribution and then reintroduce from an anonymous IP (now, not so anonymous: User_talk:24.40.128.94). I then had additional concerns about this (e.g., that such would be seen as duplicitous on my part) so I then deleted my entire contribution (from the IP address this time) again. Someone else however decided to reintroduce the majority of my edits, deleting a few tangential comments I had made in the article that the subsequent editor felt might have reflected POV. While I think this turned out okay, it underlines for me that I initially was highly ambivalent about using my real name since such might have unintentional consequences for the institution and its people with whom I work.

Does this make sense? Perhaps too much information? I hope something in this resonates for you. If you have additional thoughts, I'd be interested in hearing them. And, once again, welcome to WP. I wish you the best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry,
Thank you very much for your very thoughtful reply. Everything you say makes very good sense in both directions, both for giving authenticity personal signs in certain situations, or for eschewing them in others. I had not thought about all these different scenarios you describe, and in that sense yes, my question did have to it a certain natural naivete. Since I don't have either the professional or the spiritual issues you describe (I am a simple IT support analyst in real life), I guess for me personally, I don't see a problem keeping my WP persona the way it is. Thanks again for making aware of all types of considerations every person must make as s/he begins to engage more fully with this new ethos called WP. Best regards,
warshy 19:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yuval - Thank you too for your kindness and thoughtfulness. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Masoretic text

Thanks for your encouragement! My issue with the article as it was was that it was supposed to be about the Masoretic text, but in fact it was actually mostly about 50% (pretty randomly selected) of the old JE article on Masorah -- which meant, it seemed to me, (1) it wasn't really telling the story of the Masoretic Text itself very well at all; and (2) it was very confusing, promising one thing, then talking about another; and randomly missing out about half of the JE article to boot made it even harder to follow. So I thought I'd see what I could do.

The most useful source I've found for the detail on what texts there seem to have been in use at the different times is the article I've cited by Menachem Cohen. There's also another article by him [4], covering much of the same ground at a slightly more introductory level, focussed on addressing why the idea of a "Bible Code" may not hold much water.

The broad time divisions pre-Akiva, post-Akiva and Masoretic seem to be pretty traditional. The Dead Sea Scrolls have perhaps shown that a lot more of the versions in circulation seem to have been rather closer to what became the MT than was perhaps imagined in the C19; but they've also confirmed that there definitely were also Hebrew texts at that time close to the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentatech version. Anyway, the broad picture seems to be supported in the summaries given by the Introduction to the New English Bible in the link I quoted, and by the NIV translation group [5].

Beyond that, some of the specific material on the Dead Sea Scrolls I've lifted from the talk page, some of the text about the Masoretes from the Masoretes page, and some of the text about Masoretic period from further down the MT page itself (it's originally from the public domain JE article). So someone could probably do a Documentary Hypothesis-style analysis on where different bits have come from!

(BTW the Haas reference looks suspect: she doesn't seem to be a great authority, and bits of the claim though not 100% wrong, aren't 100% right either, at least from more authoritative stuff I've found through Google).

On the Masorah itself, the JE article is pretty good, though the structure I find makes it harder to read than it should be. There's also a useful article in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (now also out of copyright), and Google Books finds a good page in the "Text and MSS of the OT" article of the International Standard Bible Encylopedia (1994) -- which makes me wish the page before, on the transmission and collation of the Masoretic text, was there to consult as well! The Schaff-Herzog article "Text of the Old Testament" has some material too.

(There may also be some other online sources that I've seen or checked, but not remembered here).

Also, I haven't read it yet, but this article on ancient scribal practices looks interesting, though not entirely on-topic: [6].

So: it's not all condensed from one particular place; but I hope what I've written is pretty mainstream, and fair and balanced, and not making any new sytheses.

But it would be good to have another pair of eyes on the article. If there's anything I've written that doesn't look right to you, then do please question it. If there's anything that doesn't flow, or needs re-writing, then do please re-write it (I suspect I'm not the greatest editor in the world). And if there's anything that should be expanded on, or that you think that there are some good references to support that could be included, then please, do go ahead. I'm just trying to make the article as useful and informative as I can, and I'm aware that I'm maybe not the best writer in the world, so if there's any help you can give I'd be delighted.

All best, Jheald 20:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Threats and the 3RR

Regarding your threat in this user summary, I must insist that you refrain from making threats against myself or any other user in this or any other editing dispute.

If you are not already aware of it, I also am obligated to bring to your attention Wikipedia:Three revert rule, which prohibits you from exceeding three reverts on the same article in a 24 hour period.

If you wish to discuss the article in question, we can do so on that article's talk page. But there is no requirement that I do so prior to editing this article, especially regarding such a minor matter. There is no requirement that the article remain in your preferred state prior to such discussion. If this was a requirement, then if you check the edit history, you'll see that you are the one who would be required to start discussion, because that sentence was worded according to my preferences for three years until changed by Octavian history in December 2007. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR vio on Marina Oswald Porter

I have blocked you for 6 hours for repeatedly reverting on Marina Oswald Porter more than 3 times in 24 hours. The discussion page for that article has not even been used. I appreciate that the other editor came close to this, but stopped just short. I will give that person a stern warning about 3RR.

Even if you are really sure you are correct, repeat reversions of other peoples work are not acceptable. If you disagree with this block then you can have it reviewed at by entering {{unblock|reason}} 1 != 2 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is "vio"? I did not revert it three times, the other person is the one who did it. Look at the history of the page: I was the to first suggest the discussion page, not him. He refused to go there! I completely disagree with this unjust, unjustified, and wrong decision.
warshy (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vio is short for "violation". You undid the actions of other users 4 times [7] [8] [9] [10]. The other user has not even made 4 edits today and has been warned about their danger of reaching this limit. Just as you were warned about reaching this limit in the thread above.

Like I said, if you think this block is not just you can ask for review. 1 != 2 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not refused to engage in discussion. I merely ask that you be civil during that discussion. If you are willing to refrain from further rude remarks, I have no objection to you being unblocked. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Gamaliel does not object to unblocking, if you agree to reach a consensus on the talk page before further editing to the page I will be happy to unblock. 1 != 2 17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? This is kind of ridiculous: I was the first one to reasonably suggest we go to the discussion page, whereas he just went and blocked me! Incredible.
warshy (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I am reading this sentence incorrectly, but you seem to be saying I am the one who blocked you. I did not block you, nor did I even request that you be blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin. I am the one who blocked you, not Gamaliel. While you did suggest going to the discussion page, you kept on reverting. If you simply agree to reach a consensus(and respect that consensus) before editing the page further then I can unblock you. I expect this from both of you by the way, not just you Warshy. 1 != 2 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You must be some kind of bad, biased admin. For example, I cannot even edit the unblock reason page as you state. I did not revert his changes 4 times as you say. He started this reversion streak by reverting a formula I had already agreed to since yesterday, by user Octavian history. Again, I was the one who first suggested going to the discussion page. He not only REFUSED to do that, he went straight to you. Unbelievable.
warshy (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not go to anyone. I never requested that you be blocked. Please stop making things up. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to come to an agreement. But since you won't agree to the alternative you can just wait out the 6 hours. You put the {{unblock|reason}} template on this page and it will be automatically placed in a category for admins to find you. I am not being biased, I am really not even familiar with the subject or either of you editors, frankly I think it rather poor taste to make that assumption. 1 != 2 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Baruch Spinoza edits

You recently undid my revision to Baruch Spinoza with the claim "the supposed reference work is not in the bibliography and is never correctly refer". It is true that the reference I cited is not in the "Bibliography" because it was in the "References" section, immediately above that.

I have now combined (and re-sorted) the two sections into one, and am restoring my edit. If you have an issue with this, can you please discuss it with me first so we don't get into a 3RR situation? Thanks --Eliyahu S Talk 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have replied in your talk page, even before I saw this message here. This is a circular argument: the three notes refer to the reference section, where all you have is a supposed reference. But it is not a complete reference to a work that can be identified. I asked for you to poimt me to the full reference to this work in my question in your page. Thanks,
warshytalk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandal user 70.233.170.125

It looks like there have been two users from closely related IP addresses vandalizing the pages: User:70.233.170.125 and User:70.233.194.224. Unfortunately, since I'm not an administrator, I can't block them. However, both were blocked by an administrator earlier today. JimVC3 (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I liked your comment

I liked your comments on the discussion on the article entitled Karaites. Some want to delete my user page, just because it discusses some groups that don't accept the talmud as divine.--Standforder (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AWB / Huggle / Rollback

I've left a question at the AWB check page. You need the built-in "rollback" tool to use Huggle. I'd be happy to enable it on your account, but you need remember to only use rollback in cases of clear-cut and obvious vandalism (see WP:ROLLBACK). Fair enough? –xeno talk 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Both huggle and AWB are separate programs and won't effect your browser or your popups, you'll want to leave that enabled. Please do be extremely careful when using huggle, it's a ridiculously powerful tool that can cause damage to the project in turns of turning off new contributors. If you're looking to tend to a limited set of articles with regards to vandalism, huggle isn't quite what you're looking for. I can't overstate enough that it must only be used for obvious vandalism only. See below for more. –xeno talk 20:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes you can go ahead and download AWB now and see if it will help you with your tasks. As for which one to use first, I think AWB is closer in terms of what you are looking for. Huggle is a single-purpose tool to combat vandalism. –xeno talk 20:08, 25 April 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! –xeno talk 20:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

questions

I'm still a little confused, so two questions again: a) You now added Twinkle into the mix, and I had forgotten it. I think when I tried to toy with Twinkle in the past it was only for other browsers, not IE, and so I left it alone. Is it now compatible with XP, and is it better than AWB or Huggle in your view? And, b) You said you've now enabled Rollback in my configuration. Does that mean I have Rollback even without installing Huggle, or in order to use Rollback I've still got to install Huggle before? In other words: Is Rollback an independent feature (How do I use it as such?), or is a Huggle feature? Thanks again. Sorry for so many doubts/questions.--warshytalk 20:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No worries about the doubts, and questions, it shows me you're proceeding cautiously with the new toys. Twinkle still does not work on IE, but that's ok because Firefox is still much better than IE. If you can switch (i.e. there's no restrictions on your PC), I'd highly reccomend it as Firefox and Wikipedia go together like bread and butter. And then you can use Twinkle, which is another great tool that adds functionality over-and-above these other ones we're discussing. OK, enough proselytizing. Native rollback, which I've just granted you, allows you to rollback a user's edit(s) by clicking the "rollback" button you will now see in your watchlist, recent changes, and on history and contribution pages. Be mindful especially when looking at your watchlist, as misclicks could cause you to revert good edits. If you'd prefer hiding these rollback links from your wtachlist, there is a script to do that. Huggle utilizes rollback by watching recent changes and highlighting edits it thinks might be unconstructive. It's really quite impressive, to be honest, but it scares me sometimes =) –xeno talk 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
After ec: I've just noticed you used rollback for the first time, on yourself ;> (that's a permitted use, by the way) –xeno talk 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, let me start again trying to summarize where I am and see what doubts I still have. If you can explain to me maybe in simple terms what the difference is between Rollback and the native "Undo" wiki feature, that would help. I've just seen on myself, I think, inadvertently of course, how powerfull the Rollback tool can be, and so that is powerfull enough for the time being, and I don't think I will need Huggle at the moment. But Rollback only rolls back one edit at a time, correct? You can't roll back 2 or 3 edits that a vandal did on a page in sequence, correct? So basically, what is the 'basic' (sorry) difference between Undo and Rollback? Hope it sticks this time, since in my last edit, after spending 10 minutes writing, it just said there was a conflict between my edit and someone's else edit on the same page, and I lost it...--warshytalk 20:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, don't worry. Through the "edit conflict" little link you put above I was able to go to the "revert" page, and I am now reading myself about the differences between the Undo and the Rollback. I still don't understand all the features of the Rollback, but I hope I'll be slowly getting there. Again, that's enough editing feautures/power for me for the time being, and until I digest the Rollback I am not going to advance to AWB or to Huggle yet. Thanks again for all you help. You are quick on this stuff and also good on guessing some user's next move/question!...--warshytalk 21:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry, I got distracted and didn't notice your follow up question on my watchlist. Yes, if the same vandal makes a few bad edits in a row, rollback will revert them all. If several different vandals make edit in concert, you can always look at the revision history of an article, click an old revision, then "edit", "save", and you will have moved the article back. Just be careful of going over good edits in this manner. –xeno talk 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Karaite Judaism links

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the links (website and blog) I anonymously added to the Karaite Judaism webpage. I'm familiar with the people who created the websites in question, and they seem legit and informative to me. Please let me know. --AFriedman (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
I don't recall deleting any links on that page? There must be a mistake/confusion here? I don't even really care about the many links all sorts of people keep putting there, as I have very rarely consulted them so far. Regards, --warshytalk 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just looked at the revision history of that page and you were the person who had made the edit that deleted the links (and also corrected a couple transliterations and pronunciations). I've put the links back, but I didn't know what you did about one of the pronunciations so I reverted it to the old version. IMO that pronunciation is not a big deal, but you might want to look at the page Karaite Judaism. --AFriedman (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Just a note

It's not wise to make those sort of comments. I personally don't mind roughhouse, insinuations, sneers, or whatever, and have a clean record of not whingeing about the stray bitching on wikipedia. Administrators are overloaded with whiners, many using the remonstrative forums for tactical ends, without my adding to the burden. My only point would be that, by inserting that conspiracy insinuation and WP:AGF violation there, your edit threatened to sink a legitimate request to get Nina to reply with precision to a simple request she has, in my view, consistently ignored. I myself wish to avoid the air of suspicion that 'we' are out to get Nina, or that Nina has, with tacit support, taken up the mission whose leading proselytiser, Smatprt, failed to complete, on behalf of de Vereans. That is why I have stayed clear of polemics, avoided overloading the threads, and tried to stick to relevant issues. Please don't give the impression of being a cheer-leader for her, or anyone else. Play to the gallery and one ends up in the pits.Nishidani (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read and studied your publishing on Wikipedia in silence, in depth, for a long time now to be able to ever even suspect any good faith on your part. No, you are a master of polemics on any area you decide for some reason to engage. I sometimes suspect you really are in it not for any deeply held convictions, but just for the kicks of the polemics itself. And because you are a great admirer of your own prose and of your own wit. But what is this here? You now come to my page to threaten me already with violations, with 'conspiracy' (again, what a surprise, no?), and of ending who knows where... I said plain and clear what I think of you and of the role you played on getting a guy you disagreed with and wanted banned from Wikipedia banned from Wikipedia. Your unexpected and unwelcome visit here above is very befitting of everything I have thought and said about you from reading very carefully a lot of your output here in the last year. Be sure that I am watching you, and have been for quite some time. But also, please keep clear of my page with your veiled threats and admonitions. Keep it for your own friends. I certainly don't want to count you among mine... You are mostly unwelcome here in the future. And have a nice life too. warshytalk 03:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You now come to my page to threaten me already with violations, with 'conspiracy' (again, what a surprise, no?), and of ending who knows where...

Actually, you haven't read long and carefully. I did not post a threat, or, as you put it, 'threaten (you) with violations'. It is a a matter of the elementary construal of the unambiguous sense of the English language to infer, when I write:-

My only point would be that, by inserting that conspiracy insinuation and WP:AGF violation there.

that the point being made is not a threat, but merely a matter of registering the fact that you wrote effectively that (a) I do not edit in good faith, and (b)that I was part of a conspiracy. I.e. I was saying the opposite of the meaning you read into my remarks. You're not obliged to study my boring archives or watch me. Rest assured, however, that I never threaten people, and I exempt your own injurious comments from the sanctions they are normally met with, as a matter of principle. Nishidani (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not responding to you anymore. But it has to be made completely patent and clear that I never mentioned or even hinted anything remotely connected to a 'conspiracy.' You inserted the term here, because that is always an integral part of your tactics. It must be already unconscious even. I said plain and simply that you wanted a guy banned, you worked for that end specifically, and you achieved it. warshytalk 03:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And another

Would you mind clarifying your remarks, as well as your remark in your edit summary "he even gave himself a barnstar from this, but he points to the unedited first version, of course..."? Exactly who are you talking about, me or Nishidani? Either way, I think it would be wise to remove them. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, as a joke I put a pseudobarnstar for being reputed a devious strategist on my page citing Warshy's remarks in a diff. Contextually his edit summary refers to this, so to me. As to the point about the unedited first version, well, people get hypersuspicious around here, and Warshy apparently read some deep meaning into the fact that, in citing him, I cited his uncorrected post. I did so because I always cite the first statement, and not the second if it merely corrects trivial things like spelling.Nishidani (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please note them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
  2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
  3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
  4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand de Saussure

Thanks for your comment. I'm looking forward to digging up some research on this in June. Saussure was the basis of an Intro to Lit Theory class I took, so I'll check in the old course text for any editors' commentary. See you then! Roseclearfield (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Contact Info

I checked for your email contact info, but did not see it. Please place it here.Rogala (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rogala,
Thanks for replying. When you are on this page and you look at the WP blue menu on the left, one of the options should be: "E-mail this user." I see it right now as I type this. When you click on that link you get a message screen where you can send a private message to my email address. I hope you can see it now? I would have used it on your page, but you did not check the option in your profile's preferences by providing also there (where noone sees it) you own private email address, as I have done. I only recently learned about this WP feature and I find it useful sometimes. I hope you can send me a private message so I can respond. Looking forward to it. Regards, warshytalk 14:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: The blue WP menu I am talking about is to the left at the top of the page. When I am editing this page I can see it.
I do not think I can see it since I have not registered an email with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogala (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are correct regarding your own email address, which you apparently did not register with WP in your own profile's preferences. However, my email address is registered with WP, and therefore, when you are editing THIS page (my talk page) or at the top of the page, to the left, you should see the option/link: "E-mail this user." If you click on this option you should be able to send a message to my email address, to which I would respond if you also provided me with an address to respond to. However, it may also be that you cannot see the option I am referring to because you have not registered your own email address. If this is the case (I am not familiar with this scenario; it is news to me), then I suggest we just forego the whole exercise, as it is becoming too involved. Be well and success in your own endeavors, warshytalk 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Borders Books Liquidation

Thanks for helping me with the syntax and run-on. It was a bit too late for me to be working. The original poster had placed the final closing date as a precedent sentence to the proposed start date. I'm new to wiki and was not sure if I was over stepping my boundaries by placing the two in proper sequence for flow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briscoecain (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Briscoecain. That's what I believe we, volunteer editors, are here for. Thanks for thanking me, you don't get a lot of it around here. As for being new to wiki, welcome and welcome to the club. Even though I have been editing here for more than 5 years (I really can't believe that...), I still feel like a novice here. Just to get that link/cite to the WashPost all correct and formatted properly I had to struggle, and I couldn't actually get it done without some other volunteer's help. That is how it should work around here, I believe, for us volunteers, who are not "professional wiki editors," and who try to do our best with whatever knowledge we possess and whatever wiki technical knowledge/experience we were able to amass in the meantime. And I say that, because I have also seen that quite a bit around here - "professional wiki editors," who are complete wiki-hackers and can do anything around here. They also have all the connections inside to accomplish whatever they want. I, on the other hand, still struggle with the technology every day... Welcome again and enjoy your editing! warshytalk 18:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Message

Yes, I still live in the same apartment in Ypsi. I'm in the phone book. I'm on Facebook. In addition to uploading pictures to Wikimedia I've lately been uploading to Panoramio for inclusion in Google Earth and have over 600 such pictures. I consider myself retired but may have to return to work eventually. Dwight Burdette (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about Sabbatai Zevi article

Hi, warshy -

This one detail happened to catch my eye in the Sabbatai_Zevi Sabbatai Zevi article: "At this point also his followers appeared to start using for him the title of AMIRAH, which is a Hebrew acronym for the phrase "Our Lord and King, his Majesty be exalted" (Adoneinu Malkeinu Yarum Hodo)." Going back through the history, it looks like you added or at least edited this particular sentence (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabbatai_Zevi&oldid=345339103). I'm just curious. Where did that detail come from? From one of the books cited on the page?

Thanks, --Brasswatchman (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brasswatchman. Thanks for the interest, and nice detective/decyphering work on the WP records to find out who did what when. It is no simple task, in my view. You must be really interested in the subject? As to your specific question I answered it in the artile talk page. Regards,. warshytalk 19:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, warshy - So I see. Thanks again for the answer! And yes, I am interested in the subject. The history search wasn't that hard, though -- there's a script linked on the history page that more or less makes it easy. Again, appreciate it. --Brasswatchman (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Brasswatchman. I think you're right when you say that the history of the page "more or less makes it easy." The important for me here is the operative qualifier "more or less." Some days the task seems easier than on other days... :D) Some days and on some pages, it can look pretty daunting to me when I first open it, and start going through line by line. Thanks for the interest again. When I get to it I will try to start adding more specific references to the page. Thanks again, warshytalk 16:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory article comment

Just to let you known I have used your glowing appraisal of my edits and references in my defense in the Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb matter on the Administrators' noticeboard. Hope you don't mind--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi BruceGrubb,
No, I don't mind. That was actually the purpose of my trying to chime in there. I have been following your efforts there for quite a while and in fact I had posted some notes on the talk page a while ago where I said you guys were in fact very courageous in tackling such an issue, and where I expressed some skepticism as to the degree you might succeed or not. I don't know if you remember. In any case, your latest postings using reliable sources were really very good and solid, and a solid base upon which to base the changes you have made. I support them wholeheartedly. In fact, I was wondering if you had gotten into some problem for having to revert too many times, and when I posted that comment I did not know you had been banned. It will still be an uphill battle, and I will try to help as much as I can. Unfortunately, I am not strong on direct reliable sources that can help, since I don't read too much on the subject out of Wikipedia, but I definitely have my own thoughts on the subject, product of my concerns with the issue for a couple of decades... In any case, I commend your work on sources again, I hope your ban is expired by now and I hope you can be back into the fray soon. I again wish you success, and that you be strong and courageous in the face of the strong opposition that is sure to come! Good luck, warshytalk 14:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The 24 hr ban you are talking about was long gone by the time this mess came up and you will notice after that editor got his way there were no reverts. WP:CON states quite clearly "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." In short even though he got his way he still per WP:CON agreed with the changes I reverted to! I think the real problem is that too many editors don't really understand WP:CON and turn it into a voting booth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I noticed. At least kind of, as much as I understand these wikilawyering battles. Unfortunately, as you can see from my latest post in the noticeboard page, I am not much help with wikilawyering. But, it seems to me, you are now up against the big guys, and this time they want to ban you for good from the area/issue at all. I hope they don't succeed, as I said there, but I've seen already too many battles like this one here where the minority/non-mainstream guys simply get muzzled, banned, and that is that. I wish you luck again, in your battle for life here (and maybe the help of some pros, who really know the machine, which is not my case, unfortunately. I do this WP thing on the side only, just kind of just multitasking at work... while I wait for the real life job tasks to develop.) warshytalk 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about "against the big guys" as the attempt before the 24 ban was a bust.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, but just look at this. Of course, you've probably already seen it. Just seeing if my 'diff' will work... warshytalk 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

[This was my first real "diff" in WP and apparently it does work... Back to work! warshytalk 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)]

Please note my polite rebuttal to that in which I point out two other editors reverted back to my version and I point out the part of WP:CON all the commenting editors seem to be ignoring.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Sadly you were right and the trogs have won. BruceGrubb has retired in evident disgust.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Invite to Research Survey

Hi Warshy,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We are creating a tool, called wikiFeed, that will help Wikipedia editors make connections between content from Twitter or RSS news feeds and Wikipedia articles. We are currently gathering data which will help us in the development process and would love to learn about how you consume news content and how it relates to your Wikipedia editing. If you would like to help, follow this link to complete a brief survey. Your feedback will help us create a better tool.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. Thanks for your time! RachulAdmas (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites

Warshy thanks for your edit. Please could you also explain your thinking on the article talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I have tried to explain it a number of times already, especially in the talk page to Abraham Firkovich. But it does not help, since there are apparently 3 different POV on that page from people in Russia, whereas I am the only one from outside of Russia, trying to keep some order in an English language WP. The histrical mess in Russia started with Firkovich himself, and then was closed up by Seraya Shapshal in such a manner that it is today almost impossible to undo some of the covering up they did. And they did it based on their political and religiously motivated designs, nay their political plan of separating the Karaites from the Jews in their social status and in the political fate within Imperial Russia in the 19th century. As I said before also, what we are seeing here now in the English WP is a re-enacting of that political and religious rewriting of history. It is a mess, and it is going to take many years of careful historical research to finally start getting out of it. warshytalk 22:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I really think it would be best if you contributed to the article talk page, if only to make it clear to clueless admins that you are discussing your edits and not edit-warring.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I have written there my comments yesterday, and they also explain how I see what is happening there. Maybe you did not see them? Right now, nothing that is written in the talk page is going to change any minds. Each one of the editors is only defending his own religious POV, and religious convictions are something that do not allow for any rational, historical arguments. I will continue to try and follow the developments, and see where this can be taken in the future. In the little arguments going on in the talk page about little details here or there (which do not change the overall mess), if I have anything to say one way or another, I will. warshytalk 22:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please review this

I have looked at the history of the Karaim disambiguation page, and fixed it. If you wish to make any changes, please fell free.

What is interesting is the way the same editor kept changing it over time. In theology, inconsistency in religious books over time is know as "gradual revelation".

--Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for recording this here, Toddy1. Quite amazing. Thanks for fixing this mess. It looks like you've mastered pretty good the art of the "diff" on WP, which I still struggle with quite a bit. The user in question states in his talk page that he is "reading-challenged." I think the real disorder here may be more like "multiple personality disorder." warshytalk 14:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted

Hi Warshy,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [16]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Amedeo Modigliani

My edit is NOT a vandalism, I just put the real pronunciation which somebody else had previously wasted! I am italian (check my IP address) and I know my language! --79.3.10.169 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of the Italian language per se, it is a matter of the IPA standard on pronunciation guidelines for any language. It is actually a separate language all in itself, and a very difficult one to master, from what I can gather. I am no specialist in it at all, and I suspect you are not one either. Wikipedia has its own specialists in this esoteric art, and I will let them chime in, as I believe they will, just by seeing your edits. The one specialist in it I know of is called Kwamikagami, and I will wait for him to chime in. If he doesn't I will ask him to take a look at your edit. The way you labeled your edit, since it came after no one changed that pronunciation recently at all, makes it suspicious. On the other hand, in the same manner that I can't really read those signs, the majority of the readers also cannot read them, I believe. So it really doesn't make much of a difference for the average person, even if you're trying to pull a yarn over my eyes... warshytalk 19:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You said very impolite words about me and I really think I don't deserve this. I suggest to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You said my edits are "suspicious" despite admitting you aren't a specialist capable to understand them. Also you said I'm "trying to pull a yarn over your eyes", and honestly I don't know why. You wrote "no one changed that pronunciation recently at all", but this was the situation before this wrong edit (you didn't check the history of the page). I just fixed things and you labeled me as a vandal and an ignorant. Well, you must know I study italian phonetics and also I use a dictionary before editing. Eventually you even stated "I can't really read those signs, the majority of the readers also cannot read them, I believe. So it really doesn't make much of a difference for the average person"; so is that a good reason to write wrong things? Is that your opinion? Bad thing. Most people can't understand specific topic of an encyclopedia, but I don't believe this is a reason to write wrong things. On contrary, especially those people who can't "read those signs" need accurate contents, because they can't tell what is wrong from what is right. As soon as Kwamikagami'll check my work, you'll be forced to apologize, nay, you should apologize now considering your behaviour and your mistakes. --87.6.191.58 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I still cannot verify anything you say, because I don't know what is correct and what is wrong. But this is no important matter at all, and I don't have much time to waste with it (not even going and asking specialists to check it). As I said, it does not really matter much one way or the other. My suspicions were definitely in place, since no modification was made to the pronunciation part right before your edit. And, I said "if you are trying...," not that you are, and I still cannot verify it one way or the other. But, this is no real important matter for me, and I have left as you say it should be for the time being, and that is the end of the matter for me for the time being. I don't want more hassle and aggravation with this minor issue, and I don't really care one way or the other, so please leave me alone with this issue, as I have let your edit stand for the time being. Any other argument about this non-issue here on my talk page from now on, unless initiated by me, I will delete. Thank you. warshytalk 13:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for kind message on my Talk, my email box has been playing tricks, I'll dig through it. Have a good one. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry if you don't find it, it was already some 4 or 5 months back I think. I basically just was trying to find out then what your user name means, but I have found it out since. I was trying to establish some basic contact to try understand what your basic interests are, since I've seen our paths cross on a number of issues. You know, there are so many things in this place I don't undestand, and I don't seem to be able to figure them out. It is always good, I believe, to have some knowledgeable friends around. And you certainly know more about a bunch of stuff around here than I do. So I was just trying to see if some kind of "human" contact could be made. In any case, as you know now, I do look at your work and try to learn as much as I can from it, at least the little fractions of it I do understand. Nice talking to you. warshytalk 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hundred thousands

Hello Warshy, you recently reverted a minor edit here. Please consider the syntactic pattern here (you can click the numbers at the bottom for text examples). It doesn't matter whether the phrase is followed by a noun or not; the distribution is similar (some noun-less examples are available here). Best wishes, Doremo (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As you wish. warshytalk 16:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll change it back to the s-less form. Doremo (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious

rational skepticism
Thank you for quality contributions to articles for project Rational scepticism and the task force Epistemology, and for using common sense, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! - Handel, did you see Bach? - Did you know that my model for Precious is the photographer of the sapphire (who said "Awesome Wikipedian" for the longest time), and my friend? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me up to date on these issues. Wow! And I naively thought an Infobox, that is so common in the areas I am more familiar with in WP, and which seems to me to be, logically, just a most trivial matter, could be so complicated... Still, from a simple common-sense perspective it should not be, IMO. But, I guess it is. Oh, well. The precious model is a very nice one indeed, and I also had not seen it before. Thanks again for taking the time to explain these things to me. Regards, warshytalk 23:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 437th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - in the meantime we even had an arbcom case called infoboxes (which wasn't about infoboxes), - if I learned one thing on Wikipedia it's patience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were the 437th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize|Prize, - and patience is still needed, but look at Handel now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 437 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! warshy (¥¥) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Banned

Re: 75.114.222.69. Please don't confusing blocking with banning. They are not the same thing. 75.114.222.69 is welcome to edit Wikipedia constructively as soon as the block has run its course or the editor has acknowledged the error and promises to avoid repeating it - whichever comes first. Rklawton (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I am sure he/she will come back right to where he/she left off, and it will be up to somebody else to decide what to do then. But maybe I'm wrong, and he/she will be willing to learn and act for the good of the encyclopedia. We'll have to wait and see. Thanks for keeping a watchful eye over it? warshytalk 21:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Please note the sources and comments I've added to the article's talk page. I trust you appreciate Wikipedia's dependence on reliable sources and not on the personal opinions of its editors. Rklawton (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I certainly do appreciate and that is what I asked for on this editing issue to begin with. Thanks for checking. I have asked a couple of questions about the sources you give in the article talk page, and I would appreciate it if you could give me some answers. Thank you again for looking into this issue. warshy¥¥ 15:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)12:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The probable return of Kaz/Budo

[17] suggests that 81.100.242.0 could easily be Kaz/Budo, who tended to use Virgin Media, sometimes from Southern England and sometimes from Cardiff. However it is not proof.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. From the list of contributions it is hard to conclude anything. But the most telling page going forward should be the Crimean stuff. It did not ring a bell for me when the last edit was made on 5/1 (before today's edit), but since you've been on the lookout, I will now pay more attention. I hope it is not... Thanks again. warshy¥¥ 19:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Identifying admins

If someone does not state that they are an admin on their user page, it is safe to assume that they are not an admin. User:Qwyrxian shows how this is done. If a user falsely claims to be an admin, this should be reported.

A user's interests can generally be assessed from their user page and from the editing habits. Many experienced users have a watch list of pages that they try to protect from vandalism and excessive POV editing. Pages on that watch list are often there because of perceived need and not because of a special interest in them. For example, I got involved in the dispute about the Crimean Karaites page for that reason. It was about a month into the dispute when I came to a conclusion about which side was right. My concern up to that point was to ensure fair play. I ended up having to buy books to cope with the disruptive editor's claims.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I assume you are not an Admin. I also assume you cannot see what pages are on my watch list, but I may be wrong of course. It is not very clear to me from what you say how you really got involved; but I wouldn't expect you discuss it here, that is why I sent you an email. Thanks again for your answers. There is still a lot of research to be done on the subject, of course, but time for everything one needs to to is the problem... Thanks again and regards, warshy¥¥ 20:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw

Hi, you stated at Talk:Sotah "the encyclopedia is not harmed in the least by maintaining the ancient Hebrew term" - maybe, in this case Sotah is an early medieval term, it is never used in the Book of Numbers which is perhaps one reason why Jewish academic sources on Numbers generally don't use it. Just FYI. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi IIO. You are correct regarding the Book of Numbers, it was my mistake. That chapter/passage is so unusual for the Hebrew Bible (and I really don't think it is understood correctly, btw), and so actually obscure and unique, that it generated a whole treatise on it later in Rabbinic Judaism. However, "Mishnaic Hebrew" would still be pretty ancient by our standards, approximately 200 BCE to 100 CE. This span would still be much earlier than "early medieval." But in any case, thanks a lot for your note here correcting me. Regards, warshy¥¥ 18:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries, your comment prompted adding sources to the article, which is more important than title. And yes, you're right, shouldn't just lump Mishnah in with Talmud. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kaz

It looks like blocked User:Kaz made an edit as an IP-editor on 23:57, 25 July 2013 to one of the redirects to the article on the Crimean Karaites. I have reverted it. Please add the redirect Karaimism to your watch list.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Toddy. Yes, it does look like him. I've added the redirect to my watch list. Thanks. warshy¥¥ 13:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content

טסט

מצאתי דרך לכתוב בעברית, שהיא אפילו קלה יותר מכל דרך אחרת

עם זאת, הבעיה של הכיוון לאחר התו האחרון של המשפט נשארת

Kaz-watch

A suspected sock of User:Kaz made another attempt at turning a redirect to Crimean Karaites into a POV-fork article.[18] I have rolled back and tagged the suspected sock.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again old wiki-pal,
Yes, I had seen it as soon as he did that (slow at work these days...), and I was wondering if I should alert you. Before I could decide to do anything you had already reverted. You are the specialist in socks and IPs, but this one quacks like a duck (Kaz/Budo), no doubt about it. I am here to help in what is needed, but you understand the WP quirks much better... Be well, and thanks for always watching this area. I am sure he will return many times still... warshy¥¥ 20:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I got so enthralled by the ressurection of this old nightmare that I finally started reviewing, nay, really studying finally the whole history of the page. Near its creation by an IP in 2004 I found the following | gem of Soviet/Russian historiography about the subject. Worth studying again and again. warshy¥¥ 20:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Toddy1, can you maybe explain to me exactly what do you mean when you say that you "tagged the suspected sock?" I'd appreciate that. Thank you, warshy¥¥ 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This [19].--Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Toddy1. I assume you have to be an Admin in order to do that? warshy¥¥ 20:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
If I were an admin I would have blocked him/her.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
So it still isn't clear to me how do you accomplish that "Revision history" result. I hadn't seen it before. I also tried to figure it out but I wasn't able to. Sorry for being so thick... Also, what does that tagging accomplish in terms of admins that would have the tools/power to act? Thanks for explaining to me these more arcane WP functions... warshy¥¥ 23:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Tag. At the moment the position is that one or more users have suspicions that the IP was used by User:Kaz as a block-evading sock. i.e. we suspect that it was Kaz, but it is not proven. Given that this is a different IP than the one that he/she used before, admins cannot prove that it was Kaz by using a check user. If Kaz continues to edit on this IP, then the tag will be useful as it is a record that the IP is suspected of being a sock of Kaz. Other users will see the tag. Curiously enough, the tag on the user page is fairly invisible now, because there is no user talk page. But anyone editing the user talk page will find it.
If the IP editor makes more edits, it should generate enough evidence to take to WP:SPI. If he/she does not, it does not matter.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Revision history. Go to the tab marked history for the page. One option is to compare selected revisions (which gives you a lot of choices) - the comparison is known in Wikipedia as a "diff". If there are no previous revisions, click on the date shown for the edit, as use that as the diff (this is valid as it shows that there was no previous version). Copy the URL of the diff, and paste into a talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all the explanations Toddy1. I know more or less about the "diff" in WP, one cannot live here without that. What I had never seen is a history page that has no previous revisions. But I think I get what you mean now, and how you did it. Thanks a lot again for your patience with my questions and your explanations. Be well, warshy¥¥ 14:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a "new" editor, who is editing the articles on the Crimean Karaites‎ and Chufut-Kale‎: Special:Contributions/Krymchak Khan, Special:Contributions/2.101.124.198 and Special:Contributions/2.100.122.31. It will come as no surprise to learn that our new friend has a Welsh IP from a company called Talk Talk.[20][21]
You will recall that in 2013 Kaz sometimes used two Virgin IPs: Welsh IP[22] Special:Contributions/62.255.75.224 and English IP[23]Special:Contributions/2.100.122.31. However, the IP used by the previous suspected Kaz-contribution was Special:Contributions/2.100.115.15, which was a Talk Task IP in Wales.[24]
The POV of this "new" editor is different from before. This might indicate a different person, but I think that he/she is merely being disingenuous, just as Kaz was initially with the Budo ID.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Toddy1. I cannot really follow your IP dissertation above without going and looking into the internet protocol details myself. Since I don't have time for that, I completely trust anything you say in this respect. Now, regarding the contents of the new editor and his socks, it is indeed a different POV than the one that was advanced by Kaz/Budo. He may be playing the "disingenuous" game you mention, I don't know how we would determine that. Maybe he will reveal more about himself as he comes back to advance a POV here. In any case, so far I much "prefer" his POV, advancing the Krymchak card as against the Karaylar card that was Kaz's card, and pointing out about inventions of identities among East European Karaites, wich I believe is the correct key to understanding all this "Russian ethnic mess." On the other hand also, I cannot agree with Nepolkanov's latest edits, dismissing the Krymchak card he tried to re-insert into the discussion. Also, Nepolkanov's level of proficiency with the English language is so bad, so underpar, that I don't believe he should be even allowed to edit English WP main article pages. He should be allowed only to make suggestions about content change in a page, but the actual edits he suggests would have to be done by you or me. This whole area is still a big mess, and I am very wary to dive into it at anytime, especially before I could look at the German research on this area that was done more than 100 years ago by Julius Furst and by A. Harkavy. You, on the other hand can read the Russian publications pointed to by Nepolkanov much faster than I can. I don't know if you follow the developments in the main Khazars page, but until things settle down a little there, there is not much for us to do here, I believe. Thanks for the internet protocol explanations; it takes a good deal of technical knowledge to figure out these things, and I commend you for that. warshy¥¥ 23:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Special:Contributions/F.Tromble. Seems remarkably similar to Kaz.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Toddy1 -- thanks. He posted a comment on Anan ben David to which I responded. I was waiting to see what would follow. Regards, warshy (¥¥) 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Warshy

Your message at my page means a lot to me. Thank you. And, of course, having been sucked into the Wikipedia mire because of the one subject on which I can help establish a truthful record, I understand completely that someone, you, may not have the time to dive into an entirely new subject, nor the time to learn the maddening protocols of WP. But your simple message of support is a breath of fresh air among all the "WP:" this and thats. Thanks again. Best, Charles J. Hanley 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Yes, I know how the WP maze of boards and rules of "this and that" as you say can be completely maddening. I have been here many years and I still don't understand at least 70% of it, I would guess... But as I try to stay out of any political controversy, it really doesn't matter to me. That is not what I come here for. I come here just mainly to study and to learn... In any case, I am glad my little support offered you some respite, and be sure I will be watching further, and whatever little help I can offer you, I will. Again, much good luck on your very important endeavor here, warshy¥¥ 21:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Meir bar Hiyya Rofe

I see you added two categories to this article: Kabbalists and Sabbateans. Can you please update the text of the article to show that these categories are justified? Debresser (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you were coming, after I looked a bit at the article history. I am working on it with sources, as you can see. Bee well, warshy¥¥ 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well done, so far. Good, I'll patiently await further developments then. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Debresser. All Sabbateans, and especially rabbis or scholars, in the 17th century were before being Sabbateans, Kabbalists. This is one of the central thesis of Gershom Scholem in his master work on Sabbatai Zevi. I will be adding references later directly to Scholem's work, but in the meantime (which I thought was meant by "patiently" above) there is no need to brush the subject any more. Be well, warshy¥¥ 16:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression you finished. Sorry for rushing you. :) Debresser (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Finished with 17th century Jewish messianism, where Meir bar Hiyya Rofe in one of the central figures? No. There is a lot more to come, and especially on this guy, since he is also central to my own theses... But here on WP one has to be very, very carefull with OR. Staying with the EJ and with Scholem as the main sources here however should be more than enough in the meantime. Be well. warshy (¥¥) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions about the User Name Bill Moyers

After seeing recent edits by "Bill Moyers" on the article Werner Jaeger, I looked at the talk page User Talk:BillMoyers and read the various comments and replies. I saw your query regarding whether this editor really was the well-known Bill Moyers. I also wondered the same thing, but after reading all the comments and replies above your comment, I came to the conclusion that this editor is not the well-known Bill Moyers for the following reasons:

1) If you read this editor's last reply in the section "User Name" (a little way above your comment), you will see that he/she responds to another inquiry about the appropriateness of his/her user name by saying that it is a common name and he has followed WP policy. I believe that if this editor really were the well-known Bill Moyers, he would have said so;
2) I believe the well-known Bill Moyers would put more than just a picture on his User page;
3) This editor has been editing articles in the medical field, and I do not think the well-known Bill Moyers has a medical background; and
4) As you can see from the discussion in the first section on the Talk page regarding the article on Schizophrenia, this editor has not been following WP editing policies, has not indicated that he has read various policies in spite of being urged to do so, and has found several other editors to back his ideas up in the face of criticism, none of which, I believe, the well-known Bill Moyers would do.

This editor may have some expertise or knowledge in certain fields, but you can see from his Talk page that he is new to WP and is still learning (a) WP editing policies, and (b) how to work in a collaborative manner with other editors. These would not even have been an issue with the well-known Bill Moyers, whose ability to collaborate is one of the things that have made him famous.CorinneSD (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thank you very much for checking this issue and for posting your conclusions here. I completely agree with all of your insights and conclusions, and I had already came to the same conclusion from the simple fact that this unknown user who uses another person's famous identity to build for himself a fake identity here on WP never even bothered to try and answer my straightforward question. If this unknown user had any true relationship to the real Bill Moyers he would not have left my open question laying there unanswered for more than a couple of hours without some sort of reply. But if so, then my other more serious ethical question remains: does WP have nothing to say about this type of spurious appropriation of another living person's famous identity by an unknown and undisclosed WP user, just for the sake of hiding behind another person's real famous name? I don't think this is right and I don't think this should be allowed in WP. Sincerely, warshy (¥¥) 16:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. It is possible that the editor's real name happens to be the same as the well-known Bill Moyers, but even if that were true, I think it is bad form to use the name as a user name. He (or she) could have chosen a different user name. I am not an admin and have no influence regarding this issue. Did you see the comments regarding the user name above your comment on his talk page? Another editor made reference to discussions and policies and provided at least one link. You could look at those.CorinneSD (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again and thank you for pointing that out to me. I now went through the User Name section on that User's page above mine, and you are correct. Someone had already pointed out to the new User that his User Name did not comply with User Name guidelines and policies, and had already requested that he/she change the non-compliant, misleading User Name. I am also not an Admin and I don't know if the User that made that request there is one, and/or if se/she will follow up on the request. This fake User Name's reply there was that the WP name filter let it through at the time of creation, and that is that. To my direct question asking for a simple clarification of the dubious choice for a User Name he/she has not even bothered to answer, confirming to me that the intention must be to just dissemble and to hide behind the ID of another living person's famous identity. If I were that other famous living person I would certainly not be happy with someone else appropriating my own name/identity for his/hers own purposes, whatever those may be. I am sure the powers that be here are aware of the situation now, with at least three users having commented on it negatively, and I will just wait and see if any further action is taken. If I were an Admin, as you say, I certainly would follow up on the requests already made. Thanks again for checking it and sharing your own views on the matter with me here. Be well, warshy (¥¥) 16:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you watching the article on Werner Jaeger? Two or three days ago I undid an edit in which this "Bill Moyers" added a whole section consisting of a heading and one paragraph to the article, with an edit summary. Yesterday, this editor reverted my edit, putting the section back in with a request to discuss on the article's Talk page. Today, I addressed one of the reasons I had removed that section, that it was poorly written. You may want to take a look at it. I am not good at judging references (I had, I believe, put "unreferenced" in my edit summary at the suggestion of another editor), so I didn't discuss that. But I think the paragraph is not up to the standards of WP articles.CorinneSD (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Deism

Thanks for fixing that! Sorry I was editing from an iPhone. Sometimes if you are stuck in the text area you have to scroll though the entire article because it won't let you get out of the text area. It appears while I was scrolling through a large portion of the text was deleted. Somehow I did not notice that but thank you for the correction. Valoem talk 03:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

NP. It is one of the pages I have in my watchlist. Thanks for explanation about the iPhone editing problem. Be well, warshy (¥¥) 15:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

CMT definition

Hoping you will publicly support the compromise I have proposed. Radath (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been busier in the real world and unable to keep up with the pace of discussion there. The pace there is actually to heavy for a newcomer to editing in the field to get a word in edgewise. I personally support all your positions and suggestions there, but not being a regular editor in the field I don't think my support would actually make any difference for all the other directly involved editors. Also, the difference in the final analysis is between defining the CMT as fringe in WP, or not, and the people who think that CMT is fringe have a sort of veto holding power on the tag, and they won't let go of it. It seems to be actually tied to deeply held religious beliefs in the end analysis, and in an area impinging on religious beliefs I think it is just better to keep out. I really admire all the work you did and your patience, and I wish you luck. But I really don't think my support would make any significant difference in the end. I will continue following the discussion and see if I can catch up. Thanks. Be well and good luck again. warshy (¥¥) 19:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Many thanks for your kind words! --Soman (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Belgium national football team

Hi, the simple reason that I chose a long time ago not to put Wikilinks around the second "Adidas" is that there is already a link at the first "Adidas", higher in the list (something that is often done to reduce the number of links). Of course, there is no harm in making the link. We'll leave it then. Kareldorado (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the explanation. I went straight to the kit section of the page, since when I was watching the last Belgium match on TV I saw a new/unrecognized logo on their shirt, and I wanted to check that the WP page on the national teams does contain this information. To my surprise I found it does have this little bit of information and even much, much more! Just amazing the amount of information WP is able to collect on every matter. In any case, just by looking at the section and being also curious about the Adidas story, I couldn't find the link. And since every other provider did have the link I did add it. I wouldn't expect someone to revert me on that, but since you seem to have a done a lot of work on the page, it is really your call. The page is very good overall, and kudos also. Regards, warshy (¥¥) 15:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted myself. Looking carefully at the page again I saw that Adidas was already linked just two lines above the link I added. When first reading the page the only thing that stood out to my eyes (bad eyes, admittedly), was that there was only one line wihtout a link. I did not realize that Adidas was the provider before, and just came back after a hiatus. Sorry for the confusion, and again, kudos on a very good page! warshy (¥¥) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Warshy, no problem. Thanks for the comment about the work I put in the page, I highly appreciate it! Still, I know the page can improve (wish I had more time for WP), starting with creating the Bibliography part (=books in the references list) and downsizing the part about Books and popular culture. I am not actively committed in Philosophy articles, but am keen on reading what you have contributed in, considering your user page. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I work on Wikipedia mostly from work, as a small multitasking job just on the background most of the time. The main reason I do it is just because I learn a lot from it everyday and that is very rewarding. For me, it is just a small task on the side of the workday intellectual load, and I mostly try to stay out of controversy. I don't have time for that. Be well, warshy (¥¥) 12:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Which Süleyman ?

Hi Warshy you insist using a file in the article Süleyman Çelebi without proving the image really belongs to the subject of the article. In the engraving it reads ""sultanvs soilemanes chan" . This probably describes the better known sultan Süleyman I (the magnificent) of the Ottoman Empire (reigned 1520-1566). Between the two Süleymans there is a gap of at least a century and a half. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nedim Ardoğa, you yourself say correctly that it "probably describes the better known sultan Süleyman I (the magnificent) of the Ottoman Empire (reigned 1520-1566)." Probably does not mean that it definitively does. Your rationale for removing the picture in the edit note was the the file description did not match the article's subject. Yet the file description definitile says that "Suleymanus Chan = Suleyman Celebi." I reverted you to see if you had any definitive reason to remove the picture, but you don't. We could reinstate the picture with a note saying what you say above: That the portrait is probably that of Suleiman I, not of the lesser Suleyman Celebi. I doubt you're going to do that. So be it. Oh well... warshy (¥¥) 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the article about Jews in Portugal

Hi. I didn't notice it was an inline citation. I thought it couldn't be viewed because of formatting problem, but the rest was some copyediting, which I think was good. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for help

Warshy - do you think that 79.109.203.252 is User:Kaz? I need to do a sockpuppet report on him. I would value your opinion on whether the similarity between what the IP says and what Kaz and his various socks said is distinctive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Toddy1. I had seen his initial rant on the Crimean Karaites talk page Friday only, until now. All his other actions I have reviewed now quickly under his contritbutions definitely look to me like that type of unpleasant confrontation with whomever may question his random assertions or his views on this matter, which seem to be mitivated by some kind of blind religious fanaticism. I will keep looking more carefully, and I hope the Admins here take quick action. Regards, warshy (¥¥) 17:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the type of attack and the type of board action attempts are all the same, but the level of derangement seems to have certainly increased in this unwelcome, unpleasant attempt at a comeback. I hope your reports succeed in blocking it again. warshy (¥¥) 17:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you are discussing my IP address, It would be nice to inform me whenever you have posted something about me somewhere Toddy1. I am also learning a lot about User:Kaz in the process, it seems like you three, Warshy, Nepolkanov and Yourself have had quite a run in with that user in the past. It would be better I think to engage in discussion than pursue a paranoid campaign. Discussions have been started at the Crimean Karaites talk page, why don´t you take your problems and issues there rather than sneaking about gathering support for your campaign against freedom of speech by trying to label me as "the Witch"? 79.109.203.252 (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue is plagued with religious fanaticism since the time of the historical revisions (or some say forgeries) begun by Abraham Firkovich in the 1870s. It is by now well-nigh impossible to even glimpse some kind of reliable history of this issue, I believe. That is why I am not getting involved in it again, this time around. If there is one thing I don't have time for in my life it is ideological, religious, and political controversies on Wikipedia. I may follow the development of this new one here from the side, but I am certainly not getting involved. The memories of the confrontations with Kaz are also still very much alive and painful in my scholarly memory. As someone else already pointed out, you are raising again many of the points raised by that unpleasant, unwelcome, unhelpful, and now permanently banned from Wikipedia editor. Just keep out of my own space here in the future, since you are certainly not welcome here. warshy (¥¥) 15:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
To the Admins possibly investigating this issue and this IP editor: Note that this is an anonymous IP editor who knows the internal technical and administrative workings of WP very well. Certainly better than me, since I never really cared to use them, and I still don't really deal with these issues in my contributions to WP. He's not only working and gaming the system as Kaz used to do very well, he is alrady accusing his opponents of the same tricks he used to employ and may be employing again now, in this once again very dissimulating comeback. I have a strong feeling here, as Toddy1 already pointed out, that this duck is definitely quacking again. warshy (¥¥) 18:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Cardinal vowels

Hello. I tried to dig up a source to support my edit, and here's what I've come up with: "The Cardinal Vowels are not vowels of a particular language. Coincidentally, though, languages are found that have one or more vowels that are a pretty close match to an absolute cardinal value. But this is simply coincidence and that must not be forgotten. The Cardinal Vowels are an abstract measuring system - nothing more and nothing less." Source: Patricia Ashby - Understanding Phonetics (2011, p. 85). The same source is cited by the Italian linguist (or phonetician, I'm not actually sure) Alex Rotatori in his blogpost. Peter238 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your explanations. I am not a linguistics specialist, and even less of a phonetics one. I would need more time to review the issue, which I don't have right now. I hope you at least don't object to me putting that otherwise lost link in the "See also" section for the time being, at least temporarily? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
If cardinal vowels are a topic related to that article, no problem. Peter238 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that remains to be seen, I believe. I, for one, had never even heard of the concept before you deleted the original wl in the article. But I still think it is a subject worth looking into with more time, more in detail, more in depth than I am capable right now, at the moment. That is why I said temporarily. If, after studying the subject a little more I come to agree with you it is not related at all, I will remove it myself later. Thanks. warshy (¥¥) 16:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Rosh Hashanah

Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Warshy/Archive_1&oldid=1139977896"